King James Version

[BjBarnett]

Hello everyone! I have a question to ask of you all. Ive been to a lot of Baptist churches in my time (theres one about ever 500 feet in this area ) and some that I have been to only recognize the KJV as the only correct bible and any other has been altered to decieve others. I think you would call these types of Christians "King James Onlyist" or something. My question is, is there anyone here that believes the KJV to be the only correct bible translation? If you do why do you think this version of the bible is any better than the others? What makes it different?

 

[SumTinWong]

Hello everyone! I have a question to ask of you all. Ive been to a lot of Baptist churches in my time (theres one about ever 500 feet in this area ) and some that I have been to only recognize the KJV as the only correct bible and any other has been altered to decieve others. I think you would call these types of Christians "King James Onlyist" or something.

There is a Baptist church 500 feet away from another one? That is just too far, we must set up a mission to make the space no smaller than 200 feet

My question is, is there anyone here that believes the KJV to be the only correct bible translation?

Not I said me. I am using the NAB at the moment, but I use the English SV as well because I like the version very much. Once in a great while I will use the NIV, but only becuase it is attached to my Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. Eventually i will replace it with an ESV study Bible.

If you do why do you think this version of the bible is any better than the others?

I like the poetry of the KJV. It sounds cool when someone like Sir John Guilgood recites it.

 

[BjBarnett]

There is a Baptist church 500 feet away from another one? That is just too far, we must set up a mission to make the space no smaller than 200 feet

lol they are pretty close here. there mostly Missionary Baptist but in the city there are a lot of Southern Baptist and they seem to be spaced out more. maybe thats a missionary baptist thing lol

Not I said me. I am using the NAB at the moment, but I use the English SV as well because I like the version very much. Once in a great while I will use the NIV, but only becuase it is attached to my Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. Eventually i will replace it with an ESV study Bible.

I like the NAB. I use the NAB, KJV, and DRV.

I like the poetry of the KJV. It sounds cool when someone like Sir John Guilgood recites it.

yeah me too. Im a fan of the old english style.

 

[Ave Maria]

I guess the KJV is good for the poetry style and stuff but other than that, I don't like it. I mainly use the NIV and NLT although I own a variety of translations. I am hoping to get a TNIV when the full Bible comes out in March or April. Let's just say I love modern Bible versions because they are more accurate and easier to understand.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

There is a Baptist church 500 feet away from another one? That is just too far, we must set up a mission to make the space no smaller than 200 feet

That's it!! I'm getting several seminary students together, we'll be there in a few months!!


I use the KJV when I speak, but I compare several English translations when I prepare for a message and in my personal Bible studies. I don't think that one is better than the other overall, but I think that some do better with certain passages. Besides God didn't give use the Bible in English, every translation is an interpretation.

 

[SumTinWong]

If I could rep you I would. All out for the day, but that was an excellent post.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My question is, is there anyone here that believes the KJV to be the only correct bible translation? If you do why do you think this version of the bible is any better than the others? What makes it different?

GreenEyedLady, TwinCrier and mesue are KJVOs.

This is the most informed KJVO site that I have come across.
The King James Bible Page

Here is a nice long KJVO debate for you to wade through. Enjoy

KJV only debate

 

[Unnamed Servant]

King James is actually one of the worst translations, because of the lack of sources it was derived from at its time of translation. We have found many more historical texts, since it was translated, that have helped improve modern translations.

I personally enjoy the NASB and ESV.

 

[Gold Dragon]

King James is actually one of the worst translations, because of the lack of sources it was derived from at its time of translation. We have found many more historical texts, since it was translated, that have helped improve modern translations.

I personally enjoy the NASB and ESV.

I personally think the KJV is a wonderful translation whose translators were definitely inspired by the Holy Spirit in providing the best translation they could ...

1) with the manuscripts available to them
2) to the culture of their time and place
3) in the language of their time

It has been an awesome blessing to English speaking Christians for centuries, is still useful today and deserves our utmost respect.

Modern english translations have much more manuscript evidence to draw from, a different culture to translate to, and a different english language to work with.

I personally enjoy reading from the NASB, NIV, NRSV, The Message and the KJV.

 

[ZiSunka]

I like the KJV, I just have no idea what it says, because I don't read that language. I need one written in modern English. I guess that means I'm not very smart, but I just can't see learning a new language in order to study the Bible since there are so many Bibles translated into the English we speak today.

 

[BjBarnett]

GreenEyedLady, TwinCrier and mesue are KJVOs.

This is the most informed KJVO site that I have come across.
The King James Bible Page

Here is a nice long KJVO debate for you to wade through. Enjoy

KJV only debate

thank you Gold Dragon for the links. i will check them out.

maybe one of the KJVO's you mentioned will respond. id really like to hear what they have to say

 

[BjBarnett]

That's it!! I'm getting several seminary students together, we'll be there in a few months!!

Besides God didn't give use the Bible in English, every translation is an interpretation.

i agree with that 100%

 

[TwinCrier]

thank you Gold Dragon for the links. i will check them out.

maybe one of the KJVO's you mentioned will respond. id really like to hear what they have to say

Ok, I will.
Among the many reasons, one is that the KJV doesn't have a copyright. You can reprint the whole entire thig free of charge. It has changed over the years, but the changes are spelling and grammar changes, not doctrinal, nor are entire verses called into question with footnotes. If just one publisher would come out with a new translation, just one, that they aren't going to copyright and charge for printing, I might give it a look. Money is the root of all evil.
It was translated by (don't quote me on this) about 60 men where many of the new versions are revised by a handful of people, many not even professing Christians. At least two of the people on the NIV translation comittee were homosexual.
Also, whenever some quotes a bible verse, even if they use another version, even if they aren't a Christian, it usually ends up being the KJV. I often here people proclaim "Thou shalt not kill" or "Judge ye not" in an attempt to defend sin. Why the Thees and thous? Because that is STILL how most people remember the bible.
It's not really heard to say you instead of ye or here and there instead of hither and thither. If they just changed the archaic words, they wouldn't be making enough changes to copyright it. People DIED to bring the KJV about. Other versions are all readily accepted and you rarely hear anyone say anything negative about the new versions; they ALWAYS denegrate the KJV though. I have to ask why all the other versions only compare themselves to the KJV if it is so archaic. My own feeling is that Satan doesn't find the newer versions much of a threat.
I recommend http://biblebelievers.com for more information.

 

[SumTinWong]

Money is the root of all evil.

Nitpick, but the actual saying is "the loveth of moneyeth iseth theth rooteth ofeth alleth evileth"

Just kiidding, don't shoot me

 

[JM]

I'm a TR onlyist...what did you want to know?

I believe in the Biblical doctrine of the preservation of God's word, Dr. Hill's arguements are well thought out.

In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. ‘We want a Bible version in our own idiom,’ they clamor. ‘We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated then ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang.’ And having thus registered their preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more ‘evangelical.’ Still others opt for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible.

http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_defenders/KJV-EDHillis.htm

I won't debate, but only answer questions you may have.

I could be wrong, but the Catholics are Vulgate onlyists, it is considered the only 'official' mss to make translations from. If I prove to be unhelpful, perhaps they could answer quesitons on preservation...it may be similar reasoning...may not be.


Does it bother you that modern translations place doubt on Bible passages? ex. John 8

 

[Palatka44]

Zondervan never had to endure a trail of blood to publish, However this man did.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0welc...liamtyndale.htm

 

[TwinCrier]

Nitpick, but the actual saying is "the loveth of moneyeth iseth theth rooteth ofeth alleth evileth"

Just kiidding, don't shoot me

Aw man, you spit in my eye saying that! Say it don't spray it.
But yeah, I stand corrected. And moderm bible publishers sure seem to love money.

 

[BjBarnett]

Thanks for wanting to answer my questions Street Preacher I appreciate it.

I could be wrong, but the Catholics are Vulgate onlyists, it is considered the only 'official' mss to make translations from. If I prove to be unhelpful, perhaps they could answer quesitons on preservation...it may be similar reasoning...may not be.

Well theres a reason that we Catholics are think highly of the Vulgate and thats because the church decreed it as being kinda the "base" translation. is that in a similiar way the same way for the KJV onlylist? if so then i totally understand the logic.

Does it bother you that modern translations place doubt on Bible passages? ex. John 8

I dont think tha NAB does that. Also what about older translations like the DRV? It is older than the KJV. do KJV onlyist just dont like modern translations or is it all others?

if you would answer these things for me that would be great. ill check that link you put in your post also. ill probably think of a few more questions in a little lol.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I dont think tha NAB does that. Also what about older translations like the DRV? It is older than the KJV. do KJV onlyist just dont like modern translations or is it all others?

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/truthper.htm

Take a look at the link above. There is a good list of all the omissions of the new translations. As far as the old translations go for the Vulgate, there were additions such as the apocrapha that was never accepted by the Jews as inspired and other things. I did a big study on manuscript evidence long ago. I cannot remember everything about it any more.I am convinced the KJV is the only version that is not polluted.
As far as debating goes, I stopped that long ago. I started reading it instead of debating it. Its even more powerful than I ever imagined.
I think that Street brough up a very valuable point.
GEL

 

[Heatherondo]

Hello everyone! I have a question to ask of you all. Ive been to a lot of Baptist churches in my time (theres one about ever 500 feet in this area ) and some that I have been to only recognize the KJV as the only correct bible and any other has been altered to decieve others. I think you would call these types of Christians "King James Onlyist" or something. My question is, is there anyone here that believes the KJV to be the only correct bible translation? If you do why do you think this version of the bible is any better than the others? What makes it different?

Well i had a friend named Wendy who went to (baptist) seminary JUST to learn teh languages to translate Gods word from its original language do she could know His word better. First thing she learned wast KJV was the furthest from the original test, that king james ordered things skewed to his own lifestyle.

wow what an eye opener!

but, i also liken reading KJV to an english only speaking person trying to understand a german or french translation. Its a language no longer spoken. No one would expect you to read and understand a language you do not speak.

I use NAS and NIV.
NIv i understand teh most.

KJV only people tend to scream that NIV added stuff. what NIV added was what KJV took out some NIVs have notations as to what was "added" and why.

Just because a translation has been around ,longer does not make it truer.

I think those who are hung up on KJV only are forgetting Gods word in any language is Gods word and will speak to them, and that its a form of legalism, that someone fown the line lacking understanding declared KJV only and their congregations followed because he said so....

You cant listen to pastor so in so or brother so in so over God.... and unfortunately that is pretty common among christians and church goers.
They are men they are flawed and they can be very wrong and very decieved and lead others astray.
as always,
JMO not meant to offend anyone