King James Version

[LouisBooth]

WEll I personally like the NASB to study from (with greek and hebrew on the side) and the NLT for reading to people and leasure reading.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Julie


Psalm 119:11
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

I was asking why it's important to memorize verses rather than just reading the passages and knowing their meaning and their teachings. None of these passages seem to put memorization on a higher level than reading/understanding. And you can do all three with any Bible version, not just the KJV.

-Chris

 

[Susan]

Some of the more rabid KJVO pages (Ruckman and Dial The Truth) appear to be declaring war against anyone who disagrees with any of their premises (not just KJVO) and declaring anyone who doesn't fall in line as "satanic."
I think they are motivated by fear.

 

[kern]

I would be interested to know when KJV-onlyism started. At the time the KJV was written, the Geneva Bible was a major competitor with it (the Geneva Bible was the popular Bible before the KJV, it's the one Shakespeare used, and the one the Pilgrims brought to the US). It must not have been until after the newer Bible translations started coming out. I know there was a big outcry when the RSV came out in the 40's (copies were publically burned in protest). But maybe it started earlier than that when the American Revised Version came out in the late 1800's.

-Chris

 

[cjenn304]

AMEN TO THAT. THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE ONLY BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S THE ONLY BIBLE, THAT MAN DID NOT HAVE A PART IN IT AT ALL!!!! JUST LET THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDE YOU, AND YOU SHALL UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF JESUS,OUR GOD AND SAVIOR!!!! PRAISE GOD!!!!!!! I AM SO HAPPY, THAT THERE IS SOMEONE BELIEVES, THE SAME WAY I DO. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMEN!THANK YOU JESUS!!!!!!!!! WITH LOVE ALWAYS, FROM YOUR LOVING SISTER IN CHRIST JESUS, CJENN304

 

[Kelier]

I am not a King James Onlyist, but I believe it is the best translation available because it is based on the Textus Receptus, which is the most (IMO) reliable text.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Kelier
I am not a King James Onlyist, but I believe it is the best translation available because it is based on the Textus Receptus, which is the most (IMO) reliable text.

What do you base this on? This view is held by no Biblical scholars (except the self-proclaimed 'scholars' who are really just KJV-only apologists). The Receptus is based on a majority of manuscripts. However, these were all based on a text decided on in the 400's or so. This text did not use the oldest or "most authoritative" manuscripts. Thousands of scholars worldwide have spent 150 years or more looking at the manuscripts, and almost no one comes to the decision that the Receptus is right.

A favorite counter-statement of KJV-onlyists is that "the majority is never right" -- well, that's what the Biblical scholars say about the Receptus!

-Chris

 

[kern]

Originally posted by cjenn304
AMEN TO THAT. THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE ONLY BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S THE ONLY BIBLE, THAT MAN DID NOT HAVE A PART IN IT AT ALL!!!!

Given that you seem to be a Bible literalist, perhaps you'd like to provide scripture verses that show the KJV is the only inspired translation. Don't bother with the "all scripture is god-breathed" quotation, that doesn't specifically mention any one translation (in fact, it refers to the OT, but that's another story).

-Chris

 

[LouisBooth]

"IT'S THE ONLY BIBLE, THAT MAN DID NOT HAVE A PART IN IT AT ALL!!!! "

Umm..the whole reason why this bible was created was the king wanted to defy the pope at that time. The pope had mandated that the scriptues be only in latin, and the King said I'm making a bible in english. Man had a very heavy hand in it. It was a political move.

 

[kern]

Louis, where did you learn that? There were already several popular bibles in use at the time in English (Geneva Bible, Coverdale Bible, Taverner Bible, etc), including an English translation done by Roman Catholics at Rheims.

I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but I have never heard this before and just wondered what your source was.

-Chris

 

[cjenn304]

Dear kern, Everyone is en-titled to their own opinion. I will always believe that the only true bible is the KJV version. I go to a holiness church and i am a holyroller! JESUS, is a AWESOME GOD!!!!!! I'm sorry that everybody doesn't believe the way i do, but i'm not arguging about it because Jesus doesn't want no one to fight over this issue or anything else. He wants us brothers and sisters to stay together as a family,now more than ever. The bible is fulfilling itself,as we speak. And yes, i do believe in the rapture. I also believe that just because you were baptized by water, that's not the only thing, that saves you. He says, without my spirit, your none of mine. And yes, I believe in the Holy Ghost. I hope i have touched on someone that will understand my way of thinking about the good Lord Jesus Christ. Well kern, i hope we can still comunicate with one another? i'll be praying for all of my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. Well take care and God Bless! From your sis.in Christ Jesus, cjenn

 

[Susan]

I believe in the Rapture, and I believe that one is saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Baptism does not save, but neither does *our* holiness.
I used to be sort of KJV only but not anymore.
The 1611 KJV is a wonderful translation, however I believe that the NKJV and even the NASB are also good as all three are literal, word-for-word translations. It is not an issue that we should divide over as Ruckman and a few others want it to be.
BTW I plan on being a missionary in Japan someday. I don't know if it is wrong or not to give someone a Bible in Japanese. Maybe if it was translated using the TR it would be OK?

 

[kern]

I don't know much about the Japanese translations of bibles except that there are at least two versions.

I have a feeling that you'd run into the same problems as English translations. Bibles haven't been based on the TR since the KJV for the most part, and probably you'd have to take one written in older-style Japanese if you wanted a TR manuscript.
I agree that the KJV is a great translation, given what the translators were working with. And none of the objections to the KJV ruin the Bible for anyone who wants to read it -- I've always wanted to read the New Testament in the KJV (I probably will some day). But I like older English.

[edit: I found a site that has a little bit about Japanese bible translations: http://www.baobab.or.jp/~stranger/mypage/bible.htm]

-Chris

 

[Susan]

Thanks, and I did not mean my last post to seem trolling or racist.

 

[Susan]

BTW you can respect the KJV as one of or even the greatest English translation and use the KJV without being a KJV-onlyist.
The problem comes when you *worship* the KJV and/or believe that believers who read other versions are lesser than yourself.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by kern
I would be interested to know when KJV-onlyism started. At the time the KJV was written, the Geneva Bible was a major competitor with it (the Geneva Bible was the popular Bible before the KJV, it's the one Shakespeare used, and the one the Pilgrims brought to the US). It must not have been until after the newer Bible translations started coming out. I know there was a big outcry when the RSV came out in the 40's (copies were publically burned in protest). But maybe it started earlier than that when the American Revised Version came out in the late 1800's.

-Chris

It is my understanding the RSV is what started the outcry. The big issue at the time was that in the verse in Isaiah that predicts the birth of Jesus, the Hebrew word that was translated "virgin" in the KJV was rendered "young woman" in the RSV. That is mostly irrelevant when you consider the actual meaning of the words ("young woman" is a more literal translation, although it almost always referred to a virgin), but it got a lot of traditionalists up in arms. That's why the protests occurred. I'm sure that there were some KJV-onlyists before then, but it was never a major movement until the RSV. In fact, I've heard some people say that the KJV-only movement wouldn't even exist if it were not for this one misunderstanding.

 

[kern]

It's one of the most bizarre beliefs I've encountered in the Christian world. I would be interested to read a book on its history, but I'm fairly sure none exist (this issue seems to be mostly ignored by mainstream authors the same way the "flat earth society" is).

-Chris

 

[Susan]

Hmm, I will try to find a book on that for you somewhere. I go a lot of places online so I might find one.
Today I saw a display of what I can only call arrogance. A tract about the Second Coming, great, more people need to know the truth that Jesus is coming again . Only problem is the tract has on its front a picture of Jesus riding a horse to come back to earth, and on the sword of Jesus (to represent the Word of God) is written. . .
"KJV 1611"
The reason I say that is arrogance is that the KJV is NOT the original Word of God, the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are. The KJV is a translation, a good translation, but NOT the original.
Also the 1611 KJV had several spelling errors before they were corrected. For example "he" was spelled "hee" as in "hee hee." You can imagine the havoc that could cause with Bible interpretation. Maybe a bonus for the advocates of uncontrollable laughter but nothing else good.
Another thing, if the 1611 KJV alone is the pure and precious Word of God, there is a serious problem concerning profanity and omniscience. I mentioned this before in KJV related threads. I could list about 4 or 5 words (if I was the sort to write such things) that would cause the censor filter to work overtime or get me tossed out on my ear. If God was giving the KJV translators their words, don't you think that He would have known the meanings and usages these words would take on in the next 400 or so years? And have given the translators words that wouldn't become cuss words?
If you do not think so, you do have a serious problem with the omniscience of God to know the future.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but I have never heard this before and just wondered what your source was.
"

Christian history book. The one I usually refer to is called A history of the Christian church 4th ed.

 

[filosofer]

It is my understanding the RSV is what started the outcry.

The roots go back to 1881 with the publishing of the Revised Version. The revisers had followed the principles set forth by Westcott and Hort, namely rejecting the Textus Receptus (TR) as closest to the originals, and favoring the latest manuscript finds, claiming that they were older and better - specifically Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Many major manuscript discoveries were made in the 1840-1880 time period; these were the two most notable.

John Burgon (1813-1888) was Dean of Chichester and objected to the RV "abandoning" the TR as the basis for the translation. He also objected to some of the translation phrasings. There is now a Burgon Society to promote the TR; sadly, many in that group have misunderstood and overstated Burgon's position. Burgon might not even be accepted into the group.

F. H. A. Scrivener and George Salmon criticized Westcott and Hort, but not to the extreme of Burgon.