KJV only Question

[preacherinblack]

can you hold to King James onlyism without being legalistic? most of who that are KJVO give the impression to me that they are legalist.I am not kjv only yet, but i am studying textual criticism and stuff from both sides and the middle, right now im byzantine priority with sympathies for the TR. but when i get older my views may change.

 

[now faith]

Sure legalism is demonic.

But the sword cuts both ways never in the world would I have thought to be criticised
For my bible the K.J.

Some people demand their Bible in their Churches.

The only problem I have is some Bibles are so modern I cannot recognize
The verses they reference.

The K.J.is easier for me to memorize verse,it takes fewer words in verses
And reads on a 4th grade level.
But I won't be offended if you choose another,just more informed

 

[1watchman]

The KJV in the Old Scofield Edition is the best study version I believe. It is available at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL

 

[Bella Vita]

I think it is absurd to be KJV only. If you have done any research into how the Bible is translated you would know KJV is not the only translation that is accurate. I use different translations for different things. For deep study I use the ESV study Bible. For personal one on one reading I use the NIV. If KJV is right for you then by all means use it. But its not right for everyone many find it hard to read. The best thing is people are reading a translation they can understand because that is what is most important.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

We should all learn Hebrew and Greek. Then we wouldn't have to argue about different versions and would be better equipped to deal with the Christian Identity Movement, Mormonism, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and other cults as well as homosexual activists who like to say the verses that condemn homosexuality only condemn pederasty or prostitution and not all homosexuality (they are very wrong), and "Christian" relativists who use the fact that their are so many different translations as an excuse to not believe what scripture says when they do not like what it says.

I use the KJV most of the time because it is the most accurate English Version although I'm not KJOnly. If I ever learn Hebrew and Greek I will be using the Masoretic Text, and the Textus Receptus. I used to use a NLT but after my Pastor gave me a few books to read I started buying more on the subject and came to the conclusion that the KJV is the most accurate English Version.

I have gotten used to middle English which btw is closer to the Greek/Hebrew then modern English because of the these and thous. Easier to differentiate singular and plural words at least. Also it is easier to use my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and when I read Hamlet I didn't have as hard a time as I would have had otherwise.

 

[Hentenza]

can you hold to King James onlyism without being legalistic? most of who that are KJVO give the impression to me that they are legalist.I am not kjv only yet, but i am studying textual criticism and stuff from both sides and the middle, right now im byzantine priority with sympathies for the TR. but when i get older my views may change.

Yes, just read the KJV only and don't tell others that their bibles are of the devil.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Yes, just read the KJV only and don't tell others that their bibles are of the devil.

Anton Levey's Bible is of the Devil.

 

[Hentenza]

Anton Levey's Bible is of the Devil.

Yep, but you did know what I meant, right?

The NIV, NASB, RSV, YLT, etc. are not of the devil.

 

[JGiddings]

I'm NKJV Only.

 

[random person]

I just bought the Defined King James Bible in genuine leather. Over 4,100 archaic words defined in the footnotes.

I am KJV and NASB only reader with a stronger affinity for the former.

Are there important differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society text? - King James Version Today

I am not a KJV onlyist but feel KJV is one of the best if not the best English translation.

 

[th1bill]

KJVO is legalism at it's worst and silly at the best. On the scale of translations the King James is almost on the end of the scale for a Thought for Thought translation but I teach from it because I teach the G.O.M. (Grumpy Old Men's) Class and few of us enjoy my study bible, the NASB.

The last time I checked the NASB was next to the nearest for a Word for Word translation. I love the word for word translation because it makes it easy for me to read and then pray. I came to the Faith using the KJV but to fully comprehend it requires a good deal of external study that, very, few will ever commit to.

The statement that it is in English is an incomplete and thereby false statement. It is translated and written in 17th English and requires the twentieth and twenty-first century man and woman to study the English of the day it was recored. Just one example is, perhaps, the most frequently misused scripture, "Thou shalt not kill." The translation of that verse in 1611 is correct for that time, not so for today. Translating it today it reads, "You will not murder." If it were 'you will not kill,' I, a combat veteran, would go straight to Hell and I believe God would never have run me into the ground so I could serve Him.

 

[preacherinblack]

ok another kjv question is it understandable the AV of 1611?

 

[1watchman]

KJVO is legalism at it's worst and silly at the best. On the scale of translations the King James is almost on the end of the scale for a Thought for Thought translation but I teach from it because I teach the G.O.M. (Grumpy Old Men's) Class and few of us enjoy my study bible, the NASB.

The last time I checked the NASB was next to the nearest for a Word for Word translation. I love the word for word translation because it makes it easy for me to read and then pray. I came to the Faith using the KJV but to fully comprehend it requires a good deal of external study that, very, few will ever commit to.

The statement that it is in English is an incomplete and thereby false statement. It is translated and written in 17th English and requires the twentieth and twenty-first century man and woman to study the English of the day it was recored. Just one example is, perhaps, the most frequently misused scripture, "Thou shalt not kill." The translation of that verse in 1611 is correct for that time, not so for today. Translating it today it reads, "You will not murder." If it were 'you will not kill,' I, a combat veteran, would go straight to Hell and I believe God would never have run me into the ground so I could serve Him.

Reasoning of men is not adequate to interpret the Word of God. The truth of God is that "thou shalt not kill", and that is His mind. It doesn't mean one will "go straight to hell" as is suggested, but that it is against the mind of God. A real "born again" believer will not go to Hell, but at worst will forfeit blessings in Heaven --other professing Christians will go to Hell for rejecting the Savior, not for violating the commandments. Look up always and study the Word!

 

[th1bill]

ok another kjv question is it understandable the AV of 1611?

Now you've lost me. By AV, am I correct in thinking you must mean the ASV, American Standard Version?

 

[th1bill]

Reasoning of men is not adequate to interpret the Word of God. The truth of God is that "thou shalt not kill", and that is His mind. It doesn't mean one will "go straight to hell" as is suggested, but that it is against the mind of God. A real "born again" believer will not go to Hell, but at worst will forfeit blessings in Heaven --other professing Christians will go to Hell for rejecting the Savior, not for violating the commandments. Look up always and study the Word!

I have done that with prayerful submission since the day of my salvation and you are reading into my comments what is not there, that's not going to make friends nor will it influence folks.

 

[stan1953]

can you hold to King James onlyism without being legalistic? most of who that are KJVO give the impression to me that they are legalist.I am not kjv only yet, but i am studying textual criticism and stuff from both sides and the middle, right now im byzantine priority with sympathies for the TR. but when i get older my views may change.

KJVO is a false teaching like any other false teaching. If you like it then read it, but at your age I have no idea why you would. The most modern English translation are the NIV(2011) and the ISV(2012). Then there is the HCSB(2009) and the NetBible(2006). These are all reliable and correct some glaring issues ion the language of the KJV. I say some because the KJV did not have a lot of errors.

 

[stan1953]

Now you've lost me. By AV, am I correct in thinking you must mean the ASV, American Standard Version?

Hi Bill,

No the KJV was first called the HOLY BIBLE, then the AV (Authorized Version then the KJV (King James Version)

Bibliography of the King James Bible

 

[preacherinblack]

KJVO is a false teaching like any other false teaching. If you like it then read it, but at your age I have no idea why you would. The most modern English translation are the NIV(2011) and the ISV(2012). Then there is the HCSB(2009) and the NetBible(2006). These are all reliable and correct some glaring issues ion the language of the KJV. I say some because the KJV did not have a lot of errors.

Im not king James only i do use it because I like and love it I do consult other translations at times and personally I like the NKJV and use it half the time. I don't know what it is exactly but i feel pulled to the KJV and NKJV. I do love them both but other version are ok aswell.( except the JW bible and Mormon bible) I do consult the NiV too.

 

[preacherinblack]

Now you've lost me. By AV, am I correct in thinking you must mean the ASV, American Standard Version?

the King James, people call it many names so i sometimes call it by the other names (i.e King James, AV authorized version,authorized king james version etc etc.)

 

[Keachian]

The KJV in the Old Scofield Edition is the best study version I believe. It is available at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL

If you want Dispensationalism imposed on the Bible then sure.