KJV only?

[QuagDabPeg]

I've noticed a lot of people here are KJV only. Why is this? What makes the KJV better than others?

 

[Thanatosimii]

Although I never have done firsthand reaserch on this, I don't trust the niv and other bibles because of what I have read about the greek text that they use. many, many verses that I grew up hearing about have been plumb removed from modern bibles, and the reasons that the editors give for using a greek text that doesn't contain these verses are... suspicious.
For instance, look up I John 5:7 in both an NIV and KJV

 

[QuagDabPeg]

The other versions are based off of Codex Sinaiticus which is the earliest comeplete NT.

 

[rural_preacher]

Personally, I prefer the NKJV and NIV. I preach from the KJV in my church because most of the people carry KJV's to church with them so it's easier for them to follow along if I'm reading my text from the KJV. However, in Bible studies and counseling I use either the NKJV or NIV.

They are all translations from the original languages into English and they are all reliable translations. The best way to get a solid handle on the Word of God is to study it in the original languages. This is not a reasonable option for most, so that is why it is important for pastors to do so. We must correctly handle the Word of Truth in the pulpit so that the people in the pews correctly understand the English translation from which they study.

Helpful tools for everyone to bring them closer to the original languages are Interlinear Bibles and Strong's Concordance.


just my .02



----

 

[AVBunyan]

As you have noticed there are always discussion surrounding the KJV vs. the newer versions. I’ve been involved with these chats and I’ve noticed something. What I’ve noticed is both sides (KJV only vs. other stands) seek to defend their stance using facts. This seems reasonable enough when you first look at it. But when you dig into this something doesn’t make sense. When you who deals with souls on a regular basis present the gospel (I Cor. 15:1-5) to a lost soul you tell him that Christ died for his sins, was buried, and rose again the third day (at least I hope you do). Now, how do you prove the gospel to a lost man? First you seek to show him from the “scriptures” for the last part of the gospel says, “according to the scriptures”. You expect the soul to believe the message of the gospel by faith. You know you are not to try to “convince” the man by “facts “ for that is not how the Holy Spirit says this is to be done – a sinner is to receive Christ by faith.

How are you going to “prove” the gospel anyway? Are you going to resort to historical witnesses and writings? We can and I do but that is not the key. Are you going to use archeological items or “relics”? No, you know God did not leave us Noah’s ark, Christ’s cross preserved, etc. Why, because God expects us to take Him at his word by faith. You take a soul to the scriptures and expect him to believe “facts” of the message by faith.

One of the ways you say you can tell a man trusted Christ was by the affect the conversion had on him or by the fruits he displayed thus giving you some “evidence” that the gospel and his conversion was real.

Now…you know where I’m heading…why do some of you get so wound up when some of us say by faith we believe the King James is the word of God without error? Isn’t that how I’m supposed to believe it? Do you try to convince a man the truths of the gospel by presenting historical evidences? If you try to convince a man of this then you are not relying upon the Holy Spirit to do the work – you are relying upon your “persuasive sales abilities” – I’m been guilty of this so I know what I am talking about here.

The same goes for trying to persuade someone the KJV is the word of God. Someone will always come up with all the reasons why it is not (revisions, King James I was a sodomite, they didn’t have access to the latest manuscripts, errors, blah, blah, and more blahs, etc.). The same can be said about Calvary (a man can’t come back from the grave, nails would have ripped his hands, no eye witness accounts other than the Bible, etc.). You are always going to hear someone try to explain away Calvary by using a scholastic and scientific approach and you hammer these people for doing so. So…why do we get hammered for believing something that seems to run contrary to “scientific” research and reason?

The “reasons” and “evidences” all look good and seem to make sense but it is still not living by faith but by external evidences. Yes, I know God gave us a brain and reasoning faculties but when it comes to spiritual things we must be careful not to cross the line and walk by sight and not by faith. Our reasoning powers come to naught when it comes to the power of God.

Fellas, you have come up with many reasons why the King James Bible shouldn’t be the only one without error and all that but when it comes right down to it I still take my stand on faith – why knock it?

I don’t fall apart or go to war with you folks who do not believe the King James Bible is without error. I don’t hammer the average saint on the street when he says he reads another version. I’ve got more grace than that. If a person comes to my church with another version we don’t jump on him – we say nothing. If he asks then we will graciously answer him.

I’ve read most of the works against the KJV. You believe your source and I believe mine. Comparing the gospel with the KJV I look for the same fruits. All I can go by is that the scriptures work in the lives of those that believe it. Don’t you say the same for the gospel? All you can go by in a man, other than his “profession” is II Cor. 5:17 (creature not “creation” by the way).

This “mass” critique of the Bible God used is a modern movement. I think what may be going on are two things:

1. People are educated out of believing it – i.e. someone comes along and shows them things that raise doubts (Gen. 3:1).

2. People today say the other versions are as good because the emphasis is not on the “words” but the “message”. The modern thinking is, “As long as the message is there it is ok.”

Ok, let’s summarize – I take a King James Bible and I look at how it describes itself. I look at the internal evidence of what the book says about itself and I, by faith, believe it. I take a King James Bible and look at the words, “words, word, truth, scriptures, scripture, read, holy, pure, inspiration, power”, etc. and I believe what it says about itself. Why doubt it? I, by faith, believe the King James Bible is without error.

Someone said that Christ is the only thing perfect here – I believe His word is also perfect and I have it in my hands. You don’t believe that then fine – this is still a free country, kind of. You will stand before God and give account and I will do the same. The only difference is I will be standing with the book God used for the last 380 years with miraculous results and will feel confident I will have to answer for nothing in this area.

God bless

 

[rural_preacher]

The KJV is a translation...a good one, but still just a translation.

God's Word is not the King James Bible, the King James Bible is a translation of God's Word.

God's Word was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.



----

 

[Gold Dragon]

AVBunyan, I think the KJV is a wonderful translation truly inspired by God that has been an awesome blessing to the english world. I encourage those who prefer the KJV to continue to use it.

However, KJVO teachings aren't simply about preferring the KJV, it is also about falsely attacking other translations based on faulty information. And also judging those who use other translations.

I encourage KJVO folks to continue using the KJV if they trust its authority and come to a greater knowledge of God through it. Just make sure you are not propogating falsehoods about other translations or their source texts or condemning those who use them. You may not know that what you read from KJVO sites is a lie, but once you do, please do not continue to propogate those lies.

 

[AJ]

I have found some enjoyment in reading and studying several translations lately. Primarily I have been using a NKJV, because that is what the Pastor of my old church (a Calvary Chapel) used when he was delivering his message... However, I also have used NIV... KJV... and NLT.

I like that the NLT is easy to read... It is not the most accurate translation, but it can be a useful tool to get someone who has not read the Bible in the past into reading it. For many (myself included) reading the text of a KJV was very difficult to understand... Someone who is just begin to investigate the Bible may be better served by an "easier" to read translation like NIV or even NLT.

I have REALLY enjoyed using the Strong's Concordance here recently. I have been using the "ESword.net" software that lets you compare various translations of scripture very easily... And has very useful interface with Strong's.

I have spent time reading and studying many of the translations... I agree that overall the KJV seems to be the most accurate... However, I wouldn't knock someone for using a different translation. My current Pastor teaches from NASB.

 

[AJ]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gold Dragon again.

 

[Gold Dragon]

For instance, look up I John 5:7 in both an NIV and KJV

This sites lists many of the textual variants found between translations and which of the preserved Greek manuscripts we have that support them (EVIDENCE). The KJV reading is supported by some manuscripts dating after the 10th century but by zero preserved manuscripts before that date.

NT Textual Variants
1 John 5:7-8:

TEXT: "·And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ·[That is] because there are three who testify: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and [these] three agree as one."
EVIDENCE: S A B K P Psi 048 33 81 104 614 630 945 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect one lat earlier vg syr(p,h) cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ·[That is] because there are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. ·And there are three who testify in the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and [these] three agree as one."
EVIDENCE: 61 88margin 221margin 429margin 629 636margin 918 2318 most lat later vg
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NASVn NIVn

COMMENTS: A complete list of the Greek manuscripts that include this passage is given above, in spite of the fact that none of the manuscripts were copied before the tenth century. There is much variation among those who have it, and most of the old Latin manuscripts have the witnesses on earth before the witnesses in heaven. The expanded passage is a fourth century Latin gloss on verse 8 which found its way into the Latin text and was back-translated into a few Greek manuscripts.

Here is a list of all the manuscripts covered by this site: Link. It is difficult to cover every single biblical manuscript out there because there are so many, but the author does a good job of comparing the ones most scholars consider significant, including the ones used in the KJV translation.

Rank A means:

the text is virtually certain

FYI, in no way do these variants weaken the authority of the KJV or its power to transform lives through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Blazin4Christ]

I am a KJVOist definetely, but to treat it lik "more than a translation" I don't
I believe it is the Bible,
not some version,

 

[Thanatosimii]

This sites lists many of the textual variants found between translations and which of the preserved Greek manuscripts we have that support them (EVIDENCE). The KJV reading is supported by some manuscripts dating after the 10th century but by zero preserved manuscripts before that date.

The KJV reading is supported by the vulgate. The vulgate, though a paraphrase, is one of the earliest texts around. If two texts, on greek and one latin, say the same things, the best explanation is that one text in greek existed prior to the two. Thus, these "late manuscript" passages are not as questionable as people make them out to be.
Also, the same manuscripts that are "grade A" totally omit the book of Revelation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The KJV reading is supported by the vulgate. The vulgate, though a paraphrase, is one of the earliest texts around. If two texts, on greek and one latin, say the same things, the best explanation is that one text in greek existed prior to the two. Thus, these "late manuscript" passages are not as questionable as people make them out to be.
Also, the same manuscripts that are "grade A" totally omit the book of Revelation.

Are you sure you want to head down this road? At least AVBunyan honestly admits that faith and not manuscript evidence is the best support of the KJVO position.

 

[Thanatosimii]

I am not KJV only- I support study of greek and hebrew texts. All I suggest is that the verses removed in modern versions have been done so questionably. The KJV is not a very good text at all for getting things across to the modern reader becuase of it's antiquated word usage, but it is not discounted by manuscripts. There is a double standard about what makes a good manuscript out there.

 

[Bulldog]

I am a KJVOist definetely, but to treat it lik "more than a translation" I don't
I believe it is the Bible,
not some version,

Even on par with the orignal Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic?

 

[Gold Dragon]

I am not KJV only- I support study of greek and hebrew texts. All I suggest is that the verses removed in modern versions have been done so questionably. The KJV is not a very good text at all for getting things across to the modern reader becuase of it's antiquated word usage, but it is not discounted by manuscripts. There is a double standard about what makes a good manuscript out there.

Would you consider yourself TRO (Textus Receptus Only)? If so, which version?

Erasmus 1516
Erasmus 1519
Erasmus 1522
Erasmus 1527
Erasmus 1535
Estienne (Stephanus) 1546
Estienne (Stephanus) 1549
Estienne (Stephanus) 1550
Estienne (Stephanus) 1551
Beza 1565
Beza 1582
Beza 1589
Beza 1598
Elzevir 1624
Elzevir 1633
Scrivener 1894

 

[Iosias]

I've noticed a lot of people here are KJV only. Why is this? What makes the KJV better than others?

See here!

 

[mesue]

See here!

that's one of my favorite chorale songs you have in your siggy

 

[Crazy Liz]

I am not KJV only- I support study of greek and hebrew texts. All I suggest is that the verses removed in modern versions have been done so questionably. The KJV is not a very good text at all for getting things across to the modern reader becuase of it's antiquated word usage, but it is not discounted by manuscripts. There is a double standard about what makes a good manuscript out there.

I think the KJVO crowd throws around the word "removed," because of its PR value. It gets people upset.

If we say that words, and even whole verses, were added to the Greek texts from which the KJV was translated, where would that put us?

My question is simply: Why presume removal, rather than addition?

 

[AVBunyan]

However, KJVO teachings aren't simply about preferring the KJV, it is also about falsely attacking other translations based on faulty information. And also judging those who use other translations.

I encourage KJVO folks to continue using the KJV if they trust its authority and come to a greater knowledge of God through it. Just make sure you are not propogating falsehoods about other translations or their source texts or condemning those who use them. You may not know that what you read from KJVO sites is a lie, but once you do, please do not continue to propogate those lies.

Yes, I understand this is a volatile issue and greatly misunderstood today. I guess it depends on how important you feel the word of God is in relation to the Christian life. I just happen to think that nothing happens aside from the work of the Spirit which I think we would agree on. But I go further - for I believe the Holy Spirit works through his word and I just happen to believe his word today is found in a King James Bible. No word of God – no work of the Spirit.

Now, I do not attack anyone or have ever attacked anyone for just using or reading another translation – I’ve got more grace than that. Where I get fired up is when someone seeks not only to attack the King James Bible but seek to draw people away from it and point them to what I believe to be false bibles. This greatly concerns me. I believe the true word of God has power and if you don’t have it then the Christian life is lacking.

Today Christianity is suffering and I believe one of the main reasons it is suffering is because there is a famine in the land for the word of God and part of the reason for the famine is the attack upon the King James Bible an infiltrating of the modern versions. The devil is sharp – you’ve go to hand it to him here.

Finally – I appreciate your encouragement regarding the King James Bible. But if the AV1611 is inspired (and I believe it to be so) and if it is inspired it must be perfect (and I believe it to be so) then the others cannot for they most certainly do read differently.

Here lies the rub. If the King James Bible is the word of God then the others can only contain some of the words of God for these other versions are based upon an entirely different set of manuscripts that originated from Egypt and God has never blessed this line.

And, here lies my conviction. I believe many saints are missing out by not having the true words of God and this, again, greatly concerns me for without the word God in the world today we have nothing.

I trust this gives you more of an idea of where I’m coming from.

May God bless!