KJV Only

[WannaWitness]

Good post.

Thanks.

 

[BeeWrangler]

I think it is very important to know what we are reading, right down to the exact word and meaning of the word that was used. The KJV is as close to the original text that I have found so far. Just for an example here are some bible versions of 1 Timothy 3:12:

King James Version Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

New Revised Standard
Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well;

Common English Bible
Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well.

The Message
Servants in the church are to be committed to their spouses, attentive to their own children, and diligent in looking after their own affairs.

New Living Translation
A deacon must be faithful to his wife, and he must manage his children and household well.

Good News Translation
A church helper must have only one wife, and be able to manage his children and family well.


I used this verse as an example only because I had issues with it before, I'm not looking to start another painful debate on women leaders in church. My point is some of the bibles refer to a man here, it says "his wife" Others do not make it clear if it is he or she, it just says "spouse" Some say a "deacon" some say a "servant" or a "church helper" ...a church helper could be viewed as anyone who has a part in helping the church. Sometimes simple wording can make a big difference between understanding exactly what is being said by the original writer or not. Is it a big deal to understand exactly what Gods word is saying? Not to everyone, but to me it is. Sometimes even with KJV it helps to look up the original Greek wording and meaning of the words in that day, but there is a big difference between a word being different then an entire sentence and the meaning that was intended behind it.

 

[Hammster]

I think it is very important to know what we are reading, right down to the exact word and meaning of the word that was used. The KJV is as close to the original text that I have found so far. Just for an example here are some bible versions of 1 Timothy 3:12:

King James Version Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

New Revised Standard
Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well;

Common English Bible
Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well.

The Message
Servants in the church are to be committed to their spouses, attentive to their own children, and diligent in looking after their own affairs.

New Living Translation
A deacon must be faithful to his wife, and he must manage his children and household well.

Good News Translation
A church helper must have only one wife, and be able to manage his children and family well.


I used this verse as an example only because I had issues with it before, I'm not looking to start another painful debate on women leaders in church. My point is some of the bibles refer to a man here, it says "his wife" Others do not make it clear if it is he or she, it just says "spouse" Some say a "deacon" some say a "servant" or a "church helper" ...a church helper could be viewed as anyone who has a part in helping the church. Sometimes simple wording can make a big difference between understanding exactly what is being said by the original writer or not. Is it a big deal to understand exactly what Gods word is saying? Not to everyone, but to me it is. Sometimes even with KJV it helps to look up the original Greek wording and meaning of the words in that day, but there is a big difference between a word being different then an entire sentence and the meaning that was intended behind it.

Could you have found a worse list of versions to compare it to?

 

[BeeWrangler]

Could you have found a worse list of versions to compare it to?

I know what your saying, my point is if you read back in this post you will see where it has been said to use whatever version of the bible you feel comfortable with. I have heard this a million times before, so I am showing why it might not be a good idea to simply grab any bible that says "bible" on it and expect to read what was actually said in the original documents... or even slightly close to it. Take the Catholic bible, there are 7 extra books in it... but that is a total different topic lol.

 

[Hammster]

I know what your saying, my point is if you read back in this post you will see where it has been said to use whatever version of the bible you feel comfortable with. I have heard this a million times before, so I am showing why it might not be a good idea to simply grab any bible that says "bible" on it and expect to read what was actually said in the original documents... or even slightly close to it. Take the Catholic bible, there are 7 extra books in it... but that is a total different topic lol.

Understood. I wish you would have prefaced your post with this.

 

[BeeWrangler]

A quick Google search said there are over 50 different bible versions... I only checked a few in bible gateway, but yes, I'm sure I could find worse versions if I went through them all The ones I used I have seen used many times in this forum and others, so people do use them.

 

[BeeWrangler]

Understood. I wish you would have prefaced your post with this.

Yes, I have a bad habit of assuming what I type is self explanatory, I've been told many times its not

 

[Hammster]

A quick Google search said there are over 50 different bible versions... I only checked a few in bible gateway, but yes, I'm sure I could find worse versions if I went through them all The ones I used I have seen used many times in this forum and others, so people do use them.

I think could make an interesting discussion. I guess what got me to react was the same type of post could have been made using the NASB or ESV as an example. It's not just the KJV that has an accurate (or even most accurate) translation.

 

[BeeWrangler]

I think could make an interesting discussion. I guess what got me to react was the same type of post could have been made using the NASB or ESV as an example. It's not just the KJV that has an accurate (or even most accurate) translation.

I agree. I only realized somewhat recently how different bible versions can be. When I study something I use the KJV only because I find it very close to what I find when I look up the original Hebrew or Greek (something else I am somewhat new to) But I don't doubt there are other bibles just as close or even closer to the original text, I have not looked into them all... something I plan on looking into soon. I think it would make an interesting discussion too.

 

[Chuck70]

Could you have found a worse list of versions to compare it to?

I'd like to followup on BeeWrangler and Hammster's thoughts, by comparing translations on two other verses, both regulative on two hot button issues. I am not a translation idolater, but I am coming back home to the KJV.

Ex.21:22 -
KJV - "her fruit depart from her" leaves interpretation to the reader and I personally go with "miscarriage".

Traditionalist versions take sides in the abortion debates...
NASB95 - "gives birth prematurely"
NKJV - "gives birth prematurely"
NIV - "gives birth prematurely"

Mainline versions take the opposite side in the debate..
RSV - "is a miscarriage"
NRSV - "is a miscarriage"
REB - "has a miscarraige"

In this, the mainline versions agree with the ancient Douay and Wycliffe translations and the commentators, Adam Clarke and John Trapp and maybe John Gill. The traditionalists seem to be leaning "right wing".

1 Cor. 6:9 -
KJV - "effeminate...abusers of themselves with mankind"

Traditionalists are misleading or homophobic on this verse:
NASB95 - "effeminate(by perversion)...homosexuals"
NKJV - "homosexuals(That is, catamites)...sodomites"
NIV - "male prostitues...homosexual offenders"

Mainline versions tend to combine two unrelated words into one term or idea and confuse matters:
RSV - "sexual perverts"
NRSV - "male prostitutes...sodomites"
REB - "sexual pervert"

For me the question comes down to the KJV having biases based on the political climate of its day, that are different than the cultural biases we have in this day. I do not like the gender inclusiveness of the new versions because if the Holy Spirit desired to use that type of inclusiveness the language was there to do so. I like the REB and will consult the RSV/NRSV, and I enjoy the ASV with its full translation footnotes also.. but it is HARD to find a hardcover ASV without ordering from a Campbellite publishing house. I am tending more to go back to the KJV for myself. I do use the NRSV when talking Bible with foreign friends for whom the KJV would wreck their studies of the English language for today.

Chuck

 

[David Pratt]

TO Twin-Mommy

the King James Version well accepted for almost 400 years but now their is a problem.

Their was no reason to re-write it [N.I.V.] because it brings confusion. Vast majority of those issues can be resolved by reading dictionaries with meanings of that time period [archaic dictionaries.] it was created in.

Most Christians also ignore the Old Testament. I met some who are even ashamed of it and without understanding the Old we will have trouble understanding the New.

 

[Hammster]

TO Twin-Mommy

the King James Version well accepted for almost 400 years but now their is a problem.

Their was no reason to re-write it [N.I.V.] because it brings confusion. Vast majority of those issues can be resolved by reading dictionaries with meanings of that time period [archaic dictionaries.] it was created in.

Most Christians also ignore the Old Testament. I met some who are even ashamed of it and without understanding the Old we will have trouble understanding the New.

What does not using the KJV have to do with some Christians ignoring the OT?

 

[David Pratt]

To Hammster

I've spoken with Christians who read the NIV & justify the modified words and shortened verses because since it's in a more modern language.

So it's legitmate.

The Old Testament was period when words/letters not as extensive as it is now.So no matter how word substitution is used on the NT it's harder to do so in the Old but it's more descriptive than just using now.

 

[Keachian]

the King James Version well accepted for almost 400 years but now their is a problem.

Same argument against nearly any reevaluation of the merits of a translation, happened when Jerome translated the Vulgate to try and get rid of some of the errors in the Old Latin, happened when Erasmus released his re-translation, and it even happened with the KJV, the Puritans and Separatists preferred the Geneva and thought that the KJV was a pomped up Anglican perversion.

Their was no reason to re-write it [N.I.V.] because it brings confusion.

Well aside from research telling us that there are quite a few peculiarities to the KJV that there is no Greek manuscript support for and it being in a different language to what we use today, sure. Might I also point out that the NIV is by no means the first retranslation of popular merit, that would be the RV.

Vast majority of those issues can be resolved by reading dictionaries with meanings of that time period [archaic dictionaries.] it was created in.

That misses the point of what a good translation should do.

 

[standingtall]

Vast majority of those issues can be resolved by reading dictionaries with meanings of that time period [archaic dictionaries.]

Classic and ridiculous KJVO argument. Can't tell you how may times I've heard this one.

 

[Hammster]

Classic and ridiculous KJVO argument. Can't tell you how may times I've heard this one.

I don't see them advocating for taking courses in Ancient Greek, which they should if that argument is valid.

 

[Chuck70]

Classic and ridiculous KJVO argument. Can't tell you how may times I've heard this one.

Hi StandingTall... I like the KJV but am not KJVO. I have found it interesting what happens when you check the English definitions. I got caught in my early years by a JW trying to prove the Son of God was created. She used:

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” (Re 3:14 KJV)
comparing a popular, and good, new translation
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.” (Re 3:14 ESV)


The definition of "beginning" in the 1828 Websters, which is online reads:

"BEGIN'NING, n. The first cause; origin."

That clears up the KJV well using an older dictionary closer to the KJV...

The current Merriam-Webster in the ESV time frame on "beginning" reads:

"1: the point at which something begins : start
2: the first part
3: origin, source"

I get to the real meaning by using the KJV and the 1828 Websters better than using the current ESV and Merriam-Webster where "origin" is #3. Or, I can just read the NRSV...

"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation:” (Re 3:14 NRSV)

The 1828 1913 combination Webster's is online and I find it extremely helpful because it was produced by godly men or standards. It uses many biblical illustrations for the words. To me this is an important point as I use various translations in study and the KJV/ASV combo does avoid the modern twists from feminism and the modern hot-button issues. I find it annoying to read "brothers and sisters" with the Footnote: "Gk brothers". If the Holy Spirit inspired "brothers", I want to read "brothers"! A humorous note: I got on a mailing list of a liberal denomination. I get letters addressed to "Dear Sisters and Brothers"! I guess Gloria Steinem edits those letters.

Chuck

 

[ananda]

I am curious as to the reason some feel the KJV is the only Bible to use. I am not wanting to debate because I honestly don't know, so I wanted to get some thoughts on it.

I am not KJV-only, but I like & often prefer using the KJV for these reasons:

1. The translation is one of the only mainstream translations which is translated from a representative of the majority of Greek texts. Most mainstream English translations from the late 1800s onwards are based on a minority of Greek texts.

2. The older wording preserves the differences between singular and plural persons;' e.g. "thou" (singular) or "ye" (plural) would usually be translated "you" in other more modern translations. Thus, there is a loss of precision in more modern wording.

3. The rhythm and cadence of the KJV text lends itself to memorization.

4. There are many more books, commentaries, and helps based on the KJV than any other translation.

5. Reading the KJV causes me to slow down and think harder about the meaning of the verse, whereas more modern translations are "easier" to read and can cause me to breeze through the text. I see the former as a positive, because I find myself meditating more deeply on Scripture.

6. Reading the KJV "elevates the mind". Science has shown that reading or attempting to comprehend complex texts/words/music causes the cerebral cortex to activate much more greatly than reading easier texts/words/music. This leads to greater development and connections in the cerebral cortex. Why is this important? The cortex is involved in higher brain functions, e.g. memory, rational thought, logic, patience, self-control, etc. A weaker cortex causes the "lower brain" to dominate more in an individual, e.g. impulsiveness, fear, depression, etc.

 

[Boidae]

That's all well and good, but for some people such as my wife, the KJV is a horrible translation for her.

She has multiple sclerosis and has taken a huge hit on her cognitive thinking. She has great difficulty reading the KJV because she gets distracted because of the archaic language. Not to mention that telling her to look it up in the dictionary just causes more issues because it causes her to stop what she is already reading and asking her to look something up in a dictionary. That just throws her mind into a tizzy.

So a version such as the NIV is best for her, because it's in a language that she can easily understand and doesn't get distracted by.

Many KJVO have issues with what I say because their response is always that the Holy Spirit will bring her understanding. the problem with that is that she has to actually be able to read the text in order for the Holy Spirit to bring her that understanding.

It's as if they could care less that there are people in this world who are unable to read the KJV because of an illness. They dismiss that a person such as my wife has a problem and are essentially telling her to just deal with it or your going to hell.

 

[ananda]

That's all well and good, but for some people such as my wife, the KJV is a horrible translation for her.

She has multiple sclerosis and has taken a huge hit on her cognitive thinking. She has great difficulty reading the KJV because she gets distracted because of the archaic language. Not to mention that telling her to look it up in the dictionary just causes more issues because it causes her to stop what she is already reading and asking her to look something up in a dictionary. That just throws her mind into a tizzy.

So a version such as the NIV is best for her, because it's in a language that she can easily understand and doesn't get distracted by.

Many KJVO have issues with what I say because their response is always that the Holy Spirit will bring her understanding. the problem with that is that she has to actually be able to read the text in order for the Holy Spirit to bring her that understanding.

It's as if they could care less that there are people in this world who are unable to read the KJV because of an illness. They dismiss that a person such as my wife has a problem and are essentially telling her to just deal with it or your going to hell.

Sorry to hear about your wife & her illness. May YHWH bring her healing.

I'm also sorry to hear that you've faced translation issues with KJV-onlyists. They certainly take it to the next level! Most of them probably never read the document "Translators to the Reader" prepared by the KJV translators which shows that they never thought that their translation was perfect.