KJV Only

[ST1TCH]

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

No kidding, "here's a word-for-word versus some very liberal paraphrases"

 

[ST1TCH]

To me it's all about the advances in Greek/Hebrew translation ability and understanding as well as the discoveries of ancient texts through archaeology over the past 400 years.

I grew up on the KJV like many others and have memorized countless verses in this older English, but that doesn't mean I think it's the be-all end-all of Bible translations.

It's my understanding that translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV were deep undertakings by teams of scholars well versed in Greek/Hebrew and using manuscripts that have been discovered that pre-date what the KJV was translated from. These guys approach this with a great deal of respect and honor to the original text and aren't trying to just change the words around to be different or show the KJV is wrong.

I often read the ESV or NIV when in church and even though the words might be in different order I don't see any differences in meaning, etc when the pastor is using NASB or KJV/NKJV.

 

[now faith]

People holding on to their traditions to the detriment of the text of Scripture.

When did God change?
Each new version is holds a copyright.
The main changes in endless side by side study's are the aspect of the deity of Christ.

I will try to find a in-depth study link that will surprise you.
If you have 2 or 3 hrs.

I watched enough of the N.K.J study not to read it.

 

[now faith]

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.

AMEN,
The differences are astounding,
More words, more changes,and a direct assault on Christ being God.

 

[now faith]

While this is basically true (word-for-word), the KJV is not the only translation with this philosophy. The same could be said for the NKJV and the NASB (and probably others). I think the real question is, which translation gets you the closest to the original, inspired text of Scripture. The KJV-onlies I've known believe the KJV is the closest to the original, however I think most other Christians disagree.

Basically true?

Is that like basically honest?

 

[Keachian]

When did God change?

God's not the Bible, nor a translation of it.

Each new version is holds a copyright.

The KJV has the Jacobean equivalent

The main changes in endless side by side study's are the aspect of the deity of Christ.

The Case for the Deity of Christ is actually stronger in the new versions.

I will try to find a in-depth study link that will surprise you.
If you have 2 or 3 hrs.

I have other things to do, things that are more edifying for myself and the local church, I'd rather invest time in that than pseudohistorical conspiracy theories.

 

[standingtall]

Each new version is holds a copyright.

So what? God can't use a copyrighted version of the Bible for His purpose? That's a silly argument.

Besides, the KJV does hold a copywright in England. Should it be considered a "corrupt" version in England?

 

[Alithis]

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.

this

 

[now faith]

God's not the Bible, nor a translation of it.


The KJV has the Jacobean equivalent


The Case for the Deity of Christ is actually stronger in the new versions.


I have other things to do, things that are more edifying for myself and the local church, I'd rather invest time in that than pseudohistorical conspiracy theories.

There is nothing pseudo about side by side, but keep on being spoon Fed Catholic dogma

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I am in the process of moving. I am figuring out what churches I will be visiting once moved. I have been to Baptist churches in the past. One of the ones I am looking at is KJV. I have not been to a KJV only church before."

KJVO folks are already living in a "Fantasy World" that the KJV is THE ONLY INSIPRED ENGLISH TRANSLATION, and if you DON'T use it - you're in BIG TROUBLE.

The likelyhood is that what you'll find there is an IMBALANCE in their teaching that leads to "Bibliolatry" - the worship of a "Translation". If I personally knew a church was KJVO I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole (and Vladislav Kushjenitzki who IS a 10 foot Pole said he wouldn't touch it either).

Westboro Baptist is a KJVO congregation, and you can see how well that works for them.

It's perfectly O.K. to feel that the KJV is the best translation (It is for me - I learned to read in it 65 years ago, and I know all the "Workarounds" for the areas of lousy translation, and the archaic language), but when a church starts JUDGING people based on the Biblical Version they use - they're to be avoided at all costs.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

"I am in the process of moving. I am figuring out what churches I will be visiting once moved. I have been to Baptist churches in the past. One of the ones I am looking at is KJV. I have not been to a KJV only church before."

KJVO folks are already living in a "Fantasy World" that the KJV is THE ONLY INSIPRED ENGLISH TRANSLATION, and if you DON'T use it - you're in BIG TROUBLE.

The likelyhood is that what you'll find there is an IMBALANCE in their teaching that leads to "Bibliolatry" - the worship of a "Translation". If I personally knew a church was KJVO I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole (and Vladislav Kushjenitzki who IS a 10 foot Pole said he wouldn't touch it either).

Westboro Baptist is a KJVO congregation, and you can see how well that works for them.

It's perfectly O.K. to feel that the KJV is the best translation (It is for me - I learned to read in it 65 years ago, and I know all the "Workarounds" for the areas of lousy translation, and the archaic language), but when a church starts JUDGING people based on the Biblical Version they use - they're to be avoided at all costs.

Amen!

 

[now faith]

So what? God can't use a copyrighted version of the Bible for His purpose? That's a silly argument.

Besides, the KJV does hold a copywright in England. Should it be considered a "corrupt" version in England?

Not to worry,I don't care what anyone reads,
If you keep looking you will find one the will suite your point of view.

Maybe try MacArthurs study bible and do away with that messy blood issue.

Or a Scientology perspective would be refreshing.
Or at Bible study it would be easier to promote homosexuality,or acceptance of Muslim creed if you had the answers in your version of the Bible.

That old English is so wore out there is no use for it throw it out,or trade it in for a version that fits the morals of today.

 

[standingtall]

Maybe try MacArthurs study bible and do away with that messy blood issue.

Or a Scientology perspective would be refreshing.
Or at Bible study it would be easier to promote homosexuality,or acceptance of Muslim creed if you had the answers in your version of the Bible.

That old English is so wore out there is no use for it throw it out,or trade it in for a version that fits the morals of today.

You're pretty good at fallacies.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.



MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Keachian]

Not to worry,I don't care what anyone reads,
If you keep looking you will find one the will suite your point of view.

Maybe try MacArthurs study bible and do away with that messy blood issue.

Or a Scientology perspective would be refreshing.
Or at Bible study it would be easier to promote homosexuality,or acceptance of Muslim creed if you had the answers in your version of the Bible.

That old English is so wore out there is no use for it throw it out,or trade it in for a version that fits the morals of today.

It's not an issue of morals, it's an issue of language, Jacobean English is just too far removed from what people speak, and I'm not talking about thees and thous, that's the easy bit. I struggle with reading it and I read at a University level, admittedly I haven't looked into Jacobean English for about 6 years but then I have had no need to and when I have had some want to look at a translation from that time the Geneva hands down trumps it for me. Puritan Separatist > Anglican

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi, I hope you guys don't mind me posting here, I'm finding this discussion very interesting.

My ancestors were German speaking Alsatians; prior to the reformation, as Roman Catholics they would only have heard Scripture in Latin, and occasionally in German if their Priest happened to have a sermon, and if he chose to quote Scripture during that sermon. They were farmers, so they would have been peasants, and would not have been able to read or wright.

After the reformation, they had Luther's German translation of the Bible which, like the KJV was translated from the Majority Text, and compared to St. Jerome's Vulgate, the first translation into the language of the common man (also translated from the same texts). Luther's German Bible also standardized the German Language just as the KJV standardized the English language.

After immigration to the US and Canada in the early 1800's, my ancestors continued to use Luther's translation until they transitioned to English in the early 1900's; some Congregations continued to use German much later. The old order Amish and Mennonites continue to use Luther's Bible.

Since the only English translation readily available to us at that time was the KJV, we use the KJV exclusively in Church and in our Liturgical language right through into the 1970's. The beauty of the Language of the KJV is such that in our current Service Book, while we have 4 settings of the Divine Service in modern English, we have retained the KJV translation of the old Lutheran Mass (we do use the others, but this one is used most often by our Congregation).

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.

I'm very sorry that you and your wife are having to endure MS, my aunt suffered for many years with MS, as did her daughter. May God's mercies continue for your both.

For those who who have grown up with the KJV understanding is not as much of an issue as it would be to those who are being evangelized. I was fortunate in that I not only grew up with the KJV, but in High School, we were required to study Shakespeare's works as well. Today, for many, neither are the case. Those who evangelize the un-Churched, would often find themselves translating the translation in order to foster understanding. Such can even be the case with some modern translations which can use very advanced English; the NKJV comes to mind (accepted by many to be the most accurate word-for-word and thought-for-though English translation to date; I like it too BTW).

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.

Except that the "original" version of the KJV also contained these Apocryphal books, as did Luther's Bible; as does the ESV translation that our Church continues to use to this day.

St. Jerome, Luther, and the translators of the KJV all agree that these apocryphal books are not Divinely inspired word of God, but they are edifying and good to read, and they do give insight into the period of time between what we know as the Old and New Testaments. Scholars and Bible Historians agree that 1st. Maccabees is a very accurate historical account of it's particular period of time. Some of the others, not so much.

While, for many today, translations in more modern English may be better for them, there is no disputing that for many many centuries, many have, and many do still come to faith through the use of St. Jerome's Vulgate, Luther's Bible, and the KJV; all of these, old and new, are translations, all have some errors; yet all contain the Holy and Inspired Word of God; and through them the Holy Spirit continues to teach us both the Law and the Gospel, providing that they have been translated using sound and unbiased scholarship.

 

[ChaseWind]

Hi, I hope you guys don't mind me posting here, I'm finding this discussion very interesting.

.......
While, for many today, translations in more modern English may be better for them, there is no disputing that for many many centuries, many have, and many do still come to faith through the use of St. Jerome's Vulgate, Luther's Bible, and the KJV; all of these, old and new, are translations, all have some errors; yet all contain the Holy and Inspired Word of God; and through them the Holy Spirit continues to teach us both the Law and the Gospel, providing that they have been translated using sound and unbiased scholarship.

Thank you, Lutheran brother. Your insight and perspective is a fine addition to the discussion and I profited from reading it.

 

[yogosans14]

KJV only churches usually preach straight from the Bible.

But the KJV has many mistranslations.

 

[Far Above Rubies]

I hope this is the right place to post this.

I am in the process of moving. I am figuring out what churches I will be visiting once moved. I have been to Baptist churches in the past. One of the ones I am looking at is KJV. I have not been to a KJV only church before.

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.

If you compare KJV with other Bibles you will find important words missing as well as scriptures left out. I have an awesome video for you to watch. You can then really see there is such a big difference. I was never a KJ only until I watched this video God bless you.

 

[strelok0017]

I think KJV is good. If I could I'd get myself a Geneva Bible. Not trying to be old or something, I've read ESV more than twice but I agree with some that KJV has been translated from proper manuscripts. I'm not sure about the Vulgate, on the other hand.