KJV Only?

[charles at doctrineprimer]

Although the King James is the only Bible I use, I cannot bring myself to identify with the crowd that attributes inerrancy status to it. The KJV is a translation of an original language. The men who translated it were not inspired and were subject to errors and bias'. I believe it is dangerous for many to place such high status to a translation that is the work of men's hands. If the King James is superior to all others, then what version can the rest of the world use, who are not English speaking?

 

[inlight12]

I voted no. I believe KJV is an excellent bible with one of the few word-for-word translations available in English. But there are other bibles which can be used without significant differences. For bible study at least a number of bible translations are required. Just don't buy something too far removed from original scripture.

To see the accuracy scale of the Bibles go to the below link
NJAB - Comparison Chart of Bible Translations showing style or type of translation and readability or grade level

Also, this link to Steve Rudd's site refutes KJV only arguments
"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

I have a KJV because it is cheap $6.99 and it is very close to the original scripture. I love my bible and the olde English does not bother me at all.

 

[JLR1300]

I enjoy the New King James Version the most. It still maintains the basic flow and beauty and poetic feel of the King James but is easier for folks to understand and it is a very literal translation. I enjoy the New International Version but am aware that it isn't really word for word but is a dynamic equvilant. I enjoy reading all of them but people need to remember three things... 1. Don't put too much trust in a paraphrase or even a thought for thought Dynamic equivalent. 2. Remember that the words in italics aren't in the Greek. 3. The Hebrew or Greek are the final word not an English translation.

 

[classicalhero]

I voted no, but I do love and use the King James.

Same here. No translation can properly bring out the subtleties in the original languages, which is why you should always have some guide to the original languages.

 

[Jack Koons]

Greetings,

I voted yes. If you care to see why, I posted several threads on the "Fundamentalists" section of this Forum. I think you will find them self explanatory.

Jack

 

[BrokenWarrior]

No>

I actually prefer the NKJV, reason being,

It stays close to the original meanings of the passages,yet, allows me to comprehend them mentally which ,consequently, allows me to comprehend the scriptures more spiritually.

But, whatever teaches you Truth easier so be it, that's all that matters...

-A Fellow Servant

 

[DeaconDean]

I too voted no but I too use the KJV almost exclusively. I have and use several other translations but I preach and teach exclusively from the KJV. I find the KJV to be as good as any other and in many cases better in certain words. An example would be the word charity translated from the Greek agape. It conveys the actual meaning of the word much better than simply saying love. But other translation are legitimate and often help to see a passage from a slightly different perspective because of wording.

Kind of similar to my thoughts and practice, I guess. Blessings.

Mine too.

I voted no.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Blue Wren]

-

 

[BornAgainBrian]

I enjoy reading translations in the different languages I study. I've spent a lot of time in my Chinese Bible, and just recently got an Arabic one.

 

[Blue Wren]

-

 

[morningstar12]

Most don't understand the manuscripts history, but just looking at the very simple words that are changed doesn't make sense. When God's deity or Christs are lessened, I don't need to change to newer translations. It's not just a nice or good version, as Christ is not just a good preacher. I believe it all and it's less confusion for me, I just trust it's what God used and still does.

Hard to be misunderstood by other Christians out there as we are archaic. It is so close to my soul.

I do not judge others because of what they do or believe and go to their churches because I need fellowship.

 

[DeaconDean]

Interesting questions:

1. 1604, the beginning of the work for the KJV was started. Two provisions they had to follow was: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." And: "These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."
2. The KJ translators also admit: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." And the Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Source

If they had to follow the Bishop's bible as closely as possible, how do we know they got right?

If they had access to Greek, Latin, and other languages, but only certain editions were consulted, how do we know they got it correct?

I guess it is possible to go and back-research to which manuscripts Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Polyglots.

But I have looked, and I still cannot find a complete list of manuscripts the KJ translators used.

Why?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[charles at doctrineprimer]

What do you mean it is what God uses?
The KJV is an excellent translation, but that is all it is. Biblical Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Word of God and there is not a single teacher on the subject that insist that only the KJV is to be followed. You cannot properly interpret the Word of God using the KJV, you have to go back to the original languages as well understand History, Geography and the Times and Customs of the lands.
Do not let the KJV become your Nehushtan.
He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 2 Kings 18:4

 

[James Is Back]

I never agreed with the KJVO crowd. I think some of them take their love of the KJV too far and condemn those who don't us it. The most hardcore KJVO's will tell you that you are sinning if you are using other translations like the NIV,ESV,etc and that the KJV is the only true Word of God which is not true at all.

I like the KJV don't get me wrong but it's not what the KJVO's say it is.

 

[morningstar12]

So I responded because Daniel 1611 asked. Just thought you'd like to know Daniel that there are a few of us out here!

 

[classicalhero]

I never agreed with the KJVO crowd. I think some of them take their love of the KJV too far and condemn those who don't us it. The most hardcore KJVO's will tell you that you are sinning if you are using other translations like the NIV,ESV,etc and that the KJV is the only true Word of God which is not true at all.

I like the KJV don't get me wrong but it's not what the KJVO's say it is.

Well some translations are just bad and really shouldn't be used, because of the way they translate and the manuscripts they use.

 

[charles at doctrineprimer]

That is very true. Take a version like the one that the Jehovah's witnesses use and toss that one in the trash. The translators there took the Word of God and changed it to fit their false doctrine.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I really like the KJV. For Bible study, though, I like the NASB.
But I also like to use an interlinear for study. You can easily read the Interlinear at Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

They have a Hebrew OT interlinear and the Greek NT interlinear free online. I have bought both in hardback, but having it free online is convenient.

I also like to look up words and often use Blue Letter Bible and use the lexicons there.

 

[now faith]

Interesting questions:

1. 1604, the beginning of the work for the KJV was started. Two provisions they had to follow was: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." And: "These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."
2. The KJ translators also admit: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." And the Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Source

If they had to follow the Bishop's bible as closely as possible, how do we know they got right?

If they had access to Greek, Latin, and other languages, but only certain editions were consulted, how do we know they got it correct?

I guess it is possible to go and back-research to which manuscripts Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Polyglots.

But I have looked, and I still cannot find a complete list of manuscripts the KJ translators used.

Why?

God Bless

Till all are one.

There were men who were fluent in chaldean numerology out of the 47 translators.
It was not just a copy with limited resources, how naive to think Westcott and Hort were inspired and the King James translators were ill informed.

Why? Because confusion is a tool of the devil,try to remember verses from multiple translations.
God's Word is under attack and being pulled away from Christianity and replaced with books
That question the divine nature of Christ.

Yet all the deletions the slurs the doubt that is cast in New translation,is ignored
The Devil is a liar.

 

[Jack Koons]

There were men who were fluent in chaldean numerology out of the 47 translators.
It was not just a copy with limited resources, how naive to think Westcott and Hort were inspired and the King James translators were ill informed.

Why? Because confusion is a tool of the devil,try to remember verses from multiple translations.
God's Word is under attack and being pulled away from Christianity and replaced with books
That question the divine nature of Christ.

Yet all the deletions the slurs the doubt that is cast in New translation,is ignored
The Devil is a liar.

It is a normal supposition that the KJV translators, along with those whom God used to bring about the Greek texts used by them, (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza), were limited in both resources and knowledge of the Biblical languages. Furthermore, it is also a normal supposition that no one knows now, or ever has known the actual manuscripts that underly the KJV. An example of this supposition is:

Interesting questions:

1. 1604, the beginning of the work for the KJV was started. Two provisions they had to follow was: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." And: "These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."
2. The KJ translators also admit: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." And the Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Source

If they had to follow the Bishop's bible as closely as possible, how do we know they got right?

If they had access to Greek, Latin, and other languages, but only certain editions were consulted, how do we know they got it correct?

I guess it is possible to go and back-research to which manuscripts Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Polyglots.

But I have looked, and I still cannot find a complete list of manuscripts the KJ translators used.

Why?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I suppose the answer to "Why?", is that you apparently haven't looked at the correct place. It is easy to bring out an accusative supposition, it is much more difficult to support that accusation with historically accurate evidence. In this case, it is a simple matter of inadequate research.

The readers of this thread must understand; it is easier to make an accusative supposition than it is to do proper research. The problem however with the former, is that when one makes an accusative supposition without proper research, the result is being continuously corrected. Therefore, it would be wise to adapt ones method or areas of research to include those areas which are outside of that which you have been told are correct, to see for one's self if there is truth elsewhere.

In the above case, the answer can be found, by simply going to those who have researched this topic to a greater degree than those who have been teaching you.

Jack