KJV Only?

[BornAgainBrian]

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:




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

There is plenty of research, and researchers have come to different conclusions.

 

[spiritwarrior37]

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:




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

Having read this thread, and the one in the Fundamentalist room, you appear to be telling everyone you are the authority on the KJV. All Deacon Dean has ask for you to do is supply a list/number of the manuscripts used by the KJ translators, and you have failed to do so. Either you have them and it is some big secret, or you are just spouting nonsense.And, if you are "the one" who has researched this topic to a greater degree, all DD and everyone else is asking is for you to share your sources. Would that not be the Christian thing to do?

 

[sojourner4Christ]

pending

 

[Jack Koons]

Having read this thread, and the one in the Fundamentalist room, you appear to be telling everyone you are the authority on the KJV. All Deacon Dean has ask for you to do is supply a list/number of the manuscripts used by the KJ translators, and you have failed to do so. Either you have them and it is some big secret, or you are just spouting nonsense.And, if you are "the one" who has researched this topic to a greater degree, all DD and everyone else is asking is for you to share your sources. Would that not be the Christian thing to do?

Greetings spiritwarrior,

Please allow me to clarify a few things:

1) I have never claimed to be the authority on the KJV; rather, I have simply shared historical evidence in support of the KJV and the Byzantine Texts.

2) When supposed allegations were made against me, stating that my only sources were (or are) KJV Only friendly sites, I purposely presented a simple, chronological 'string' of evidence from a source that could not be portrayed as KJV Only, in any way or form.

3) I have been told on many occasions in this forum, that only the 'unlearned' hold to the KJV Only position. This accusation is nearly always accompanied by a statement that insinuates that the KJV was, (and is), based upon an insufficient number of Greek MSS. I have already answered these straw man arguments in previous posts, and or threads.

4) DeaconDean is an educated man, and I give him credit where credit is due. However, when he, being an educated man, asks "Why" he cannot find what has already been presented elsewhere; it is not my Christian duty to remind him of evidence he refuses to accept. Rather, it is his responsibility to consider the possibility that the evidence already presented, may be credible.

5) The following was stated by 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.

Let us now look at DeaconDean's questions:

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

I would say that is a matter of faith.

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

That too would be a matter of faith.

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?

This is where DeaconDean needs to consider what has already been presented.

By the way, he did not ask for a list. He said, "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?"


His question was, "Why" [can't he find a complete list of manuscripts the KJ translators used]?

His question was not, what is the list of manuscripts the KJ translators used?

6) You stated:

"Either you have them and it is some big secret, or you are just spouting nonsense.And, if you are "the one" who has researched this topic to a greater degree, all DD and everyone else is asking is for you to share your sources."

If you have read my threads and posts at length, you are aware that I do not make claims to have evidence that I cannot present. (In other words, I am not "spouting nonsense", as you so eloquently stated.) However, since I have already stated both who did this, and where this information can be found, I am under no obligation to repeat myself, (especially since I was ignored when I said it previously).

Jack

 

[Avid]

Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:

NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

REB..... our release is secured and our sins are forgiven

NWT.... we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins

NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins

Contrary to what has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, having multiple erroneous versions do not aid in understanding the Bible.

I answered YES, but it is not what seems to be so loathed here. I believe God has preserved His word. It is a promise God made, and it seems to be forbidden by some to actually believe this promise.

Many decades ago, I sat down with a young woman who used a different Bible, and liked it. It seems our discussions brought her to a place where she was willing to compare the two translations. The standard was to be a list of 200 verses, many of which were changed or omitted from modern translations that were from different manuscript sets than the KJV.

After we made it most of the way through the list, she wanted to stop. She put down her NASV, took up the KJV, and hasn't looked back. I know this because we have since gotten married, and that was over 32 years ago.

That list is available at the following link:

http://www.achristianspirit.com/200VERSES.HTML

It is completely between each person and our LORD as to how we are to deal with God. I had found that the Bible I was given as a child was not even familiar to me. I had it for almost 20 years, but when I would go to it, and read a verse I thought I remembered, I noticed it was not always the way I remembered it. Seems the language of the KJV was more familiar to me than the Bible version I owned.

I didn't really own a KJV Bible till I was in my twenties. It has been a learning experience for me ever since. It was about the time I began learning the importance of it that I managed to get a good one, and have spent many hours in it, and multiple other exact copies (Schofield Ref.) that I have used after getting that one.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

If you are making this a "which translation is closest to the KJV" contest, how do you expect anything to be closer? Closeness to the KJV does not in and of itself portend accuracy.

The exclusive users of the KJV obviously believe that the manuscripts used in the writing of the KJV are most accurate. At the same time, there are plenty who would disagree.

Onlookers. I would encourage you to read up on BOTH sides of this issue. If you want to compare parallel verses, great! Do so! But know that unless you start with the assumption that the KJV is the standard, differences between any given translation and the KJV just show differences, and not which is more accurate.

 

[now faith]

Contrary to what has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, having multiple erroneous versions do not aid in understanding the Bible.

I answered YES, but it is not what seems to be so loathed here. I believe God has preserved His word. It is a promise God made, and it seems to be forbidden by some to actually believe this promise.

Many decades ago, I sat down with a young woman who used a different Bible, and liked it. It seems our discussions brought her to a place where she was willing to compare the two translations. The standard was to be a list of 200 verses, many of which were changed or omitted from modern translations that were from different manuscript sets than the KJV.

After we made it most of the way through the list, she wanted to stop. She put down her NASV, took up the KJV, and hasn't looked back. I know this because we have since gotten married, and that was over 32 years ago.

That list is available at the following link:

200 Verses - aChristianSpirit

It is completely between each person and our LORD as to how we are to deal with God. I had found that the Bible I was given as a child was not even familiar to me. I had it for almost 20 years, but when I would go to it, and read a verse I thought I remembered, I noticed it was not always the way I remembered it. Seems the language of the KJV was more familiar to me than the Bible version I owned.

I didn't really own a KJV Bible till I was in my twenties. It has been a learning experience for me ever since. It was about the time I began learning the importance of it that I managed to get a good one, and have spent many hours in it, and multiple other exact copies (Schofield Ref.) that I have used after getting that one.

What I observe is people turning a blind eye to the problems in the other versions.

It is a form of subtle deception that becomes truth to the reader over time.

 

[now faith]

If you are making this a "which translation is closest to the KJV" contest, how do you expect anything to be closer? Closeness to the KJV does not in and of itself portend accuracy.

The exclusive users of the KJV obviously believe that the manuscripts used in the writing of the KJV are most accurate. At the same time, there are plenty who would disagree.

Onlookers. I would encourage you to read up on BOTH sides of this issue. If you want to compare parallel verses, great! Do so! But know that unless you start with the assumption that the KJV is the standard, differences between any given translation and the KJV just show differences, and not which is more accurate.

It is not a question of which translation is closest to the King James,if that were the case just use the King James.

The question is if what you are reading denies the blood of Christ.
The question is if what you are reading is ambiguous when it come to Jesus Christ Devine nature.

 

[now faith]

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:




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

To answer why is the answer.
why are there so many divisions in the Body.
There is a resource today that anyone can print their own version of the Bible.

Some how there must be a foundation of truth otherwise you are reading a lie.

Now what is the true Bible and what is the tainted text?
With all the versions today they must reflect the ideals of the translators,do we agree on their ideals?

 

[BornAgainBrian]

It is not a question of which translation is closest to the King James,if that were the case just use the King James.

The question is if what you are reading denies the blood of Christ.
The question is if what you are reading is ambiguous when it come to Jesus Christ Devine nature.

No translation I've read gave me any such impression.

 

[SteveNZ]

WHICH TRANSLATION
I like to examine the prologue to the translation.
Many give a methodology and reasons. All translators have available literature to explain this in depth.

And I see if the aim was to share Gods word as accurately as possible and if the folk prayed as they did so seeking the Lords guidance.

Some even identify the English they use as being for a particular time. The King James bible is not modern English (which is no issue) so there is that issue when studying.

SOLUTION: Pray and seek Gods guidance.

When studying I personally enjoy using a parallel bible plus a concordance to see what the underlying original phrase was. I admit that for memorising scripture the almost poetic way of the KJ makes it easier. Mind you I enjoy Shakespeare's works......

 

[spiritwarrior37]

Greetings spiritwarrior,

Please allow me to clarify a few things:

1) I have never claimed to be the authority on the KJV; rather, I have simply shared historical evidence in support of the KJV and the Byzantine Texts.

2) When supposed allegations were made against me, stating that my only sources were (or are) KJV Only friendly sites, I purposely presented a simple, chronological 'string' of evidence from a source that could not be portrayed as KJV Only, in any way or form.

3) I have been told on many occasions in this forum, that only the 'unlearned' hold to the KJV Only position. This accusation is nearly always accompanied by a statement that insinuates that the KJV was, (and is), based upon an insufficient number of Greek MSS. I have already answered these straw man arguments in previous posts, and or threads.

4) DeaconDean is an educated man, and I give him credit where credit is due. However, when he, being an educated man, asks "Why" he cannot find what has already been presented elsewhere; it is not my Christian duty to remind him of evidence he refuses to accept. Rather, it is his responsibility to consider the possibility that the evidence already presented, may be credible.

5) The following was stated by DeaconDean:



Let us now look at DeaconDean's questions:



I would say that is a matter of faith.



That too would be a matter of faith.



This is where DeaconDean needs to consider what has already been presented.

By the way, he did not ask for a list. He said, "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?"


His question was, "Why" [can't he find a complete list of manuscripts the KJ translators used]?

His question was not, what is the list of manuscripts the KJ translators used?

6) You stated:

"Either you have them and it is some big secret, or you are just spouting nonsense.And, if you are "the one" who has researched this topic to a greater degree, all DD and everyone else is asking is for you to share your sources."

If you have read my threads and posts at length, you are aware that I do not make claims to have evidence that I cannot present. (In other words, I am not "spouting nonsense", as you so eloquently stated.) However, since I have already stated both who did this, and where this information can be found, I am under no obligation to repeat myself, (especially since I was ignored when I said it previously).

Jack

Personally, I use the KJV for all my reading. There are those who say it is hard to read because of the language. I studied English Lit. and I love the way it flows. But there are flaws in all translations. Are all the translations 100% accurate with the original manuscripts? No. Are they perfect? No. But they do contain the perfect Word of God as we have it. As I said, the KJV is my main source for Scripture reading. But when studying or preparing a sermon, I use several translations to get a wider understanding. I think that whatever translation it takes to win a soul for Jesus, that is "The perfect" translation.

God bless.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Personally, I use the KJV for all my reading. There are those who say it is hard to read because of the language. I studied English Lit. and I love the way it flows. But there are flaws in all translations. Are all the translations 100% accurate with the original manuscripts? No. Are they perfect? No. But they do contain the perfect Word of God as we have it. As I said, the KJV is my main source for Scripture reading. But when studying or preparing a sermon, I use several translations to get a wider understanding. I think that whatever translation it takes to win a soul for Jesus, that is "The perfect" translation.

God bless.

I love the way you put this!

 

[Jack Koons]

To answer why is the answer.
why are there so many divisions in the Body.
There is a resource today that anyone can print their own version of the Bible.

Some how there must be a foundation of truth otherwise you are reading a lie.

Now what is the true Bible and what is the tainted text?
With all the versions today they must reflect the ideals of the translators,do we agree on their ideals?

Greetings now faith,

As a matter of 'definition', when I use the term "Bible", I am referring to what is commonly known as the 'Christian' Bible.

The simple answer, the KJV is the pure text (my opinion, based on my own research), while anything coming from the 1881 W/H Greek text (or any text that is derived from that text , Greek or otherwise), is tainted, (again my opinion).

Generally speaking, the history of the Bible is quite simple. What history shows is that there were two opposing texts of the Bible since soon after the time of the Apostles: the first being represented by Jerome's Vulgate, used by the Church of Rome, (which text type mainly aligns with the Greek Alexandrian text type); the second being represented by the Old Itala, used throughout the Byzantine Empire by such people as the Waldenses. The text of the Old Itala mainly being in agreement with the Greek Byzantine text type.

The above 'pattern' still exists today. When referring to the English Bible, the KJV represents the Byzantine text type; while versions from 1881 and following, represent the Alexandrian text type.

While the majority of both text types are the same, allowing them to equally maintain the overall "storyline" of the Bible, subtle changes both have been, and still are being made to both modern versions of the English Bible, and to the Greek text upon which they rest. The N/A Greek text just released its 28th Edition in 2014.

The above mentioned changes undermine and weaken supportive texts for doctrines such as the deity of Christ, and the virgin birth. Please understand, no one is asserting that these teaching have been removed from the text, in their entirety; rather, a declaration is being made that these subtle changes have been, and are still being made without any cause other than the opinion of the textual critic, who removes it. That opinion being based on what he or she believes the 'evidence' shows pertaining to that text.

It is my belief that one can find the reasons for such opinions by simply investigating the theological views of textual critics throughout history. I offer a brief summary of this nature in the thread, "History of Textual Criticism", in the "Fundamentalists" section of this forum. Therein lies the answer of "Why?".


Jack

 

[BornAgainBrian]

I'd encourage those looking deeper to examine writings from both sides of the issue. There is a very strong case that the Alexandrian is the more accurate.

 

[Jack Koons]

I'd encourage those looking deeper to examine writings from both sides of the issue. There is a very strong case that the Alexandrian is the more accurate.

While I agre that both sides of the issue should be examined, when one examines the history of German Rationalism, one can easily see why supportive verses for the major doctrines of the Scriptures have suffered many omissions. Hence, the only way the Alexandrian texts can be consideredore accurate, is if one has the same distaste for the sacred texts, as did Westcott and Hort.

Jack

 

[ByTheSpirit]

English Standard Version is a superior translation IMHO...

 

[BornAgainBrian]

While I agre that both sides of the issue should be examined, when one examines the history of German Rationalism, one can easily see why supportive verses for the major doctrines of the Scriptures have suffered many omissions. Hence, the only way the Alexandrian texts can be consideredore accurate, is if one has the same distaste for the sacred texts, as did Westcott and Hort.

Jack

Well, you can only definitively consider them omissions if you hold that the TR is more accurate. Otherwise they may be additions.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Well, you can only definitively consider them omissions if you hold that the TR is more accurate. Otherwise they may be additions.

Very true... and it is known Erasmus added certain parts to the TR to appease church authorities (1 John 4:7-8). And had to back translate the last 6 verses of Revelation.

I don't mind the KJV, but when someone goes so far as to say it is the only word of God that is pushing it.

 

[DeaconDean]

I love it.

Here are the "fruits" of KJV Onlyism:

Proper theology as a whole, is not possible in any Bible, other than the KJV, for English speaking people.

And:

The King James Bible is the pure word of God, without error.

God Bless

Till all are one.