Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

[Bible Highlighter]

A Testimony on how one particular Christian became a King James only advocate:

My stand on the KJV was arrived at entirely independent of anyone's influence. My first pastor used only the KJV, but I was only under him for four months before moving to another state. I cannot recall that he made any comments about the different versions during that time.

"For the next year I was under a pastor that used and heavily recommended the ASV, and used the 'original languages' many times in every message. In college the KJV was ridiculed and my pastor there used the 'original languages' freely. For a time, as you can understand, I referred to the original languages, since that seemed to be what everybody did. However, it just did not ever set with me, and I never felt secure in doing it.

Reasonable, obvious questions:

"Always being one to think things through for myself, albeit slowly at times, I began to ask the obvious questions:

"Since good men corrected the KJV, ASV, etc.;and their corrections often disagreed with one another, and with the different translations; How could one be sure what the Bible really says?"

Since the Bible clearly and repeatedly guarantees, not just perfection in the originals, but perfection in perpetuity was there not some source that could be relied upon without fail?

"Further, when I started pastoring during my second year in college, I found person after person who reminded me that no one really knew what the Bible originally said, since the original manuscripts were lost. There were friends and church members who would never discuss a Bible passage until they brought out their Greek and Hebrew texts.

"To me, it seemed that this course could only lead to an eventual loss of faith in the Bible, even among the strongest Bible believers, as it obviously already had for many.

"Even then, this disagreement about the text was an effective barrier in witnessing to the lost.


Unreasonable, foolish assurances:

"It is true that I heard the repeated assurances that, 'Although no translation is completely reliable, we can be confident that we do have God's word complete and preserved - that no significant loss has occurred, etc.'

"However, I am a reasoning, reasonable man, and no logical line of reasoning can lead to such conclusions. Such statements are convenient ways to dismiss questions that cannot be comfortably answered.

"How can we be sure John 3:16 belongs in the Bible, if the last several verses of Mark do not? "How can we be sure that some old manuscript or other 'evidence' will not come to light in the future that is as convincing in removing the third chapter of John as the so-called 'better manuscripts' are in removing so many other portions of Scripture?


Blind faith rejected for faith based on performance:

"'Have faith that such is not so,' some would say.

"However, God never asks for blind faith. He challenged us to prove His word by, for example, prophecy, Isaiah 41:21-24. Faith is based on unfailing past performance. To me, you see, the continual referrals to the 'original languages,' the constant corrections of the KJV, ASV, etc. - - especially of the KJV - the disagreement among even the strongest Bible believers as to the true meaning of various verses, called into question the veracity of every verse of Scripture.

"Logically, no one can dispute that, it seems to me. For example, how many times must a person lie before you suspect everything he says? Likewise, how many 'lies' (errors in translations or manuscripts) must one find in a translation or manuscript before he suspects the veracity of every portion of it?


Discovered that all liberals hate the KJV 1611:

"Further, I began to notice that every liberal and Bible skeptic scorned the KJV and promoted other versions. I have never known or heard of a liberal who was fond of the KJV. On the other hand, I have never known anyone to be harmed or have their faith shaken by the KJV. To my knowledge, no one has ever turned from a sound doctrine to a false one because of the influence of the KJV.

"Multitudes, however, have questioned the virgin birth due to the influence of other versions.

By Dr. Roy L. Branson, Jr.


Source:
KJV 1611: Perfect!

 

[Strong in Him]

Source:
KJV 1611: Perfect!

But you have rejected the 1611 KJV as being perfect!

 

[Strong in Him]

Anyways, no offense brother,

Sister.

but seeing you are resistant to about most of what I have said, and you are not willing to budge in any way in your thinking, there is no real point to continue this conversation at this time.

In some ways you have a point.
But it's a shame that your only answer to my statement that your position is illogical is to say "well, there's no point discussing it."
If you are convinced that your position IS logical, you should be able to defend it. And I'm not talking Greek translation or comparison of verses; I'm talking about the fact that I believe the same Gospel as you, and are saved and blessed just as much as you are; and I don't use the KJV. I'm talking about the fact that you vilify modern translations as garbage, yet use those very translations to help you make sense of something which is supposedly perfect.

Neither of those positions are logical. I am saved, born again yet use an "imperfect" Bible; at the very least, I should believe another Gospel, have less understanding or question the doctrine of the trinity - which you seem to believe the KJV alone teaches. Yet I don't.
And if these modern versions ARE "garbage", you shouldn't be using them at all. Will something that "has the devil's name on it" help you to understand what is perfect? Ridiculous.

I cannot convince you of the truth that I have learned.

No, because it's illogical and doesn't make sense.

Again, I am delighted that you are blessed by the KJV. But please don't imply that those of us who don't use it are lesser Christians or uneducated in some way.

God bless.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But you have rejected the 1611 KJV as being perfect!

While I refer to the Cambridge KJV Edition (circa 1900) as the perfect Word of God, in a manner of speaking the Cambridge KJV (circa 1900) is also the 1611. Again, it is why when you pick up a King James Bible in a Christian book store, you see that although it may have one or two dates on it (that are not 1611), there is another place in the beginning of the Bible that usually where it still refers to the 1611 authorized King James Bible.

How can this be? Well, our recent KJV is just a correction of the same 1611 edition. It is a correction on: Printing errors or typographical errors (where the printer accidentally left words out in the printing process), the changing of the Gothic font (that looked like different letters), and an update in spelling. It is not an entirely new translation.

I believe the Cambridge KJV Edition (circa 1900) is the perfect corrected edition for our day. But it is another new translation of the KJV. Only about 400 so called mistakes were found that was usually in the printing process (Which is unlike the NIV that has 60,000 intentional changes). This does not mean that the original 1611 document itself had errors (Which was the unprinted master copy that other copies were made from). So words were not changed so as to create a new translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sister.



In some ways you have a point.
But it's a shame that your only answer to my statement that your position is illogical is to say "well, there's no point discussing it."
If you are convinced that your position IS logical, you should be able to defend it. And I'm not talking Greek translation or comparison of verses; I'm talking about the fact that I believe the same Gospel as you, and are saved and blessed just as much as you are; and I don't use the KJV. I'm talking about the fact that you vilify modern translations as garbage, yet use those very translations to help you make sense of something which is supposedly perfect.

Neither of those positions are logical. I am saved, born again yet use an "imperfect" Bible; at the very least, I should believe another Gospel, have less understanding or question the doctrine of the trinity - which you seem to believe the KJV alone teaches. Yet I don't.
And if these modern versions ARE "garbage", you shouldn't be using them at all. Will something that "has the devil's name on it" help you to understand what is perfect? Ridiculous.



No, because it's illogical and doesn't make sense.

Again, I am delighted that you are blessed by the KJV. But please don't imply that those of us who don't use it are lesser Christians or uneducated in some way.

God bless.

You may agree or disagree, but I sent you a YouTube video via by Private message on these differences, sister.

Peace be unto you in Jesus Christ.

 

[he-man]

Russian? What?
As for oriental or asian languages: While the Bible did not originate in Chinese, the different strokes that make up the letters within the Chinese language is tied to the Bible.
Anyways, the Scriptures that make up the Holy Bible were preserved through five languages through out time.
1. Hebrew (Old Testament)
2. Aramaic (Parts of the Book of Daniel).
3. Greek (New Testament)
4. Latin (The Whole Bible).
5. English (The Whole Bible).
But so as to avoid confusion: Generally speaking, God communicated in this way through out time with mankind:

It was written in Hebrew and Chaldean.

Where did the Hebrews live? Semitic group? closely related to both Arabic and Aramaic long after the Babylonians. The Old Testament calls it the language of Canaan.

The Siloam inscription and the Moabite Stone. The earliest are the 19th - 18th century inscription of Sinai. The clearest is the Ahiram sarcophagus. Most of the books of the Bible were from Hagiographa and the latest prophets.

The Book of Kings is the most clear over a period of 1000 years. Why would you not rather see the Hebrew language?

Where do you think the historical Greek Biblical language originated from, Sanskrit?

The Koine means the Greek that was common to the whole Mediterranean world, not merely the Greek of common people.

 

[FenderTL5]

...Source: KJV 1611: Perfect!

I thought you rejected the 1611 in favor of something later?

It says,

"To me, it seemed that this course could only lead to an eventual loss of faith in the Bible...

Be careful of placing faith in the specific text instead of what the text is about.
The Gospel is not the specific text on a page, nor the English word or combination of words used to tell the story. The Gospel is the Incarnate Christ and the events surrounding his Incarnation, birth, life, teachings, death, ascension etc. Our faith is our response to those events. It's not some mere belief or firmly held notion - it's a literal, visceral, life effecting response that is demonstrated in the way we live and interact with God and others.
Anything less is just a head-knowledge, scholastic, understanding that even the demons can believe.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I thought you rejected the 1611 in favor of something later?

It says,
Be careful of placing faith in the specific text instead of what the text is about.
The Gospel is not the specific text on a page, nor the English word or combination of words used to tell the story. The Gospel is the Incarnate Christ and the events surrounding his Incarnation, birth, life, teachings, death, ascension etc. Our faith is our response to those events. It's not some mere belief or firmly held notion - it's a literal, visceral, life effecting response that is demonstrated in the way we live and interact with God and others.
Anything less is just a head-knowledge, scholastic, understanding that even the demons can believe.

It is merely your misunderstanding that you think I am rejecting something earlier. The 1611 and Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) are the same in thought. Between the unprinted master copy of the 1611 (where copies were made) and the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), there are only updates in spelling and the type of font use. Spelling updates and font changes does not change the actual meaning of words.

I favor the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) and point people to look to that edition of the 1611 because that is what everyone uses today because it has been updated in the spelling for our day and the font has been updated for our day. It is not another translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It was written in Hebrew and Chaldean.

Where did the Hebrews live? Semitic group? closely related to both Arabic and Aramaic long after the Babylonians. The Old Testament calls it the language of Canaan.

The Siloam inscription and the Moabite Stone. The earliest are the 19th - 18th century inscription of Sinai. The clearest is the Ahiram sarcophagus. Most of the books of the Bible were from Hagiographa and the latest prophets.

The Book of Kings is the most clear over a period of 1000 years. Why would you not rather see the Hebrew language?

Where do you think the historical Greek Biblical language originated from, Sanskrit?

The Koine means the Greek that was common to the whole Mediterranean world, not merely the Greek of common people.

I follow the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts.

 

[Strong in Him]

You may agree or disagree, but I sent you a YouTube video via by Private message on the 1769 vs the 1611, sister.

Peace be unto you in Jesus Christ.

Thank you

 

[straykat]

The main and most glaring differences between 1611 and 1769 is lowercase "s" used to look like an "f". Or "v" looked like a "u" and "u" looked like a "v" - like in "haue" (have) or "vnderstand" (understand). Sometimes words were spelled differently and added an extra letter or two as well. For example, "speak" and "feed" might be "speake" and "feede".

In any case, these are all pretty trivial and have nothing to do with any actual translation differences.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The main and most glaring differences between 1611 and 1769 is lowercase "s" used to look like an "f". Or "v" looked like a "u" and "u" looked like a "v" - like in "haue" (have) or "vnderstand" (understand). Sometimes words were spelled differently and added an extra letter or two as well. For example, "speak" and "feed" might be "speake" and "feede".

In any case, these are all pretty trivial and have nothing to do with any actual translation differences.

The reason for this is because the 1611 used the Gothic font back in the day. It's not an actual change in what the word means.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you

Your welcome.

 

[straykat]

The reason for this is because the 1611 used the Gothic font back in the day. It's not an actual change in what the word means.

I agree.. like I said, it's trivial. It's the same translation.

 

[Strong in Him]

While I refer to the 1769 as the perfect Word of God, in a manner of speaking the 1769 is also the 1611. Again, it is why when you pick up a King James Bible in a Christian book store, you see that although it may have one or two dates on it (that are not 1611), there is another place in the beginning of the Bible that usually where it still refers to the 1611 authorized King James Bible.

I'm sure it does.
The fact is, though, that King James asked for a translation of the Bible to be produced, and that was the one that was done in 1611; named after him as he had commissioned it.
In 1769 James was no longer king. Even his son, James II, was no longer king; it was George III, Queen Victoria's grandfather. Whether or not that revision was known as the Georgian Bible, I don't know - but it was over a century and a half later, and it was a revision.

 

[Butch5]

Exact quotes does not prove that the LXX is superior. On the contrary, it is pretty obvious that the LXX was not quoted by Jesus because he mentions jots and tittles (Which is a form of Hebrew writing and not Greek).

It shows that the text of the KJV is not what Jesus and the apostles were using. They could have quoted from the Masoretic text but chose not to. Yes, Jesus did quote from the LXX. The point is that Jesus and the apostles chose the LXX over the Masoretic text in some passages and the KJV doesn't follow that. Therefore I don't see how it can be inspired. Jesus spoke the words of God. If He chose the LXX over the Masoretic in places then the LXX must be the correct reading.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It shows that the text of the KJV is not what Jesus and the apostles were using. They could have quoted from the Masoretic text but chose not to. Yes, Jesus did quote from the LXX. The point is that Jesus and the apostles chose the LXX over the Masoretic text in some passages and the KJV doesn't follow that. Therefore I don't see how it can be inspired. Jesus spoke the words of God. If He chose the LXX over the Masoretic in places then the LXX must be the correct reading.

No. The LXX is Greek and not Hebrew. Yet, Jesus spoke of jots and tittles (Which is a Hebrew form of writing and not Greek). So that right there is reason enough to throw out the LXX.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm sure it does.
The fact is, though, that King James asked for a translation of the Bible to be produced, and that was the one that was done in 1611; named after him as he had commissioned it.
In 1769 James was no longer king. Even his son, James II, was no longer king; it was George III, Queen Victoria's grandfather. Whether or not that revision was known as the Georgian Bible, I don't know - but it was over a century and a half later, and it was a revision.

It's not a different Bible in regards to what the words actually say. I can say.... "kat" in reference to a "cat" and it would not be a change in meaning.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's not a different Bible in regards to what the words actually say. I can say.... "kat" in reference to a "cat" and it would not be a change in meaning.

And that works equally with the modern versions. The KJV can say "study to show yourself approved .... " the Living Bible, says "work hard so God will say to you 'well done' ... " and it's the same meaning.

Yet you said that 2 Timothy 2:15 wasn't in my Bible and the concept would be foreign to me.

 

[Der Alte]

No. The LXX is Greek and not Hebrew. Yet, Jesus spoke of jots and tittles (Which is a Hebrew form of writing and not Greek). So that right there is reason enough to throw out the LXX.

In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"
Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
Yet, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation—90% of the time!
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/what-bible-did-jesus-use-11638841.html
Agreements with the Septuagint
Jesus' scripture quotations and allusions sometime agree with the Septuagint against the proto-Masoretic Hebrew.
1. Jesus' quotation of Isa 29:13 is quite septuagintal, both in form and meaning (cf. Mark 7:6-7).
2. The identification of John the Baptist as Elijah who "restores" (apokathistanei) all things (Mark 9:12) seems dependent on the Septuagint form (apokatastesei), or at least a Septuagintal form of Hebrew, not the proto-Masoretic Hebrew, which reads hshyb ("return" or "turn back"). Curiously, both of these elements are found in Sir 48:10, in which the returning Elijah is expected "to turn [Septuagint: epistrepsai; Hebrew: lush},b] the heart of the father to the son, and to restore [Septuagint: katastesai; Hebrew: lhkyn] the tribes of Jacob." Both elements may well have been present in the original Hebrew version of Sirach.
3. The quotation of Ps 8:3 (ET 8:2) in Matt 21:16 follows the Septuagint. But this may be the work of the evangelist.
4. Finally, the highly important allusions to phrases from Isa 35:5-6; 26:19; and 61:1 in Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22 agree in places with the Septuagint.
Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?