Where have all the KJV defenders gone?

[AACJ]

Just to stick my worthless two penneth worth into all of this.
No matter how many translations I read:
1) the only one that makes me feel like I'm learning/understanding anything is the KJV.
2) the only one I seem to be able to memorise verses from is the KJV.

Now. Who wants to beat up on the new kid?

Why are you apparently embarrassed in trusting the KJV? It should be the other way around for goodness sake.

 

[FreeinChrist]

They've all migrated to forums of like minded folks because their indefensible views have been biblically shot down time and time again. They have "safe space forums" where no one can tell them how ridiculous it is without getting banned from the forum.

This is not a forum that restricts members from liking the KJV or another version the best.


I prefer the interlinear, which is found here:

www.scripture4all.org

I also like the KJV and NASB.

 

[FreeinChrist]

....but, why not? I can understand if one has not been taught the difference....alot of people haven't...in fact, most....and I would not have known, had I not run into a sermon at 'Sermon Audio'... and I started listening to more....plus I found a web-site called 'Bible Discernment'

No...I think it was the 'Bible Discernment' site that caused me to listen to sermons on bible translations.

Bible Discernment

perhaps because originally the Bible was not written in King James' English but in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek.

 

[SistrNChrist]

perhaps because originally the Bible was not written in King James' English but in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek.

That's why I'm not much of a fan of the KJV translation. If others are, that's perfectly fine for them, and I'm not here to tell you you're wrong for reading that version, because that's not for me to judge. What I will say is that, in my personal walk with Jesus, I find that the KJV tends to be hard for me to understand, because there are so many words that get lost in translation from Hebrew/Greek to English, and when I read versions like the Complete Jewish Bible and the Septuagint, it's easier for me to grasp a particular verse, since I find those translations are more faithful to how the Bible was originally written. But again, your experiences may differ, so read whatever translation you feel is easiest for you to grasp.

 

[DeaconDean]

That's why I'm not much of a fan of the KJV translation. If others are, that's perfectly fine for them, and I'm not here to tell you you're wrong for reading that version, because that's not for me to judge. What I will say is that, in my personal walk with Jesus, I find that the KJV tends to be hard for me to understand, because there are so many words that get lost in translation from Hebrew/Greek to English, and when I read versions like the Complete Jewish Bible and the Septuagint, it's easier for me to grasp a particular verse, since I find those translations are more faithful to how the Bible was originally written. But again, your experiences may differ, so read whatever translation you feel is easiest for you to grasp.

Just from reading this, I take it you prefer Hebrew.

The Septuagint (circa 300-200 BC) is the Hebrew in Attic Greek. Attic Greek ceased to be a language almost 2400 years ago.

What I have is the Hebrew/Greek/English Interlinear:

When I took Greek in seminary classes, this was a big help.

I'm going to say something, but please do not take it the wrong way, or think that by any stretch of the imagination that I am of the KJVOnly crowd.

How is it you have no problem understanding Jewish and Yiddish terms, understand Attic Greek, but have problems with the "kings English"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I am kind of a KJV "defender" in that I think the best English translation (I would say "perfect") is the KJV and I would defend my view on that. I have become much less ardent in being defensive about it, however, because I think many translations can "get the job done" in terms of correctly spreading the Gospel message and the backing doctrines. I think if someone is going to dig and exegete the Bible then ultimately they will be going to Greek/Hebrew translations anyway; I think they'll also recognize the KJV's superiority if they get that far.

So, I think it's a waste of time to get into most of the arguments over whether KJV is best or not (even though it is). There are better things we can do with our time.

 

[SistrNChrist]

Just from reading this, I take it you prefer Hebrew.

The Septuagint (circa 300-200 BC) is the Hebrew in Attic Greek. Attic Greek ceased to be a language almost 2400 years ago.

What I have is the Hebrew/Greek/English Interlinear:

When I took Greek in seminary classes, this was a big help.

I'm going to say something, but please do not take it the wrong way, or think that by any stretch of the imagination that I am of the KJVOnly crowd.

How is it you have no problem understanding Jewish and Yiddish terms, understand Attic Greek, but have problems with the "kings English"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

It's not that I have a problem understanding KJV English per se, but more like I find that certain things get lost in translation between the original Hebrew/Greek and the "kings English." That's why I ideally prefer translations like the Interlinear or Complete Jewish Bible, because it helps me more to understand certain passages of Scripture if I know what the original words used were. Hope that clears up your question, and I'm not offended at all by your post, so don't worry about me taking it the wrong way.

 

[DeaconDean]

It's not that I have a problem understanding KJV English per se, but more like I find that certain things get lost in translation between the original Hebrew/Greek and the "kings English." That's why I ideally prefer translations like the Interlinear or Complete Jewish Bible, because it helps me more to understand certain passages of Scripture if I know what the original words used were. Hope that clears up your question, and I'm not offended at all by your post, so don't worry about me taking it the wrong way.

Oh no problem.

I was a person who used exclusively the KJV. That is the version I still use. But I am not a KJVOnlyist.

I was taught Shakespeare in 9th through 12th grade, and from the time I was old enough to sit in church, that was the Bible my church used. So understanding the language isn't that hard for me.

But I had a very good seminary teacher and he was the one who encouraged me to take Greek.

I can translate for myself what the Greek says. It has been very rewarding.

My God continue to bless you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I joined this forum because I saw a post by AV1611VET quoted on "Fundies Say The Darnedest Things". I am also quoted on that website.... Anyway, I'm a fairly new KJV defender, and would like to know how many of us there are. In real life, I'm the only one I know...and online, i do know know of many...

I am not KJVO, except to when it comes to memorizing scripture. I have over 1,750 verses or portions of verses memorized or that I review. I read out of KJV, but preached out of NKJV from 1998-2014 when I retired. I am currently teaching every other month on a rotating basis with my pastor. I teach out of the KJV, while he uses various versions.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I joined this forum because I saw a post by AV1611VET quoted on "Fundies Say The Darnedest Things". I am also quoted on that website.... Anyway, I'm a fairly new KJV defender, and would like to know how many of us there are. In real life, I'm the only one I know...and online, i do know know of many...

I am a (N)KJVO. I believe the New King James Version is also a viable version along with the King James Version. I do not read any other translations unless it's the modified ESV that the Gideons puts out, since they make sure the Scripture fits the KJV texts.

I personally prefer the KJV out of them all though. In the NKJV, it says that Paul speaks with a 'tongue.' In the KJV, it says that Paul speaks with an unknown tongue. (The verses are sarcastic. It is about how Paul would rather speak five words of edification over ten thousand words in a 'tongue.')

God bless!

 

[Greg Merrill]

I am a (N)KJVO. I believe the New King James Version is also a viable version along with the King James Version. I do not read any other translations unless it's the modified ESV that the Gideons puts out, since they make sure the Scripture fits the KJV texts.

I personally prefer the KJV out of them all though. In the NKJV, it says that Paul speaks with a 'tongue.' In the KJV, it says that Paul speaks with an unknown tongue. (The verses are sarcastic. It is about how Paul would rather speak five words of edification over ten thousand words in a 'tongue.')

God bless!

I still read, memorize out of, and teach from the KJV, though I am not a KJVO person. Even the NKJV, from which I preached out of as a pastor for 16 yrs, has its problems, as does the KJV.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I still read, memorize out of, and teach from the KJV, though I am not a KJVO person. Even the NKJV, from which I preached out of as a pastor for 16 yrs, has its problems, as does the KJV.

That is true. All versions slip up at times, especially in regards to numbers in the Old Testament. There are copyist errors I can overlook. I find the KJV to preserve the most accurate version of the New Testament, though. e.g. Acts 8:37 (Not in the Westcott-Hort Bibles)

 

[Greg Merrill]

That is true. All versions slip up at times, especially in regards to numbers in the Old Testament. There are copyist errors I can overlook. I find the KJV to preserve the most accurate version of the New Testament, though. e.g. Acts 8:37 (Not in the Westcott-Hort Bibles)

Some things have been pawned off as copyist errors when they really weren't. For example, regarding Adino in 2 Samuel 23:8, it says he slew 800. In 1 Chronicles 11:11 it says he slew 300. Yes, an 8 and a 3 look similar and could be misread and miscopied. One might ask "Which was it, 8 or 3; it can't be both. One must be wrong." But they can both be right! 2 Samuel may see it this way "Adino (and his men) slew 800." 1 Chr may see it this way "Jashobeam (Adino) slew 300 (all on his own)." Notice also the numbers seem to be rounded off.

 

[KWCrazy]

I love the KJV but neither I nor my grandchildren speak Old English, so some of the newer versions like the NIV are fine for general consumption. To question a religious point I prefer the KJV for its time tested authenticity.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I learned in Bible College that Westcott and Hort sided with Catholic teaching, and with those that were following texts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt (that were corrupt), rather than the texts that came out of Antioch that held to the doctrines of the deity of Christ, Lordship of Christ, blood atonement of Christ, etc.
The KJV is founded on these manuscripts, while newer versions are founded on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I learned in Bible College that Westcott and Hort sided with Catholic teaching, and with those that were following texts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt (that were corrupt), rather than the texts that came out of Antioch that held to the doctrines of the deity of Christ, Lordship of Christ, blood atonement of Christ, etc.
The KJV is founded on these manuscripts, while newer versions are founded on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Amen.

 

[brinny]

i don't believe that the KJB needs defending. I'm with Charles Spurgeon on this one:

"The Word of God is like a lion. You don’t have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself."

Here's a perspective on the KJB:

 

[Greg Merrill]

I love the KJV but neither I nor my grandchildren speak Old English, so some of the newer versions like the NIV are fine for general consumption. To question a religious point I prefer the KJV for its time tested authenticity.

Upfront, this is not a criticism, but a suggestion to many. Learn Old, trustworthy English, rather than being totally dependent on easy to understand, modern, erroneous English. That is a generalization/exaggeration; not saying that everything in modern English Bibles is erroneous, just some of it.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lets set the record straight, yes, the KJV is "Old English" and it may be outdated, but the fault lies in our school system, not the KJV.

It was a standard that especially from the 9th grade on, Shakespeare was taught. How many of us read and acted out his plays in school?

That is not done anymore. If you have a problem with the language, fine, I have no problem with that. But what I have no tolerance for is those KJVOnlyists who say that the 1611 KJV is the ONLY bible a person should ever use.

Here in the 2010's, we know there are some 5300 Greek MSS. The KJV at best, was written using only at beat, 57 MSS.

I have done the research, and in spite of only using 57 MSS, the KJV still maintains a 97.7-99.7% rate.

No bible is 100%. FACT!

How is it the Johannine Comma conflict has been forgotten? Would leaving it out affect anything? NO!

How about the fact that Erasmus "invented" a word and inserted it and it still remains to this day?

How about the fact that the printers originally added words to Erasmus' text, and they still remain to this day?

How about the fact that the Codex Bezae (Theodore Beza's codex) can be shown to have as many as 18 different scribes at work in his codex, and that it was the primary source for the book of Acts?

This makes 3 years I have been doing a study on "textual criticism". And I'm still nowhere finished.

I was taught in seminary classes to study as many versions as I could to see what each one says, to take Greek in seminary classes so I could do my own translating without relying on anybody elses work.

It served me well. I'm not opposed to reading, studying any other version except the NWT (New World Translation-the bible of the JW's) if it means I get a better understanding of what God's word says.

But I still preach, teach and study from "old reliable"- the KJV.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Good for you. Thanks for your post. I like it.