Where have all the KJV defenders gone?

[AACJ]

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.

Yes, it only takes about an hour to learn old English words that more accurately reflect the Greek than do the modern Bible versions. Some of the language of the KJV was fabricated to more accurately reflect the Greek. In addition, the KJV has its own built-in dictionary. And yes, you are correct, the KJV is more conducive to memorization (the cadence and syllabification, etc). Too many new Christians are unaware of the many benefits of reading from the KJV.

It's nothing but a smoke screen to bring in the sales when claims are made by the Bible makers that the KJV is harder to read from. Readability tests demonstrate otherwise. I doubt a child will understand what a "habitation" (new version) is, but the same child will more than likely know what a "house" is (KJV).

In my opinion, new versions are largely commercial enterprises. This has certain accompanying evils.

That being said, I believe Christians should be praying for a worthy successor to the KJV that is just as inspired. A worthy successor will not come forth if it it not brought forth by prayer. The KJV came forth only because of prayer. Too many Christians are not mindful of this. However, this will require translators and makers that will bow the knee to the Holy Spirit and not to copyright law. Accurate Bible translation is not just an academic exercise; it is a spiritual work requiring Spirit-led translators.

 

[Lady Bug]

I don't think the KJV is that hard to understand lol

 

[brinny]

I don't think the KJV is that hard to understand lol

i agree.

 

[Lady Bug]

i agree.

the only part that's a little hard is the Pauline epistles for some reason...I don't know why...lol.

 

[brinny]

the only part that's a little hard is the Pauline epistles for some reason...I don't know why...lol.

i agree, but like you said, they're not that hard to understand.

 

[SistrNChrist]

I don't think the KJV is that hard to understand lol

Depends, because some people might have a hard time with the Old English style of the KJV. I personally can understand it, because I've read a lot of Shakespeare, which was written around the time that the KJV came out, but I get that some people have an easier time understanding NKJV/NIV translations.

 

[AACJ]

I don't think the KJV is that hard to understand lol

As I understand it, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator has the kjv as more readable than many of the popular English versions.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

In my opinion the KJV is the best English translation.
Wow this thread has been going on over a decade.

 

[brinny]

Wait! You're one! Why don't you say so???

LOL!

 

[Pioneer3mm]

There are still some kjv defenders...
- Who declare that kjv is the only Bible
Christians should use!!

 

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

I hold to the view that the KJV is the best Bible and that God has used it to the saving of millions over the past 408 years. Yet, I find myself accused of being a cultist. I once was a Mormon, so I know what a cultist is. Holding to the KJB does not make one a cultist.

 

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

In my opinion the KJV is the best English translation.
Wow this thread has been going on over a decade.

I have asked the powers to be to give us our own group where we can be free with the inane arguments and simply post using a single Bible and not worry about threads become a Babylonian tongues confusion. I loathe hearing how one Bible has it right and the KJB is inherently corrupt.

 

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

Depends, because some people might have a hard time with the Old English style of the KJV. I personally can understand it, because I've read a lot of Shakespeare, which was written around the time that the KJV came out, but I get that some people have an easier time understanding NKJV/NIV translations.

Exactly! You don't hear about the multitudes clamoring for Shakespeare to be rewritten in easier language. I find it funny that the newer translations also have 'archaic' language in them but no one seems to mind that.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

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.

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.

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:

Wow a lot of needed information. The Bible is the way to go for clarity about beliefs, but it's more complicated then I thought. What I had in mind was literal versus contextual, for example I've been mainly using NASB online and the only Bible offline is NKJV Gideon New Testament.

Acts 8:37 NIV;KJV - - Bible Gateway
Acts 12:4 NASB;KJV - When he had seized him, he put him in - Bible Gateway

Couple examples from the quoted posts and video. First time seeing a verse omitted at the site (mentions in footnotes). And also surprise to see Easter in the Bible, the video said it's a different context used than elsewhere for Passover. What exactly is the meaning of Easter in KJV Acts 8:37, another context for Passover or another holy day like the Easter that's celebrated today?

 

[BaptistBibleBeliever]

Easter means Easter, the pagan holiday of the Caesars.

 

[Hieronymus]

...but I'm just asking KJV defenders to introduce themselves to me. I have posted on other KJV threads and they seem to have gone inactive..at least for the time being...

Maybe they learned their translation worshipping is a bit silly.

 

[obadiahorthodox]

As for my position, I am most definitely not KJV-only. I am ESVO, I believe that the 2001 English Standard Version is the only true and specially inspired Bible.

(...that wasn't a very subtle debate-starter, was it?)

Ha Ha Ha, I own a 1764 Scottish KJV Bible and I believe (snark) THAT is the Only True KJV all others are heretical

 

[AV1611VET]

the only part that's a little hard is the Pauline epistles for some reason...I don't know why...lol.

Don't feel bad.

Even Peter found some of Paul's writings hard.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

I'm a KJV defender. Being also Messianic, I believe LORD should be Yahweh, Lord should be Adonai, Jesus, Yeshua, but other than that the KJV is by far the most accurate from the textus receptus.
All these so called "older" manuscripts are only older because they were discovered on a back shelf in the vatican library, being shoved back there because they were UNIMPORTANT and therefore unused. Another scroll was found in a trash can at St Catherines monastery to be burned, again, because they were not important.
Only reason the textus receptus manuscripts are newer is because they were actually being used and worn out, so had to be copied over and over by scribes.
Besides that, as it's probably been mentioned somewhere on here, very important verses or portions of verses are missing in all modern translations like the NIV, NASB, TLB, NLT, etc. Even NKJV has a few things off.
1 John 5:7 is missing from other translations. It removes the best reference to the trinity.
"Through His blood" is removed from Colossians 1:14
KJV: "in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
NIV: "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
NASB: "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
AMP: "in whom we have redemption [because of His sacrifice, resulting in] the forgiveness of our sins [and the cancellation of sins’ penalty.

As for reading the old English, it ain't even old. I can fairly read middle English from like 1175 - 1300s AD with extinct letters like, thorn, esh, yogh, etc.

John Wycliffe:
"Ffro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to Crist Ihū/ were seuene hundrid ȝeer/ and fro Crist til now/[xxxi] þrittene hundrid ȝeer and sixe & fyfty/ so þat þere ben to come of our abece but foure & fourty ȝeer/"

 

[65James]

I'm a KJV defender. Being also Messianic, I believe LORD should be Yahweh, Lord should be Adonai, Jesus, Yeshua, but other than that the KJV is by far the most accurate from the textus receptus.
All these so called "older" manuscripts are only older because they were discovered on a back shelf in the vatican library, being shoved back there because they were UNIMPORTANT and therefore unused. Another scroll was found in a trash can at St Catherines monastery to be burned, again, because they were not important.
Only reason the textus receptus manuscripts are newer is because they were actually being used and worn out, so had to be copied over and over by scribes.
Besides that, as it's probably been mentioned somewhere on here, very important verses or portions of verses are missing in all modern translations like the NIV, NASB, TLB, NLT, etc. Even NKJV has a few things off.
1 John 5:7 is missing from other translations. It removes the best reference to the trinity.
"Through His blood" is removed from Colossians 1:14
KJV: "in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"
NIV: "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
NASB: "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
AMP: "in whom we have redemption [because of His sacrifice, resulting in] the forgiveness of our sins [and the cancellation of sins’ penalty.

As for reading the old English, it ain't even old. I can fairly read middle English from like 1175 - 1300s AD with extinct letters like, thorn, esh, yogh, etc.

John Wycliffe:
"Ffro þe bygynnynge of Latyn lettris to Crist Ihū/ were seuene hundrid ȝeer/ and fro Crist til now/[xxxi] þrittene hundrid ȝeer and sixe & fyfty/ so þat þere ben to come of our abece but foure & fourty ȝeer/"

Happen to be KJV defender also but more of a TRO,
For instance:
And we know that all things work together for the best to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.
Romans 8:28. The Geneva Bible
I like good in the KJV but much prefer the Best.