Is KJV the only real bible version?
- Thread starter beeskillet
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
No english version is the inspired word of God. You must go to the manuscripts for that. The 1611 translators were not christians well most were not, they were educated in Hebrew and Greek. They had to invent the word baptism as it did not exist in the english ( as well as other words) and some minor mistakes were made (such as the word corn they did not grow corn but wheat or barley but it is still a grain) . with that said modern translations must change the meaning of the text or else it is plagiarism. So the closest thing we have is the King James version.
U
The nature of the KJV-only argument is supposed to leave no room for your position.
According to their understanding of their own argument, to accept any other English version as legitimate is to deny the inerrancy of the KJV, therefore denying the inerrant power of the Word of God.
I love the KJV for my personal reading,
but to avoid confusing new believers, I teach out of the ESV with interlinear notes to the KJV.
I have seen to many preachers accidentally (or intentionally) misleading folks by misunderstanding or not clarifying the unclear wording of the KJV.
Yes... the KJV has unclear wording... unlike the Koine manuscripts.
It is nice to read the simple versions too, like the New Century Version, to be reminded of the simplicity of Koine Greek, and the simplicity of the Gospel.
According to their understanding of their own argument, to accept any other English version as legitimate is to deny the inerrancy of the KJV, therefore denying the inerrant power of the Word of God.
I love the KJV for my personal reading,
but to avoid confusing new believers, I teach out of the ESV with interlinear notes to the KJV.
I have seen to many preachers accidentally (or intentionally) misleading folks by misunderstanding or not clarifying the unclear wording of the KJV.
Yes... the KJV has unclear wording... unlike the Koine manuscripts.
It is nice to read the simple versions too, like the New Century Version, to be reminded of the simplicity of Koine Greek, and the simplicity of the Gospel.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand the confusion of the KJV issue... most people don't know what the word of God is. Its not the words that are written down on papyrus or paper, although those written words do have to be the right words so that the believer can understand Gods word, the word of God is the idea behind the written words.
Th KJV is not a direct translation of the "original manuscripts", many things were changed to bring better understanding of the word of God.
Th KJV is not a direct translation of the "original manuscripts", many things were changed to bring better understanding of the word of God.
KJV is rife with errors. It is translated from much later manuscripts, which have both copyist errors and embellishments by scribes. The only reason the so-called "majority" text, or Textus Receptus has more texts, is because Greek stayed a spoken language much longer in Greece and the Byzantium Empire, leaving more time for more erroneous texts to accumulate.
In manuscript translation, the copies that are closest to the time they written are the most accurate. Hence, the KJV uses the more inaccurate manuscripts, to say nothing of the fact that it was based on Erasmus' version of the Bible, which he had to submit to the Roman Catholic church, who made him change things to be in line with the Latin Vulgate, a notoriously bad translation by Jerome, who did not have a good grasp of either Greek or Hebrew.
I think any version which follows the original languages more or less, has the ability to lead people to Christ, and impart good doctrine. I've read almost all the English versions, except KJV which I can't get through because of the archaic language and convoluted grammar.
My recommendations would be ESV or HCSB. Or any version which you can understand well.
In manuscript translation, the copies that are closest to the time they written are the most accurate. Hence, the KJV uses the more inaccurate manuscripts, to say nothing of the fact that it was based on Erasmus' version of the Bible, which he had to submit to the Roman Catholic church, who made him change things to be in line with the Latin Vulgate, a notoriously bad translation by Jerome, who did not have a good grasp of either Greek or Hebrew.
I think any version which follows the original languages more or less, has the ability to lead people to Christ, and impart good doctrine. I've read almost all the English versions, except KJV which I can't get through because of the archaic language and convoluted grammar.
My recommendations would be ESV or HCSB. Or any version which you can understand well.
U
That is likely where you and I would clash. Although I enjoy the additions to Scripture that are implemented in the KJV,
such as 1 John 5:7,
I hold those passages in the same light that I would many a quote from Spurgeon:
I agree wholeheartedly, and hold to it as Truth, but understand that it is not direct revelation, but indirect revelation.
Both the direct and indirect are accepted as Truth by the Spirit within me, but not at the same level of necessity.
such as 1 John 5:7,
I hold those passages in the same light that I would many a quote from Spurgeon:
I agree wholeheartedly, and hold to it as Truth, but understand that it is not direct revelation, but indirect revelation.
Both the direct and indirect are accepted as Truth by the Spirit within me, but not at the same level of necessity.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just curious to know why you guys that think the inerrant word of God doesn't exist today, why do you think that is.
Is God not capable of maintaining it?
Is God not capable of crossing language barriers?
Or does God just not want people today to have the inerrant word?
I'm not being a smarty nor being snide, but honestly how do you guys answer those questions.
Is God not capable of maintaining it?
Is God not capable of crossing language barriers?
Or does God just not want people today to have the inerrant word?
I'm not being a smarty nor being snide, but honestly how do you guys answer those questions.
U
I suppose it would be people not accepting "Shakespearean English" as the same language as modern English, and then expecting God to be capable of maintaining His inerrant Word in the modern English language.
Me and you have the benefit of understanding the language of the KJV, through use and training,
but not all have such an advantage,
or perhaps not the mental capacity to learn a new (old form) language quickly or efficiently.
It is true that with effort, any can come to understand it,
but simplicity has it's virtues also. (Which is why the originals were in Koine Greek rather than High Greek)
Me and you have the benefit of understanding the language of the KJV, through use and training,
but not all have such an advantage,
or perhaps not the mental capacity to learn a new (old form) language quickly or efficiently.
It is true that with effort, any can come to understand it,
but simplicity has it's virtues also. (Which is why the originals were in Koine Greek rather than High Greek)
Last edited by a moderator: