King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

  • 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.

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
What it comes down to is final authority. Do you have a Bible that is your final authority on all matters? Do you have a Bible that you can read, study and trust every word to be true? If not, then you will become your final authority as you study the Greek and Hebrew and decide for yourself which word and meaning fits best. As for myself, I know how pathetic I am and how I need God's very words to guide me to righteousness. I don't want to change the words of God, just believe and live them.
The teachings of Christ are my final authority. They are contained in manuscripts written many centuries before the KJV existed. So if you’re asking me if I have a single English translated “authoritative” Bible that I consider 100% inerrant from earlier manuscripts, my answer would be no. I do not have a problem reading English translations, I do, but it is ridiculous to assume (out of sheer faith) that everything was copied into the KJV without “any” variances unless investigating it yourself.

I speak English, so I read from English translations. Many English translations are very accurate to the earlier Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The English language has one of the largest vocabularies in the world. This allows for various types of language to be used within translation. However, to say that the KJV is the only one without the possibility of any discrepancy, is downright falsehood. Would God only favor those with an English speaking tongue?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the French speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the German speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Russian speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Arabic speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Spanish speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Mandarin speakers?

You get the point. To say that God made the KJV Bible the only “authoritative” and “perfectly” translated Bible that we should read from, is utter nonsense. Unless of course, you believe that He is favorably biased towards those who only speak the English language. I believe that God loves all, which is why Christ told His disciples to “go into all the world and preach the gospel”.

Nothing about how only English speakers would get the true revelation 1500 years later.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,540
3,503
113
The teachings of Christ are my final authority. They are contained in manuscripts written many centuries before the KJV existed. So if you’re asking me if I have a single English translated “authoritative” Bible that I consider 100% inerrant from earlier manuscripts, my answer would be no. I do not have a problem reading English translations, I do, but it is ridiculous to assume (out of sheer faith) that everything was copied into the KJV without “any” variances unless investigating it yourself.

I speak English, so I read from English translations. Many English translations are very accurate to the earlier Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The English language has one of the largest vocabularies in the world. This allows for various types of language to be used within translation. However, to say that the KJV is the only one without the possibility of any discrepancy, is downright falsehood. Would God only favor those with an English speaking tongue?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the French speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the German speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Russian speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Arabic speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Spanish speakers?

What is the “authoritative” Bible for the Mandarin speakers?

You get the point. To say that God made the KJV Bible the only “authoritative” and “perfectly” translated Bible that we should read from, is utter nonsense. Unless of course, you believe that He is favorably biased towards those who only speak the English language. I believe that God loves all, which is why Christ told His disciples to “go into all the world and preach the gospel”.

Nothing about how only English speakers would get the true revelation 1500 years later.
Has God promised to preserve His pure words for us? Yes. Where are they?

Have you ever heard of the fullness of times? God works in the fullness of time. Why did God wait so long to be made flesh and die on the cross? Because it was in His perfect timing. Why, for thousands of years, did God only choose to communicate to the nation of Israel? Did God not love the rest of the world? If we had the "originals" available to us, what language would they be in? What good would that do for English speakers? French? Spanish? German?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
What it comes down to is final authority. Do you have a Bible that is your final authority on all matters? Do you have a Bible that you can read, study and trust every word to be true? If not, then you will become your final authority as you study the Greek and Hebrew and decide for yourself which word and meaning fits best. As for myself, I know how pathetic I am and how I need God's very words to guide me to righteousness. I don't want to change the words of God, just believe and live them.
You have merely deferred "final authority" to the translators of the KJV, rather than to the Bible itself. The knowledge, tools and sources available today are far better and more numerous than those available in 1611. What you have is a belief that the KJV is correct which you choose to call a certainty. Saying something is reliable and trustworthy doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make less valid the reliance that others place on Scripture. You have lots of rhetoric but little in the way of evidence to support your belief.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
Has God promised to preserve His pure words for us? Yes. Where are they?

Have you ever heard of the fullness of times? God works in the fullness of time. Why did God wait so long to be made flesh and die on the cross? Because it was in His perfect timing. Why, for thousands of years, did God only choose to communicate to the nation of Israel? Did God not love the rest of the world? If we had the "originals" available to us, what language would they be in? What good would that do for English speakers? French? Spanish? German?
God’s words are in manuscripts that precede the KJV by over a millennium. It would make no sense (at least to me) that Jesus would tell His disciples to go into all the world preaching and sharing the gospel, if indeed, the real gospel couldn’t be comprehended until 1500 years later by reading a KJV. Did the disciples use the KJV when spreading God’s words?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
God’s words are in manuscripts that precede the KJV by over a millennium. It would make no sense (at least to me) that Jesus would tell His disciples to go into all the world preaching and sharing the gospel, if indeed, the real gospel couldn’t be comprehended until 1500 years later by reading a KJV. Did the disciples use the KJV when spreading God’s words?
I don't know where John gets that from, the kjv isn't the first and only inerrant bible.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
You have merely deferred "final authority" to the translators of the KJV, rather than to the Bible itself. The knowledge, tools and sources available today are far better and more numerous than those available in 1611. What you have is a belief that the KJV is correct which you choose to call a certainty. Saying something is reliable and trustworthy doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make less valid the reliance that others place on Scripture. You have lots of rhetoric but little in the way of evidence to support your belief.
What are some of the things that lead you to believe the KJV isn't inspired?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Im going to the beach at Destin Florida, it's on the Gulf of Mexico.
Wow, I watched youtube about it and it looks amazing! Enjoy. Sadly, we do not have anything like this near to where I live :)

I am probably going to Riesachwasserfall, Dachstein and Hallstatt in Austrian Alps in August. It will be more about hiking.
 
Last edited:

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
What are some of the things that lead you to believe the KJV isn't inspired?

KJV1611, I have to get ready for work, but just wanted to say that if you ever decide that you may want to actively scrutinize the KJV a little more, instead of taking for granted every single passage, you may want to get a parallel Bible. Mine has the KJV and three others lined up side by side. If you find a significant discrepancy within a verse, you can always look it up in from an interlinear source like what was posted in #1479. Just something to consider.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
KJV1611, I have to get ready for work, but just wanted to say that if you ever decide that you may want to actively scrutinize the KJV a little more, instead of taking for granted every single passage, you may want to get a parallel Bible. Mine has the KJV and three others lined up side by side. If you find a significant discrepancy within a verse, you can always look it up in from an interlinear source like what was posted in #1479. Just something to consider.
The problem with the interlinear source posted in #1479 is that it presents Scrivener's textus receptus as the basic Greek text.

Scrivener took the KJV and made the Textus Receptus to say what the KJV says, so he simply reconstructed the Greek according to the KJV, which is nonsense and therefore the comparison of the two will not be effective.
 
G

grif101

Guest
I watched a video recently that changed my mind on the type of Bible I should keep as the over-riding bible authority. I have an NIV, ESV, Gideon's new testament, NKJV, KJV and am picking up a n Amplified Holy Bible tomorrow. I will probably use one of the most accurate to the King James, for quick reading, but highlight thereof area's and swap back to KJV. But will try to stick with the old English in the KJV until I get confused.

I watched Pastor Steven L Anderson's, New World Order movie. Just under 2 hours long, very interesting. Puts potentially the NIV, ESV, NKJV and more to shame, depending on version's and errors of course.

So, (1) Have you watched the video? If not,
watch it first, please.

(1b) Did the video change your mind?

(2) What Bible do you support?

(3) Why do you support it?

At the bottom of your post, please put final Bible choice in caps, alone, so it can be seen as a tally. Thanks.

KJV
I respectfully decline to watch the video. Thank you, though. I'm just leery of anything called "New World." New World Order......nah.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
The problem with the interlinear source posted in #1479 is that it presents Scrivener's textus receptus as the basic Greek text.

Scrivener took the KJV and made the Textus Receptus to say what the KJV says, so he simply reconstructed the Greek according to the KJV, which is nonsense and therefore the comparison of the two will not be effective.
Yes, but that’s the only manuscript that he would currently view to be authentic as of now. So by seeing an error from the Textus Receptus into the King James, it may be more effective than from another manuscript that he wouldn’t consider authentic. I already posted one such discrepancy on page 73 Post# 1450.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
How can you prove that for example Micah is fully inspired in the KJV?
Our first assumption on any scripture should be that it's inspired and inerrant because we have no biblical reason to assume otherwise. If however, we find contradictions in a particular translation then we can rule inspiriation out because God inspired scripture will never be in error nor contradiction.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Our first assumption on any scripture should be that it's inspired and inerrant because we have no biblical reason to assume otherwise. If however, we find contradictions in a particular translation then we can rule inspiriation out because God inspired scripture will never be in error nor contradiction.
Well, you know my reasons for saying that the Hebrew massoretic text is not authentic.

So in this light, how can you prove the translation from it is inerrant?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Yes, but that’s the only manuscript that he would currently view to be authentic as of now. So by seeing an error from the Textus Receptus into the King James, it may be more effective than from another manuscript that he wouldn’t consider authentic. I already posted one such discrepancy on page 73 Post# 1450.
This is the post you are talking about.

For instance, the KJV translates Exodus 25:31 with the masculine “his” shaft, and “his” branches, “his” bowls, “his” knops, and “his” flowers.

This is a problem for me since it appears that the Hebrew actually contains the feminine “ah” sounding suffix associated with the nouns. It would seem to me that it should actually read “her” shaft, and “her” branches, “her” bowls, “her” knops, and “her” flowers.
I checked several other translations and none of them translates as her. And with all due respect, this is exactly why I hate to see people do what you did with that verse. That candlestick is a veiled reference to Christ the Word of God. Someone or something inspired the KJV translators to use "his" rather "its" wouldn't you agree? Every other translation that I looked at says "it's". If you can see that the candlestick is a veiled reference to Christ the Word of God, doesn't it makes sense to say "His shaft", "His bowls" and "His bowls" instead of "her's" or "it's"?

So either the KJV translators recognized this OR they were led by the Holy Spirit to use those words.