WHY THE KING JAMES VERSION?

ozell · Sep 4, 2012

With all the different Bible translations we have floating around, it seems a hard task to choose the most accurate one.

You might even question the fact of there being an accurate account of the Bible, aside from the original Hebrew Scrolls.

Much of this confusion has come about because many modern day religious translators have attempted to interpret the Bible, instead of merely translating it. Therefore, when they translate the Bible they add, change or delete certain words to make it confirm to their religious doctrine.

God was aware that this would happen and had John write, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book:

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).

ozell · Sep 4, 2012

When King James had the Bible translated he appointed 54 scholars to do the work instead of religious people.

This made it possible for him to change the form, from Hebrew and Greek to English, without changing the meaning.

In other words he made the Bible say the exact same thing, only in another language. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11).

The Lord knew that his people would not always remain in their own land, speaking Hebrew, so he had Isaiah to prophesy that he would have his word put into oth other languages. Now I ask you, is this too hard for God to do?

chesser · Sep 4, 2012

i belive that literal translations, while confusing are the best(and kjv mentions unicorns, dont use it)

moment_of_faith · Sep 4, 2012

I like the New American Standard or The New Living Translation, but I look at them all when I do not understand something even at the Greek and Hebrew.

ozell · Sep 4, 2012

chesser said:

A unicorn is a one horn rhinoceros

ozell · Sep 4, 2012

God has always worked through men, especially kings, to fulfill his word.

During the days of Ezra he worked through Cyrus, King of Persia, to fulfill his word. "Now in the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it in writing..." (Ezra 1:1).

The Lord worked through Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to such a great extent that he even called Nebuchadnezzar his servant although he was not a true servant of God. (See Jeremiah 27:6).

Therefore, it should not be hard to believe that God would use King James (another Gentile King) to fulfill his word. If God is God who can stop his purpose. Remember, contrary to popular belief, God rules in the Kingdom of men.

ozell · Sep 4, 2012

Nevertheless, under the disguise of making the Bible easier to read and understand many religious groups have come up with error filled revisions of the Bible. Because of the lack of space, I will only point out one of these so-called modern translations.

On page 30 of the April 5, 1987 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times the heading read, "Catholics given revised version of New Testament." The article began, "The Nation's Roman Catholic bishops released today an updated New Testament translation that features some gender-neutral language and modern English usages that make it easier to read aloud in worship services." This is one of many examples that I could give of a religious group changing the Word of God to fit its dogma.

ozell · Sep 5, 2012

he Catholics like other religious groups might have meant well in their attempt to rewrite the scripture but remember what John said in Revelation about adding and taking away from the word.

King James did not have this problem because he chose scholars who did not care about changing the meaning but only changing the tongue. If the word was man in Hebrew they simply made it man in English. They did not assume that a gender-neutral word would be better as the Catholics have done.

DiscipleDave · Sep 5, 2012

Why not the KJV? How many of our Brothers and Sisters have been killed defending it? Look how hard satan has tried to extinguish it, and still to this day has not been able to, even though new version are popping up daily, in these last days.

Please click HERE to see my webpage on this topic

^i^

ozell · Sep 5, 2012

Therefore, God did want the Bible translated but not reworded. You do not have to learn to speak Hebrew to learn the Word of God. In the future God will give the earth a pure language. "...For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent" (Zephaniah 3:8-9).

Nevertheless, until then you can learn the Word of God in whatever language you speak, if you seek it. Paul confirmed this in 1Corinthians 14:21 saying, In the law it is written with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak, unto this people...

ozell · Sep 5, 2012

Only beware of endless translations.

There is even a New King James version which is not accurate.

There might come a time when the King James version written in 1611 becomes obsolete, and that will bring about the spiritual famine that the prophet Amos wrote about "...and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the North even to the East, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it" Amos 8:12.

This to must be fulfilled.

chip · Sep 5, 2012

Ozell, i know you mean well, but there is nothing sacred about the KJV, its English predecessor, The Geneva Bible, was far superior. One of the reasons for the massive amounts of corrections made to the KJV through the 17th and 18th centuries to reach what you have today.

In Bible translation you have Eramus' Vulgate, the western Greek text, the eastern Greek text and the eastern Aramaic text to work from. The Aramaic predates both the Greek and the Latin, however was never considered during the creation of the Vulgate and Constantine sided with the western Greek text over both the eastern Greek and the Aramaic, since he had some political feelings on the matter.

So, if you go KJV, which year or version will you choose? I guarantee it is not the 1611, even though the title page will read 1611. The real 1611 was a disaster and published under his wife, Anne's name, just it case it was a disaster. Do you really want to base your faith on a translation of Erasmus' work and for example the messing around as he did with the book of Mark? I would be cautious to base doctrine on anything Erasmus wrote, but then I also want to smack him when I get to Heaven for misleading the masses as he has.

Also, your usage of the Revelation's quotation this as to do with the document or scroll, not the book The Bible. Nice sentiment but the warning was attached to Revelation for a specific reason.

psychomom · Sep 5, 2012

I found this site helpful. I link to the KJV page simply because this is the version being discussed, but the author has pages about the strengths and weaknesses of about a half dozen different English translations. And, of course, it is possible the author has his own "golden calf" issues, but I did check biblos.com for the original greek he cites and it all panned out as he said.

Until recently, I knew nothing about the war being waged regarding Bible versions..."KJV-only-ers", Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, etc, etc, etc. It's (for me, still) mind boggling! (and as if we believers don't already have things to argue about?)
I understand people want the Word in English to be as pure as possible, and feel strongly about their opinions. I thank God for it!

And though I in no way mean for this as a reflection on any of us here, I do feel a word of caution against making any one translation an idol. All translations, in all languages, are made by bodies of fallible people doing their best, but NOT God, and not perfect.

I had a four hour phone conversation with a Mormon friend many years ago. She was trying to prove her faith is right because they only use the KJV, and the rest of us "Christians" use many different translations. We spent quite a long time comparing her KJV with the 6-odd other versions I had in the house (I do also have a KJV, and I like it). She became frustrated because we couldn't find a different inherent meaning in any of the verses she wanted to look up. I was just sad that she moved to a faith that denies the deity of Christ.

Anyhoo-- FWIW:
King James Version

xino · Sep 5, 2012

KJV sucks! the english is too retarded for me

anyway...with so much lies of these world that I have come to know the truth.
I wouldn't be surprise if KJV is part of the lies

* depicting Jesus as a white man (lies)
*sunday is sabbath (lies)
*water baptism saves (lies)
*jews are white originally (lies)
*receiving holy spirit is only speaking in tongues (lies)
*christening aka baby baptism (lies)

so much lies...what other lies are there!?
as you can see...what majority of 70% follow are based on lies.
so if 70% people follow KJV...why shouldn't I believe KJV is part of a lie!?
now many are saying KJV is the only right bible:/

megaman125 · Sep 5, 2012

KJV has its share of errors as well. There will always be translation issues that occur whenever you translate from one language to another. It's also important to realize the Bible was not originally written in English.

WolfInOxHide · Sep 5, 2012

I think once you understand that all translations are lacking in one way or another, you can use whichever you like.
It just depends on how much work you want to make for yourself in double checking against original languages. Nearly everyone can do this now with the internet. Even that's not necessary if one really wants to know. (faith in "seek and you shall find...")

Having said that, I find that the KJV, Young's literal (because of verb tenses), NETS, and AENT are the least amount of work to dig underneath.
Remember though half of king James’s goal was to create a poetic work, and to have his name stamped on it. The other half of his goal was to conform it to the theology of the government-church.

DiscipleDave · Sep 5, 2012

xino said:

Brother you say the KJV sucks! Have you read it? How many times have you read it to come to the conclusion that you have arrived at? Or did you pick it up a time or two, and thought the English was too retarded for you? when i was a kid, i read it completely 3 times, and yes as you said it was retarded to me as well, this said you can, that said could'nt, this contradicted that, it was confusing. But my desire to learn the Word of God caused me to read it yet another time, It was only on the fourth time reading the entire Bible did God grant me the understanding of it, and that is when the Spirit of God started revealing many things to me. Now that i have read the entire Bible over 80 times now, He is still revealing spiritual things to me. How many times did you read the entire KJV before you claim it is retarded

xino said:

The KJV does not interpret Jesus as a white man

xino said: