Why the King James Bible

[p_rehbein]

1st Timothy 6:1) Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 .) And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 .) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 .) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 .) Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 .) But godliness with contentment is great gain.

with regards to vs. 4, I would say that we who are discussing here are not ones described in vs. 5........just saying context is everything sometimes.....this will show itself in the passages from 2nd Timothy.

2nd Timothy 2:10) Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
11 .) It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 .) If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13 .) If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
14 .) Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 .) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 .) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 .) And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 .) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Again, vs. 14 (in red) doesn't really apply here simply because we are not "striving about words to no profit....." and, again the following verse ( 15 ) says to STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPROVED.

If we don't discuss/debate His Word, how do we study? Quietly alone somewhere in a corner? Well, that may be ok for some..........and, honestly, I do that sometimes, but I have found that fellowshipping in the study of God's Word with other believers can be very rewarding................."sharpening steel"

just my thoughts, others might disagree.......

 

[thecreationtutor]

In regards to his spiritual wellbeing the Bible is the most important thing for a Christian to own. It is central to his faith and without it he has no means of defining it. In the Bible are the teachings and sayings of prophets, apostles, disciples, and kings speaking by inspiration of God. The Bible contains the written scriptures which is the word of God. As it says in John 10:34-35:

‘34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;’

Here we see that the written law penned by the hands of scribes in a material document is referred to by Jesus himself as the word of God. Interesting to note is the fact that 1Peter 1:25 says that: ‘… the word of the Lord endureth for ever…’ And so those documents which were originally penned by these scribes (though the originals are now lost yet have been transcribed and transmitted to our generation) are to be described as the forever enduring word of God. But what does it mean that the word of the Lord endures forever? Could errors and mistakes have taken place in the word of God over the years either by design or by blunders? It is to be noted and assuredly agreed upon by the reader that it is none other then the divine author of this word who had this intention of preserving it. If this is hence agreed upon then it should further be acknowledged that it is by his power that this word has been preserved. So now is the divine author and preserver of his word also the underlying author of these blunders? Is it not written in 2Timothy 3:16 that: ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God…’ that is God who: ‘…cannot lie…’ (Titus 1:2)? Did the divine and perfect creator of the universe preserve his word with blunders in it? But it will be argued that God is not the author of the blunders but only those places which are properly transcribed. God’s word, it is said, is out there we are just unable to know how to exactly piece it together. It simply exists amongst the various differing manuscripts. But that’s like saying that the entire story of Moby Dick is contained in the Oxford English Dictionary and there’s just no way to know how to piece it together. If a shipwreck were to be discovered where the boat had been torn to pieces by a typhoon would it make any sense to describe the ship as preserved? No, you say? But surely it has been preserved until today amongst the various pieces. When one describes a beautiful antique painting as having been preserved do they not mean that the painting has been preserved in one piece without defect? Surely when God inspired Peter to write those words telling us that his word would endure forever he meant it would endure in one piece. And so it is contended that it is rather the doctrines which have been preserved. Yet it says that the “word” would endure forever and the word “doctrine” is not a synonym for the word “word”. Okay they shall say but perhaps it is here referring to the general message and not the specific words contained therein. Yet is this a satisfactory fulfillment of this great prophecy? We have already shown by the very words of our Lord and Saviour that the written word is the word of God. That is a written material document is called the word of God and it is the word contained in this document that endures forever. One will ask “But why is all this even important?” But is not this very question sacrilege? That is to suggest by asking the question that such an issue is not important? Did God inspire the words of this prophecy for nothing? Is this a passage of the Bible that we are to pass over as trivial? God went out of his way to tell us something and it is rude to ignore someone when they are trying to tell you something, not the very least of all when it is the divine creator of the universe who is telling it. So then why is it important? It is important that Gods word has been preserved because it is our spiritual sustenance. That is every word of it for it is written that:

‘…man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.’ (Deuteronomy 8:3)

And again in 2Timothy 3:16-17:


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All scripture, every word of it, is given by inspiration of God and is all profitable for our spiritual sustenance even such verses as Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Mark 9:44, Mark 11:26, Acts 8:37, and especially 1John 5:7 (being removed and verse 8 split into two verses) which teaches the trinity. This verse is most certainly profitable for doctrine. These are some of the verses missing from the NIV and other translations. Not only are verses missing from the modern versions but very many words and phrases within the verses as well. How is it possible for some people to say that no doctrine is affected by these changes when it tells us here quite clearly that, ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,…’? Certainly the doctrines in those verses which have been removed have been affected. Ask yourself does the devil have motive? Does he stand to gain from diluting the scriptures? It says in Ephesians 6:12:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Our battle is not against men but against spirits and against the devil. It further tells us in verse 17 to take, ‘…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:’ The word of God is the sword with which we fight the principalities surely Satan has taken great pains to sabotage our weaponry dulling the blade so as to nullify its impact. When going into battle a soldier wants a sharp sword so that he can strike at his foes and withdraw it swiftly so as to efficiently strike at another. And so it has been demonstrated that the value of an accurate and preserved Bible is in the spiritual sustenance it provides as well as in the power it has against our spiritual adversaries. I Hold that the Gods word has been preserved for us in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old-Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New-Testament and translated accurately into the English tongue in the King James Bible. So why English and what proof is there that the inerrant word of God is contained within the pages of the King James Bible?
The Proof is found in the underlying manuscripts. The copies of the Masoretic texts underlying the Old-Testament are in astonishing agreement and the Textus-Receptus or Received-Text underlying the King James New Testament is in accord with the majority reading of the some 5000 manuscripts that exist today. Majority reading equals probable reading since if there are any mistakes made by the copyists those same places will be accounted for by the many other copies. The New Testament of the modern versions on the other hand are based primarily on two manuscripts called ‘Vaticanus’ and ‘Siniaticus’ Sainai. These two documents disagree with each-other in many places so the translators have to guess based on which reading they think is probable. It is clear then that if there is a preserved word it cannot be based on these two manuscripts leaving us by default with the Textus-Receptus underlying the King James Bible. So why would God choose the English language to preserve his word. First of all I would like to say that there are some good translations in other languages. But overall the English King James translation is the standard. The reason God chose English is because it is the most well-known and universal language in the world. It is therefore logical to choose this language. The second most well-known language in the world is Spanish there are two good translations in this language, the 1865 edition of the Reina Valera and the Reina Valera Gomez. (These are not to be confused with the other corrupted Spanish versions that bear the same name). So then can we say with confidence that that every word phrase or verse in the Bible we are reading is the inspired word of God? Or are do we have doubts as to whether certain words and phrases are inspired? If we take this attitude then how can we be sure that any particular passage we are reading is inspired of God and thereby profitable? Let’s not doubt God’s word or his promise to preserve it. Let us trust that God has been faithful to hand down to us an accurate and inerrant copy of his inspired words of his instructions and promises for our benefit to help us navigate through the journey of our uncertain lives until the glorious day of our Lords return.

Is the Holy Spirit real? Does He not enlighten the eyes of the believer? Do the words of scripture have magical powers, no - it's revelation of the Holy Spirit. Is this not the reason for the gifts of the Spirit, to confirm the Word of the Lord? Does God work through a donkey? Will God use the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, hebrew, Greek, to do His work? You may not take it this way, but is this not what man's tradition does? Is the kingdom of God more than translations, especially when tribes of every tongue and nation will come to Him?

You say God chose the English language - but in Genesis it says that man with all the same language is a bad thing, and at the end all will be of one language - I don't think that's a good arguement

 

[RedTent]

When God sees all of us, the ones who belong to Him, God sees the love and kindness we have for each other. The bible translators are Christians who are doing their best to bridge the gap between our earthly world and the spiritual world.

The group of people who are the most judgmental, the least kind, are the KJV only people. You could not put these people in a small group of Christians and have them express love and kindness to others in the church if others read other translations.

God tells us we may judge sin, and their lack of love expressed is sinful. It is not, however, sinful to read the NIV or any other version.

 

[Andrew1]

Is the Holy Spirit real? Does He not enlighten the eyes of the believer? Do the words of scripture have magical powers, no - it's revelation of the Holy Spirit. Is this not the reason for the gifts of the Spirit, to confirm the Word of the Lord? Does God work through a donkey? Will God use the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, hebrew, Greek, to do His work? You may not take it this way, but is this not what man's tradition does? Is the kingdom of God more than translations, especially when tribes of every tongue and nation will come to Him?

You say God chose the English language - but in Genesis it says that man with all the same language is a bad thing, and at the end all will be of one language - I don't think that's a good arguement

Of course the Holy Spirit is real and he will confirm if a particular translation is inaccurate. For example the NIV says in Micah 5:2:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[SUP][b][/SUP] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

The Holy Spirit confirms to me that it is inaccurate to say that Jesus has origins and that he comes from ancient times. The King James says:

'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

The Holy Spirit confirms to me that this is accurate, Jesus has no beginning he went forth from the Father and was with the Father from everlasting proving that he is God. So yes the Holy spirit confirms the word of the Lord. And sure God can and has used the other translations of the Bible but it stands to reason that you are better equipped to wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high places and to be spiritually nourished if you have an accurate translation of the Bible than you would be with an inaccurate translation of the Bible. And a universal language in and of itself is not a bad thing unless the people are wicked, and yes the people are wicked, but that does not mean there is anything wrong with God taking advantage of that universal language.

 

[Andrew1]

When God sees all of us, the ones who belong to Him, God sees the love and kindness we have for each other. The bible translators are Christians who are doing their best to bridge the gap between our earthly world and the spiritual world.

The group of people who are the most judgmental, the least kind, are the KJV only people. You could not put these people in a small group of Christians and have them express love and kindness to others in the church if others read other translations.

God tells us we may judge sin, and their lack of love expressed is sinful. It is not, however, sinful to read the NIV or any other version.

To this I would like to say that I am very pleased that so far in this thread I have only received one adhominem attack. To attack the Character of people who hold a position proves nothing. It's also a generalization that cannot be possible of All KJV advocates. I don't think if you met me personally that you would describe me as unloving. Most of the Christians I know don't hold to the inerrancy of the KJV and I get along with them just fine. I think the notion that KJV advocates are unloving originate from adhominem attacks such as the one presented here. Anyway God bless you.

 

[notconformed2theworld]

Cuz its the only English bible not watered down...

 

[LT]

Of course the Holy Spirit is real and he will confirm if a particular translation is inaccurate. For example the NIV says in Micah 5:2:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[SUP][b][/SUP] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,from ancient times.”

The Holy Spirit confirms to me that it is inaccurate to say that Jesus has origins and that he comes from ancient times. The King James says:

'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

The Holy Spirit confirms to me that this is accurate, Jesus has no beginning he went forth from the Father and was with the Father from everlasting proving that he is God. So yes the Holy spirit confirms the word of the Lord. And sure God can and has used the other translations of the Bible but it stands to reason that you are better equipped to wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high places and to be spiritually nourished if you have an accurate translation of the Bible than you would be with an inaccurate translation of the Bible. And a universal language in and of itself is not a bad thing unless the people are wicked, and yes the people are wicked, but that does not mean there is anything wrong with God taking advantage of that universal language.

I agree that the KJV does a great job of wording this verse in a way that makes it hard to misquote. The NIV does a great job translating it as well. This passage means the exact same thing in both versions. Neither are corrupt.

The same root words are used in Textus Receptus as in Nestle Aland and Westcott Hort for this passage, so this is not a section that was "Vaticanized" by manuscripts.
"whose goings forth"/"whose origins" is found as 4163 in Strong's. It means the place from which one is sent out, the act of going out, the source of an action, a well-spring. The basic idea is presented in both statements. Also, you are stating that "origins" means place of creation, but it means "from where one arose". I think both of these translations could be better clarified for this word.

"from ancient times" vs "from everlasting" is 5769. it means long duration, antiquity, or futurity. Of "ancient times" is actually a more literal interpretation of the Hebrew, where "everlasting" is the obvious intent.

Both passages are stating that the messiah(Jesus) was already in existence before his birth. Both are in agreement, and do not contradict.

 

[RedTent]

To this I would like to say that I am very pleased that so far in this thread I have only received one adhominem attack. To attack the Character of people who hold a position proves nothing. It's also a generalization that cannot be possible of All KJV advocates. I don't think if you met me personally that you would describe me as unloving. Most of the Christians I know don't hold to the inerrancy of the KJV and I get along with them just fine. I think the notion that KJV advocates are unloving originate from adhominem attacks such as the one presented here. Anyway God bless you.

You are right!! I stand corrected. I am talking about people who judge others based on the bible they read, and I wrongly said all KJV people do that. Thank you.

 

[Andrew1]

I agree that the KJV does a great job of wording this verse in a way that makes it hard to misquote. The NIV does a great job translating it as well. This passage means the exact same thing in both versions. Neither are corrupt.

The same root words are used in Textus Receptus as in Nestle Aland and Westcott Hort for this passage, so this is not a section that was "Vaticanized" by manuscripts.
"whose goings forth"/"whose origins" is found as 4163 in Strong's. It means the place from which one is sent out, the act of going out, the source of an action, a well-spring. The basic idea is presented in both statements. Also, you are stating that "origins" means place of creation, but it means "from where one arose". I think both of these translations could be better clarified for this word.

"from ancient times" vs "from everlasting" is 5769. it means long duration, antiquity, or futurity. Of "ancient times" is actually a more literal interpretation of the Hebrew, where "everlasting" is the obvious intent.

Both passages are stating that the messiah(Jesus) was already in existence before his birth. Both are in agreement, and do not contradict.

In this passage in the NIV where it says 'origin' it very much appears to be saying that Jesus has a beginning the notion is reinforced by the phrase 'ancient times'. I am glad that in spite of this you've managed to interpret the passage correctly others may attempt to use this as evidence that Jesus is not God. It's all a matter of whether you want a sharp sword or a dull sword.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

God tells us we may judge sin, and their lack of love expressed is sinful. It is not, however, sinful to read the NIV or any other version.

[video=youtube;v1_FEvou5Io]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_FEvou5Io[/video]​

 

[thecreationtutor]

Of course the Holy Spirit is real and he will confirm if a particular translation is inaccurate. For example the NIV says in Micah 5:2:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[SUP][b][/SUP] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,from ancient times.”

The Holy Spirit confirms to me that it is inaccurate to say that Jesus has origins and that he comes from ancient times. The King James says:

'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

The Holy Spirit confirms to me that this is accurate, Jesus has no beginning he went forth from the Father and was with the Father from everlasting proving that he is God. So yes the Holy spirit confirms the word of the Lord. And sure God can and has used the other translations of the Bible but it stands to reason that you are better equipped to wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high places and to be spiritually nourished if you have an accurate translation of the Bible than you would be with an inaccurate translation of the Bible. And a universal language in and of itself is not a bad thing unless the people are wicked, and yes the people are wicked, but that does not mean there is anything wrong with God taking advantage of that universal language.

completely missed the point

 

[JaumeJ]

Yeshua is the Alef and the Tav. Using the Greek name transliteration, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the beginning and the end, and everything in between. He is Eternal.

If you have not read Who He is in Isaiah 9, read it. If you do not remember it, reread it. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One.

If you question the Word, Which is Yeshua, you are not believing anything of Him that is written, and you are putting yourself up to be a judge, and not a judge of just anything, a judge of Yahweh. Think before posting.

 

[Brother_Don]

i like the way the KJV talks about our Father, it gives Him the respect He deserves, with its wording.

 

[Praus]

Cuz its the only English bible not watered down...

I'm confused. In which verses is the 1599 Geneva Bible "watered down" compared to the 1611 KJV?

 

[Andrew1]

[video=youtube;v1_FEvou5Io]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_FEvou5Io[/video]
​

As to whether it's a sin to use the modern versions to me that's like asking is it a sin to punch yourself in the face or to eat a bowl of tacks. The question then is, Is it healthy or in your self interest to eat a bowl of tacks? I would say that yes it's probably wrong to eat a bowl of tacks. I'm pretty sure that God would not approve but that's because he loves us and doesn't want us to be harmed. My objective here is to inform Christians that their spiritual food and weaponry has been tampered with. Yes it is a sin for them not to listen but I don't despise them for it. Not that I'm saying that anybody does. But I suppose I'm more concerned with trying to show Christians that they can have far more spiritual strength if they have a Bible they can believe in and has no errors, rather than one that they believe has errors in it. I think the greater sin and condemnation falls on those who are pedaling these false Bibles and profiting from them and especially the ones who are aware of what they are doing. I guess I do essentially agree with this video, but I think it left out the point I just made.

 

[Andrew1]

As to whether it's a sin to use the modern versions to me that's like asking is it a sin to punch yourself in the face or to eat a bowl of tacks. The question then is, Is it healthy or in your self interest to eat a bowl of tacks? I would say that yes it's probably wrong to eat a bowl of tacks. I'm pretty sure that God would not approve but that's because he loves us and doesn't want us to be harmed. My objective here is to inform Christians that their spiritual food and weaponry has been tampered with. Yes it is a sin for them not to listen but I don't despise them for it. Not that I'm saying that anybody does. But I suppose I'm more concerned with trying to show Christians that they can have far more spiritual strength if they have a Bible they can believe in and has no errors, rather than one that they believe has errors in it. I think the greater sin and condemnation falls on those who are pedaling these false Bibles and profiting from them and especially the ones who are aware of what they are doing. I guess I do essentially agree with this video, but I think it left out the point I just made.

I would like to add that I my self for a time was adamantly resistant to the innerrancy of the King James Bible so I can at understand the state of mind of the opposing side I was there.

 

[JaumeJ]

How did it ever occur to anyone to name any version of the written Word inerrant when the Word, Itself, states the written word is dead without the Holy Spirit giving understanding?

Personally, it happens I do read the KJV usually, but it is by no means inerrant as some must be saying.

If Yahweh wants a person to know something, believe me, He will teach that person by His Holy Spirit. There is no other manner for any believer to learn the wisdom that is imparted by the Word. Sometimes I actually read the Word in other languages, but the Holy Spirit always teaches the same.

 

[Andrew1]

How did it ever occur to anyone to name any version of the written Word inerrant when the Word, Itself, states the written word is dead without the Holy Spirit giving understanding?

Personally, it happens I do read the KJV usually, but it is by no means inerrant as some must be saying.

If Yahweh wants a person to know something, believe me, He will teach that person by His Holy Spirit. There is no other manner for any believer to learn the wisdom that is imparted by the Word. Sometimes I actually read the Word in other languages, but the Holy Spirit always teaches the same.

I'm not exactly sure what verse you are referring to, please quote. Where does it say that the written word is dead?

Heb 4:12 'For the word of God is quick,...' ie alive '...and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' (Hebrews 4:12)

I agree that it is the Holy Spirit that gives us understanding but that is through the inerrant word. So anyway:

'34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;' (John 10:34-35)

We see here the written word referred to as the word of God and scripture.

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God,...' (2Timothy 3:16

Here it must be inferred that the written scriptures were given by inspiration of God.

'In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;'

Here we must infer that there can be no errors in the written scriptures because God cannot lie. So if there are errors those errors are not scripture and hold no authority.

 

[Agricola]

I still have no idea why the Cult of King James only imply that these verses are considered evil translations made by Satan. Direct from the cults website

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!


Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

 

[nathan3]

I still have no idea why the Cult of King James -

? How is using a Bible translation that's been around since the 16oo's and newer translations work from also, how is that considered a cult ? A bible translation that people have learned God's words from for many years a cult ? That makes no logical sense to me.

I could care less what translation people use as long as they occasionally study into the Greek and Hebrew it was taken from.

So how is using any translation , considered being part of a cult ?