Why the king james?

[sparkman]

On my walk today I was talking to God and the subject of the king james only group popped up, now I have read it and while old english gives it a sense of uniqueness I asked God why the king james only group believe their bibles are the only true bible and others arent, then I remembered one of these people telling me it's because the kj is the closest to the original scriptures written I know the OT was in hebrew and I think the NT was in greek but even if the kj is the closest to the original script it still isn't the original is it?

Is there another reason for kj only people to believe their version is the only true word of God? I am just trying to understand the reason behind this

I'd suggest reading the KJV Only Controversy by James White.

I consider the KJV Only position to be juvenile. One only needs to study the academic credentials of the vast majority of those who hold the position. The noisiest ones have no background in original languages, and some of them have no background in theology. Others display weird beliefs in other significant areas.

Watch some of the discussions that James White had with Gail Riplinger on a radio program for a laugh if you want. They are on YouTube. Or, read some on Peter Ruckman, who believes the CIA is operating alien breeding facilities and has implanted brain transmitters in the brains of black people, old people, and the mentally handicapped. Tin foil hat types..it's a laugh.

Kent Hovind, the jail bird, isn't much better. Steven Anderson is another one of those guys..he prayed for all gay people in the USA to drop dead (rather than repent) and also prayed that Obama would die of brain cancer. Talk about juvenile.

Textus Receptus is the underlying Greek text for the KJV. Only a limited number of manuscripts were available to Erasmus and the other contributors. These manuscripts were relatively recent. Relatively recent manuscripts by nature have more copying errors than more ancient manuscripts.

Nestle Aland/USB is the underlying Greek text for modern translations. Much more manuscript evidence of more ancient origin was available for this Greek text. Ancient manuscripts are closer to the originals (autographs) and thus contain fewer copying errors.

I think the big issue relates to tradition, and the conspiracy theory thinking that is common with many immature Christians. KJV Only people are obsessed with this idea that a Satanic plot is under way to corrupt the true teaching of Scripture through modern translations. I have read different versions throughout the 30 years I've been a Christian and I see no substantial diminishment in regards to doctrinal teaching. In fact, modern translations accentuate the deity of Christ due to an understanding of the Granville Sharp construct that the KJV translators did not have.

The conspiracy theory element comes in with regards to claims about the older manuscripts being reflective of the "Alexandrian cult" and the claim that the manuscripts reflected a cultic element that was present in the area where some of the ancient manuscripts were found. As I have said, though, the modifications are pretty insignificant.

There is also a resistance from more charismatic believers due to the "longer ending" of Mark 16 which is not canonical in my opinion, and interjects verses used to support foolishness like drinking poison and snake handling. It is also used to bolster the baptismal regeneration view and tongues as ecstatic speech, so they have a vested interest in maintaining this section of Scripture.

I find it interesting that Muslim apologists LOVE it when Christians show up with their KJVs so that they can take advantage of the issues with it in order to ridicule Christians....and their lack of knowledge concerning textual transmission allows such Christians to be made fools of.

My real aggravation with all of this, though, is that younger seekers are not going to understand the Word of God very well struggling with a 400 year old English translation based on inferior manuscript evidence and archaic language. They really don't need to struggle through all of that. I read the Bible with a dictionary next to me to "translate" the archaic English myself when I was a young believer, due to its archaic language, and I also didn't have the best understanding because meanings of words change over time. For example, the phrase "peculiar people" used in the KJV does not mean "strange people" but it means "specific people". KJVisms have actually caused issues with poor doctrine due to misunderstandings like this.

 

[JaumeJ]

Here is Moses according to the early translations of the KJV:

 

[sparkman]

On my walk today I was talking to God and the subject of the king james only group popped up, now I have read it and while old english gives it a sense of uniqueness I asked God why the king james only group believe their bibles are the only true bible and others arent, then I remembered one of these people telling me it's because the kj is the closest to the original scriptures written I know the OT was in hebrew and I think the NT was in greek but even if the kj is the closest to the original script it still isn't the original is it?

Is there another reason for kj only people to believe their version is the only true word of God? I am just trying to understand the reason behind this

Blain,

Here's a playlist regarding this topic that you might want to listen to. Gail Riplinger and Steven Anderson talk to James White about this topic of KJV Only.

Note that in the Riplinger conversation, she has some weird revelation that the KJV is correct due to some acrostic that God supposedly revealed to her.

Note that in the Steven Anderson video, he claims that God showed him that the NIV was not correct because "my sheep hear my voice" and when he heard it read, he knew instantaneously that it was not the word of God. What does that say about other Christians who recognize it as a legitimate translation? In addition, he claims that you can only be saved through hearing the words regarding salvation if they are from the KJV...he tries to backpedal on that a bit but that's his insinuation:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKnzCuBYVJm5pfbi4xaq1vG5TZdquw5Xy

As I said, these guys don't have adequate credentials in original languages, and the vast majority of scholars don't agree with their opinions. That should tell you something. I don't invest much time arguing with such individuals.

 

[Brother_Don]

Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than 100 new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

 

[tanakh]

thats a good question

Puts me in mind of a new take on an old joke. St Peter was showing new arrivals around Heaven and they come to an area surrounded by a high wall. What happens behind there someone asks. St Peter replies Oh thats where the KJV only Bible Study group takes place. They think they are the only ones here. In case you dont know the original joke names a Denomination behind the wall.

 

[Brother_Don]

"The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (King James Version)
"His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach." (New International Version)
Without question, the N.I.V. reading is clearer. However, which translation represents more accurately the meaning of the Hebrew words in this verse? The truth is that this is a hard verse to read and understand in Hebrew as well as in the King James Version! Any good technical commentary will tell you this. the New International makes it clearer than the original Hebrew! Actually, the N.I.V. interprets for us what the translation committee thinks the passage means, rather than what it says. The King James Version tells us what it says and leaves to us, as much as possible, the business of interpreting what it means. This is an important distinction. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the Priesthood of Believers calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions.

 

[Brother_Don]

For most of our first two hundred years as a nation, the King James Version was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called "modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued to be the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. With the demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without a standard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-third Psalm any more? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The question always arises, "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation's spiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few have understood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed to the decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern for our country' future, if for no other reason! Why should conservative Christians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards that made our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded against change by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"?

 

[posthuman]

If facts can be off then it's not a fact. You're playing with words. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Every word of Scripture must be true because it was given by God.

then what's the deal with semamith? spider or lizard?

i know it's hard for you to accept correction, having been so bold here - but whoever loves correction, loves knowledge, and finds understanding.
if you can show (without relying on "kjv says it ergo it is true") that it is rightly "spider," i'll accept that reproof. but if you ignore the question, what shall i think?




[h=1][/h]

 

[John146]

So the question arises? Do we trust the majority text, the Textus Receptus, or do we trust the minority text, the Alexandrian text out of Egypt?

Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than 100 new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

 

[gb9]

and sometimes, we just like to read modern language. no vast conspiracy theories . just modern language.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

and sometimes, we just like to read modern language. no vast conspiracy theories . just modern language.

yOYoo Ah CoMpleteleEEE agreE. (English to Ghetto Ebonics Translator)

 

[John146]

Modern translations such as the ESV and NIV translate "שׂממית (semamiyt)" as "lizard" instead of "spider". An objection to "spider" is that there is another Hebrew word for "spider", "עכּבישׁ (akabiysh)", found in Job 8:14 and Isaiah 59:5. A similar objection could be made with respect to "lizard" given that there is another Hebrew word, "לטאה (leta'ah)", for lizard in Leviticus 11:30 (ESV, NIV). It appears that Rabbinic opinion is divided on the meaning of the word. A Jewish commentary on Proverbs 30:28 states:

"spider. So Rashi. Modern scholars prefer to translate 'lizard.' So Targum Jonathan to Lev. xi. 30. The word has both meanings in Rabbinic Hebrew and either would suit the context" ([FONT=georgia, serif]Proverbs, The Soncino Books of the Bible: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, edited by Rabbi Abraham Cohen and revised by Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg (New York : Soncino Press, 1993), p. 207[/FONT]).
​

The Stone Edition Tanach, by the respected Mesorah Heritage Foundation, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and other Rabbis, translates Proverbs 30:28 as, "the spider seizes [its prey] with its handiwork, though it dwells in the king's palace." Aside from translating "שׂממית" as "spider", this translation is notable for translating "ידים (yadayim)" as "handiwork". This word usually translated as "hands" could be understood as referring to the things made by the hands. The KJV, as with the ESV and NIV, adopts this meaning in Psalm 19:1:

השׁמים מספרים כבוד־אל ומעשׂה ידיו מגיד הרקיע׃
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
​

John Gill implicitly adopts this interpretation of "ידים" in Proverbs 30:28, commenting that "hands" alludes to the "thread she spins" (the handiwork of a spider):

"The spider taketh hold with her hands,.... On the thread she spins, or on the flies and bees she catches in her web. This is a small creature, yet very wise; what a curious thread does she spin! what a fine web does she weave! with what exactness and proportion is it framed! as if she understood the rules of mathematics and architecture;" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)
​

The context of Proverbs 30:28 is about the resilience of creatures with seeming disadvantages. The ants overcome their weakness by planning well for the future (30:25), the conies overcome their feebleness by living in well protected areas (30:26), and the locusts overcome the lack of an order-giving leader by every individual carrying out its own responsibility (30:27). In this context, the spider, though small, overcomes its seeming insignificance by using its hands to make its home in kings' palaces.

then what's the deal with semamith? spider or lizard?

i know it's hard for you to accept correction, having been so bold here - but whoever loves correction, loves knowledge, and finds understanding.
if you can show (without relying on "kjv says it ergo it is true") that it is rightly "spider," i'll accept that reproof. but if you ignore the question, what shall i think?

 

[NayborBear]

" If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"?

I believe this is due to a concept that Constantine initiated "back in the day", of the forcing a religion to yield, so as to maintain peace, thus adding to a man's vanity of "empirical numbers". NOW, I'll be going back to color my easter eggs for passover!..........NOT!!

 

[Brother_Don]

So the question arises? Do we trust the majority text, the Textus Receptus, or do we trust the minority text, the Alexandrian text out of Egypt?

its not fitting telling others what bible they should read. so the we becomes me, i can't speak for we, i can only speak for me. as for me i will stick with the same reading that george washington read. the Bible that helped make this country, this country is slowly decaying because the Word is being left behind. If they are seeking Truth, The Almighty is powerful enough to show Himself in any translation one is reading.

 

[John146]

I appreciate your thought brother and agree that the message of salvation can be found in other translations, but can one find the truth behind Matthew 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which is lost," if their Bible is missing that Scripture? Is that important? Did God want us to read and study this part of His word?

Or, how about 2 Samuel 21f:19? Did David kill Goliath or did Elhanan? Would this create doubt and confusion? Is this a contradiction? If I can't trust every word to be true, why trust some to be true? And who is to say what part I can trust?

its not fitting telling others what bible they should read. so the we becomes me, i can't speak for we, i can only speak for me. as for me i will stick with the same reading that george washington read. the Bible that helped make this country, this country is slowly decaying because the Word is being left behind. If they are seeking Truth, The Almighty is powerful enough to show Himself in any translation one is reading.

 

[posthuman]

Modern translations such as the ESV and NIV translate "שׂממית (semamiyt)" as "lizard" instead of "spider". An objection to "spider" is that there is another Hebrew word for "spider", "עכּבישׁ (akabiysh)", found in Job 8:14 and Isaiah 59:5. A similar objection could be made with respect to "lizard" given that there is another Hebrew word, "לטאה (leta'ah)", for lizard in Leviticus 11:30 (ESV, NIV). It appears that Rabbinic opinion is divided on the meaning of the word.

. . .

nah nah. you copy-pasted this from an admittedly bias, kjv-apologist site.
and it's interpretation, not translation, & cherry-picks exposition.
i could just as well copy-paste admittedly bias websites that disagree with this. what's more, i could do the same from unbiased​ websites, too.
there are a multitude of commentaries (e.g. the Pulpit Commentary) that don't accept "spider" as correct - just as there are plenty who implicitly trust kjv to be correct. pointing at Gill's exposition, for example, also points at one man's opinion, not nec. at the truth. surprised you would do this, since you've railed against it repeatedly here.

if we want to know what the meaning of this word is, we have to separate out bias, and look for external, unbiased sources that document use of this word, which is only found once in the entire old testament.

going directly to a bias, kjv-apologist site & copy-pasting isn't setting aside your presupposition. can you set aside your presupposition?

 

[John146]

Let me ask you, did you discover this so called difference on your own, or did you find it from some one else trying to prove the KJV wrong?

nah nah. you copy-pasted this from an admittedly bias, kjv-apologist site.
and it's interpretation, not translation, & cherry-picks exposition.
i could just as well copy-paste admittedly bias websites that disagree with this. what's more, i could do the same from unbiased​ websites, too.
there are a multitude of commentaries (e.g. the Pulpit Commentary) that don't accept "spider" as correct - just as there are plenty who implicitly trust kjv to be correct. pointing at Gill's exposition, for example, also points at one man's opinion, not nec. at the truth. surprised you would do this, since you've railed against it repeatedly here.

if we want to know what the meaning of this word is, we have to separate out bias, and look for external, unbiased sources that document use of this word, which is only found once in the entire old testament.

going directly to a bias, kjv-apologist site & copy-pasting isn't setting aside your presupposition. can you set aside your presupposition?

 

[posthuman]

Let me ask you, did you discover this so called difference on your own, or did you find it from some one else trying to prove the KJV wrong?

i grew up reading & memorizing both the KJV and the 1984 NIV. at some point i discovered that this particular word disagreed between the two. so i looked at as many translations as i could find, and as many commentaries as i could find, and as much linguistic study i could find, to see which was correct, because i consider original language to be inspired, not nec. the human translation. i didn't go out looking to "prove" either; i went out looking for the truth.

can you do the same? can you look for the truth instead of looking to prove your assumption?
what you're displaying is called "confirmation bias"

 

[John146]

The original language was inspired? The words were inspired by God and the writers preserved those words by writing them down in their language. The written Scripture is the preservation of God's word.

i grew up reading & memorizing both the KJV and the 1984 NIV. at some point i discovered that this particular word disagreed between the two. so i looked at as many translations as i could find, and as many commentaries as i could find, and as much linguistic study i could find, to see which was correct, because i consider original language to be inspired, not nec. the human translation. i didn't go out looking to "prove" either; i went out looking for the truth.

can you do the same? can you look for the truth instead of looking to prove your assumption?
what you're displaying is called "confirmation bias"

 

[JaumeJ]

People who believe Jesus Christ might pay close attention to His references to the faith of Abraham, and then, only then, the appreciation of the Hebrew stimulated working towards a more thorough understanding of our spiritual pas to and through our father, Abraham to Adam and back to our Heavenly Father and all of His will.