Why the king james?

[fredoheaven]

What Timothy's access of the Scriptures are not original. They are copies of the original yet it is called holy. If it is holy therefore that scriptures are the true words of God. In other words, original copies (inspired but now lost) and what Timothy's access of the copies of the original is given by the inspiration of God.

Here are some thoughts that might give one an idea related to the discussion:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed . . . they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? . . . for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. – Jer. 8:8-10

Many will tell you that most of the following scriptures only apply to the Original Autographs or to the Greek and Hebrew scraps extant or to eclectic texts. If that is the case, then the following passages must not apply to the English KJB. Please read and address each passage with a true or false, since it is ONLY A TRANSLATION.

True or False? Do you regard the KJB as something that . . .
1. - is to be feared (Ex. 9:20)
2. - is not to be despised (Num. 15:31)
3. - is not to be rebelled against it (Num. 15:31)
4. - should not be added to (Deut 4:2)
5. - should not be subtracted from (Deut 4:2)
6. - is the right food for believers (Deut. 8:3)
7. - is to be observed (Deut 33:9)
8. - is established by God (1 Sam 1:23)
9. - is precious (1 Sam 3:1)
10. - is not to fall to the ground (1 Sam. 3:19
11. - is not to be rejected (1 Sam 15:23; John 12:48)
12. - is to be remembered and obeyed (Josh 1:13)
13. - is to be hearkened and not resisted (Josh1:18)
14. - is to be trembled at (Ezra 9:4)
15. - is to be heard and heeded (2 Kings 7:1
16. - is pure (PS 12:6; Pro 30:5)
17. - has been tried (Ps. 18:30)
18. is right (Ps. 33:4)
19. - is to be praised (Ps. 56:4, 10)
20. - is to be hid in our hearts (Ps 119:11)
21. - is not to be forgotten (Ps. 119:16, 93)
22. - is to be kept (Ps 119:17, 57,158)
23. - is must quicken us (Ps 119:25, 50, 107, 154)
24. - is to be relied on for our strength (Ps 119:28)
25. is very pure (Ps 119:140
26. - is according to thy word? (Ps. 119:41, 58, 65)
27. - is our final Authority (Ps. 119:41, 65, 76, 116)
28. - is to be entirely trusted (Ps 119:42)
29. - is our hope (Ps 119:43)
30. - is to give us hope (Ps. 119:49, 74, 81, 114)
31. - delivers us (Ps 119:170)
32. - upholds us (Ps 119:116)
33. - contains sweet words (Ps 119:103)
34. - is a lamp unto our feet (Ps 119:105)
35. - is a light unto our path (Ps 119:105)
36 - is an entrance of His words (PS 119:130)
37. - orders our steps (Ps 119:133)
38. - is what should be loved (Ps 119:140)
39. - should be meditated on (Ps 119:148)
40. - is true from the beginning (Ps. 119:160)
41. - is to be held in awe (Ps 119:161)
42. - should be rejoiced in (Ps 119:162)
43. - gives complete understanding (Ps 119:169)
44. - should be boasted on (Ps 119:172)
45. - is completely good (Isa 39:8)
46. - stands forever (Isa 40:8; 59:21)
47. - accomplishes God's will (Isa 55:11)
48. - needs faithful transmission by us (Jer 23:28)
49. - should be read (Matt 21:42; Acts 8:32)
50. - can be known (Matt 22:29; 2 Tim 3:15)
51. - will not pass away from (Matt 24:34)
52. - should not be made of none effect (Mk 7:13)
53. - should be obeyed (Luke 5:5)
54. - is to be "entirely" believed (Lk. 24:25)
55. - cannot be broken (Luke 24:27)
56. - should be continued in (John 8:31, 32)
57. - gives us freedom (John 8:31, 32)
58. - should be searched (John 5:39, Acts 17:11)
59. - is truth (John 17:17)
60. - should be boldly spoken (Acts 4:29; Phil 1:14)
61. - produces faith (Rom. 10:17)
62. - is what is not corrupt (2 Cor 2:17)
63. - should not be handled deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2)
64. - reconciles us (2 Cor 5:19)
65. - is the word of truth (2 Cor 6:7)
66. - should be held forth (Phil 2:16)
67. - is NOT the word of men (1 Thess 2:13)
68. - is the word of God (1 Thess 2:13)
69. - should be allowed free course (2 Thess 3:1)
70. - should be labored in (1 Tim 5:17)
71. - is not bound up (2 Tim 2:9)
72. - should be studied (2 Tim 2:15)
73. - is given by inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16)
74. - is what corrects the man of God (2 Tim 3:16)
75. - reproves the man of God (2 Tim 3:16)
76. - is what instructs the man of God (2 Tim 3:16)
77. - is profitable TODAY for any of above (2 Tim 3:16
78. - is infallible (2 Tim 3:16)
79. - throughly furnishes the man of (2 Tim 3:17)
80. - should be preached (2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9
81. - sanctifies us (1 Tim 4:5)
82. - is what should held fast (Titus 1:9)
83. - should not be blasphemed (Titus 2:5)
84. - is ALIVE (Heb 4:12)
85. - is powerful (Heb 4:12)
86. - divides our souls, spirits, & bodies (Heb. 4:12)
87. - discerns our thoughts (Heb. 4:12)
88. - discerns our intents (Heb 4:12)
89. - is what discerns our hearts (Heb. 4:12)
90. - is what we should be doers of (James 1:22)
91. - endures for ever (1 Pet 1:25)
92. - gives spirit births (James 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23-25)
93. - produces our Christian growth (1 Pet 2:8)
94. - should not be stumbled at (1 Pet 2:8)
95. - is not to be privately interpreted (2 Pet 1:20)
96. - should not be tampered with (Rev. 22:18, 19

Why or Why Not? Because the KJB is ONLY a translation?

96 TRUE -- Informed Bible Believer; 85 to 95 TRUE--Under Bad Influence; 74 to 84--Brainwashed;
63 to 73 TRUE--Backslidden; only 1 to 60 TRUE -- Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . .

 

[fredoheaven]

BTW, the thoughts are not mine, they are not originals, they are only copies of the orignals

 

[Chuckt]

The KJV'ers say their body of texts is better than the Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus which were a late 19th century rediscovery.
Their argument is that God has preserved through the centuries the texts the KJV is based on, wherea the newer versions are based on texts that have been lost in a monastery etc., for centuries. It is an argument from Providence and a pretty strong one too.

The reason they were in such good shape was because no one used Vaticanus for 1,000 years. When textual errors are made, what they did was put the text on the shelf and never used it again.

 

[Chuckt]

Is the Message version Holy Scripture? Why or why not?

The Message Bible is not a translation. There are unjustifiable words in the Message.
Unlike the KJV, NIV or NASB, name how many people were involved in translating the Message? I can count one compared to about 70 people who translated the King James and there are other people on different translation committees to reduce doctrinal bias but not with the Message.

 

[Chuckt]

The way I understand it, the KJV only group claims that the KJV was translated from different manuscripts or something. What others say is that other modern translations, such as the ESV were translated also directly from original manuscripts. So KJV only reasoning is invalid. Many have claimed that more modern translations like ESV and NSAB are much more superior to the KJV with more accurate translations.

I wouldn't know though. I dunno Greek or Hebrew to be able to test it. I doubt many of the KJV only group does either.

I use KJV sometimes. Not the one with the extremely old english that is almost impossible for me to read, but still the thous and thees and so on. I think mine uses "Shakespearean english" or something like that. None of the real heavy incomprehensible language from the original KJV though. I also use ESV. Prolly use ESV the most.

The NASB is a translation that favors the post tribulation and Westcott and Hort were post tribulationists so translation also affects your ability to understand the truth because all translations are interpretations.

The ESV is really the RSV with about 80,000 changes. The Vatican oversaw the RSV translation which diminished truths like the Virgin birth. A fee was paid to the National Council of Churches which were bankrupt or about bankrupt for the manuscripts. The ESV has about 80,000 changes from the RSV but there are still some errors carried over from the RSV. The General Editor to the ESV was J.I. Packer and he signed "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and the majority of translators behind the ESV are Calvinists. The ESV is too new and I don't feel ecumenical. From what I've seen, I will stick with my King James version.

 

[Chuckt]

If you don't believe that the KJV is THE word of God, then which one is? Can you say, "I have God's word right here in my hand." Each version says something different. There are different truths taught in each one. Btw, older manuscripts does not mean better. Older simply means no one used them back then because they were rejected by the majority and believed to be corrupted, so they were better kept in tack because no one read them.

God promised to preserve His words for all generations. Where are they today? Did God lie? Would God hold us accountable to His word and not give it to us?

The King James translation was really the only translation to see revivals. Name me revivals that used the NIV, the NASB, the Message, the ESV, etc. Everyone can't? Case closed.

 

[Chuckt]

goodness, how on earth did Noah 'defend himself' against the whole world? Moses hadn't even written the Penteteuch at that time!

how did Paul defend the gospel of Christ before he had even written his own letters?

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

They had the words of God because they saw Jesus, they walked with Him, they ate with him, etc. Then they wrote it down as prompted by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Chuckt]

Oh come on? Besides KJV propaganda ..you have no evidence or proof the Alexandrian text are corrupted in any way... I would bet you don't even really understand much about those text but are just repeating things you have heard on the internet.

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened.

-Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 12.

 

[Chuckt]

The KJV is the only bible that contains the truth and it does not contradict itself. Also there are messages in the structure of the text... number patterns that match with chapter and verse numbers.

A person would have to be spritually blind to not recognize the KJV is inspired, it's that obvious.

"God is not to be sought after by means of letters, syllables, and numbers."Against Hereisies 2.25, AD 177

(Kindle Ebook) 3%, Location 450, Ancient Prophecies Revealed, Ken Johnson, Th.D.

Our Church Father, Irenaeus spoke out against Bible codes.

 

[Chuckt]

ANGELA

"As for saying KJV is closest to the Greek, because it mirrors a parallel version, NOT!
Greek word order is completely different than English, it cannot be translated word for word, or the English would not make sense. That applies to any version.*"

*********************


I have said exactly that in similar threads in this forum...you cannot translate word for word

That would be a very simple rule to apply before plunging in to score points for personal bias

That being said...we should all appreciate what you have to say here regarding original languages of the Bible and how to apply unbiased research

A great post!

I read "The New Testament" by Dr. Kenneth Weust. He used as many words as possible to convey all the meaning of the New Testament. There is also an Amplified Bible that is keyed to the original greek and does a great job of conveying all the meaning of the Bible.

 

[Chuckt]

This is also false. Using infusion (pouring) for baptism goes back to the Apostolic age.


The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

There are a lot of things in the Didache that Protestants wouldn't like. Just because something is in there doesn't mean the Didache is a test for truth.

 

[Lost_sheep]

[video]https://youtu.be/FAgDXZfOfx0[/video]

^That is why KJV-only. ^That documentary is spot-on.

If it isn't a KJV, it's just a book. It's a corrupted, changed, copyrighted book that somebody is making a mint from it's printing.

 

[Chuckt]

Man perverted that word not God. Don't blame the Bible for that perversion. I believe in a perfect God who is not bound by the Greek or Hebrew language. I believe that God can give me a perfect Bible in my language, the English language.

Can the Catholics say the same thing about the Latin?

 

[Tintin]

[video]https://youtu.be/FAgDXZfOfx0[/video]

^That is why KJV-only. ^That documentary is spot-on.

If it isn't a KJV, it's just a book. It's a corrupted, changed, copyrighted book that somebody is making a mint from its printing.

LOL. I don't believe you understand how translations work. Most translators/groups of translators go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek autographs to create new translations. They don't just change a few words here and there.

 

[Chuckt]

I use the NASB when I teach, because my church uses that as its main bible.. When I use king james, they always joke with me about speaking king jimmy (alot in my church was sickened by the KJV only cult, and would not read a KJV based on that fact alone.

Then what English Bible should I read?
The NIV is a thought for thought translation and not a word for word translation and it goes against going to the right or left of what God says..
The NASB is a post tribulational translation.
The ESV is based on the RSV with 80,000 changes and the RSV was overseen by the Vatican. The majority of ESV translators are Calvinists and the general editor signed "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" so I see this as an eccumenical bible.

The Message has unjustifiable words.
The original Living Translation has a preface by the translator who said he made it for his kids and it wasn't meant for serious Bible translation and yet we have adults who are hooked on it.

I need a literal and near word for word translation like the KJV.

 

[Chuckt]

Flawed logic here.....and what language did he write them in......and with Moses carrying them down to the people to read it can be logically deduced it was HEBREW....
REGARDLESS...Does not change the fact of what languages it was orginally written in.....you should study because the bible teaches to bave no IDOL IN YOUR LIFE.....WORSHIPPING A MAN MADE, COPIED, TRANSLITERATION IS HAVING AN IDOL!

The one we are worshipping is God here.
Suppose someone here said God told them to divorce their wife? What would I say? "No" because God wrote it down.
God wrote His words down because someone would lie. God is going to hold us responsible to what He said and that makes us responsible. In fact, the fact that God sent us two witnesses is enough to make the whole human race guilty. So how are you going to know what God said if someone said God told them to divorce their wife? Are you going to go by what you think God said or are you going to go by His words?

 

[Ugly]

Then what English Bible should I read?
The NIV is a thought for thought translation and not a word for word translation and it goes against going to the right or left of what God says..
The NASB is a post tribulational translation.
The ESV is based on the RSV with 80,000 changes and the RSV was overseen by the Vatican. The majority of ESV translators are Calvinists and the general editor signed "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" so I see this as an eccumenical bible.

The Message has unjustifiable words.
The original Living Translation has a preface by the translator who said he made it for his kids and it wasn't meant for serious Bible translation and yet we have adults who are hooked on it.

I need a literal and near word for word translation like the KJV.

Actually it's the 'Living Bible' not the 'Living Translation'. The Living Bible is a paraphrase for kids. There is also the 'New Living Translation' (NLT) that came out some number of years ago that is a translation that was endorsed by Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel founder).

 

[Lost_sheep]

Well, you think incorrectly, because I understand perfectly well where the "new" versions of what you call the bible came from. 16,000+ posts doesn't give you free reign to talk down to me. If you have an argument to put forth, do so. Don't be passive-aggressive and flippant with me.

Are you going LOL now?

 

[Chuckt]

I have just demonstrated how the KJV is not perfect, yet the fact that Moses was said to have horns hads no bearing on the salvation that is Jesus Christ. Also, I indicate facts can be wrong, this is true in science, when fact that have been taken as truth have proven to be false.

You know what it means when one says truth never changes, correct? It is the Holy Spirit Tht gives life to text, not the text. Meditate on this truth.......God bless you always.

What scripture says that? It doesn't.

 

[Chuckt]

Friend, for your own sake, please read James White's book, The King James Only Controversy.

Also read Galatians 5. Your fruit is showing.

Did his diploma come from a diploma mill?