Why the king james?

[Dino246]

How many of you have read the Vaticanus and Sinaitcus and how many millions have read the King James.

Irrelevant. The 'test of time' is not a valid argument for truth.

 

[RobbyEarl]

Irrelevant. The 'test of time' is not a valid argument for truth.

Okay, you go with that and may God bless you and keep you.

 

[mrdesire]

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 only read the king james, but not because it's the true word of God. It's because modern day translations use deconstructive language, it's riddled with words that infer incorrect emotional connotations. Since the king james is an older book it was written when english was simple.

 

[Chuckt]

I only read the king james, but not because it's the true word of God. It's because modern day translations use deconstructive language, it's riddled with words that infer incorrect emotional connotations. Since the king james is an older book it was written when english was simple.

I read the King James. It isn't that hard.

 

[KJV1611]

I would like to know where the idea that God's word corrupts comes from, anybody know? I've searched all through the bible and can not find it any where.

 

[John146]

IF a Christian REALLY believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, then the "old fashioned language" is not an issue at all. Sure, the King James Bible has some words that are older or have different meanings than we may be familiar with.
But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew - Words like "mouse", IPad, "Kindle", Office, Word, "paste".

Do we need to "update" the language of the Bible?

God knew that languages would change over time and that His pure words, as found only in the King James Bible, would sound slightly “strange, different and old fashioned”, but this is a good thing. When people read out of the King James Bible we are immediately struck by the fact that it reads like NO OTHER BOOK on this earth. It is an OLD Book that has been around for a good long time, and it speaks God’s eternal truths to us like no other book or Bible on this earth. The very way it is written sticks in the mind and makes you think about what it is saying the way the watered down and dumbed down modern versions do not.

Most modern versions have more the taste of cardboard than of the sweet honey of God’s pure words as found in the King James Bible. And it is the ONLY one seriously believed by thousands even today to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God.

 

[KJV1611]

IF a Christian REALLY believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, then the "old fashioned language" is not an issue at all. Sure, the King James Bible has some words that are older or have different meanings than we may be familiar with.
But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew - Words like "mouse", IPad, "Kindle", Office, Word, "paste".

Do we need to "update" the language of the Bible?

God knew that languages would change over time and that His pure words, as found only in the King James Bible, would sound slightly “strange, different and old fashioned”, but this is a good thing. When people read out of the King James Bible we are immediately struck by the fact that it reads like NO OTHER BOOK on this earth. It is an OLD Book that has been around for a good long time, and it speaks God’s eternal truths to us like no other book or Bible on this earth. The very way it is written sticks in the mind and makes you think about what it is saying the way the watered down and dumbed down modern versions do not.

Most modern versions have more the taste of cardboard than of the sweet honey of God’s pure words as found in the King James Bible. And it is the ONLY one seriously believed by thousands even today to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God.

Nobody can upate the the language of the bible, only God can do that. Only God knows what God intended in each and every verse. It's the height of idiocy to think that a group of men can translate the bible without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Where in the world is common sense in these debates?

And your right about the honey, it aint in the new versions.

 

[KJV1611]

We've got people like James White correcting the "Ahaziah age debacle" and I'll bet you the moron doesn't even know there were 3 guys named Ahaziah living and interacting at the same time. But what do they do? They take it upon themselves to "correct" the KJV when the KJV is the only one that got Ahaziah's age right.

Do you people even investigate the things these KJV haters say?

 

[gb9]

Nobody can upate the the language of the bible, only God can do that. Only God knows what God intended in each and every verse. It's the height of idiocy to think that a group of men can translate the bible without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Where in the world is common sense in these debates?

And your right about the honey, it aint in the new versions.

the language of the Bible was NOT middle English. so, unless you are reading ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls, then it ain.t the original language.

 

[phil36]

We've got people like James White correcting the "Ahaziah age debacle" and I'll bet you the moron doesn't even know there were 3 guys named Ahaziah living and interacting at the same time. But what do they do? They take it upon themselves to "correct" the KJV when the KJV is the only one that got Ahaziah's age right.

Do you people even investigate the things these KJV haters say?

James white isn't a King James hater..lol. Can't you investigate what people are actually saying?

 

[KJV1611]

the language of the Bible was NOT middle English. so, unless you are reading ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls, then it ain.t the original language.

So what do think, does God not want us to have the inerrant word today or is God not capapble of using men to translate it?

 

[KJV1611]

James white isn't a King James hater..lol. Can't you investigate what people are actually saying?

Sure he is man. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's causing you guys to make your own God and your own bible. You call that a man of God?

 

[Agricola]

Even after all this you still have not proved to me that the King James is the perfect English Bible that God wants all people to read regardless of how many centuries have passed by and you never will, because you are deluded into thinking the King James is some special translation that God has told us we only must use, so where does it say this in the Bible please?

 

[Tintin]

How many of you have read the Vaticanus and Sinaitcus and how many millions have read the King James.

Don't you mean to say, 'how many millions have misunderstood the KJV?' I'd say many, not all, but many have. Because it's so freaking archaic. It doesn't help that many who use the KJV don't seem to have a proper education. If they don't have much of an education they should use a translation that they can read and understand! It's not that difficult!

 

[gb9]

Don't you mean to say, 'how many millions have misunderstood the KJV?' I'd say many, not all, but many have. Because it's so freaking archaic. It doesn't help that many who use the KJV don't seem to have a proper education. If they don't have much of an education they should use a translation that they can read and understand! It's not that difficult![/QUOT

the same thing I have been saying, but said much better. thanks tintin!!

 

[John146]

The problem is not with the KJV. The problem is with believing in God's promise to preserve His words. It is a proven fact that the majority of present day professing Christians no longer believe that "The Bible" is the infallible words of God. It is the most beautiful book ever written. Update the language to make it easier? No way! I'll adjust to it. If it makes me study and dig more, then that's a good thing. People need humility when reading the Bible, not a so called easier read. American English is getting watered-down every year, does that mean the Bible should be updated to fit our watered-down language?

IF a Christian REALLY believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, then the "old fashioned language" is not an issue at all. Sure, the King James Bible has some words that are older or have different meanings than we may be familiar with.
But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew - Words like "mouse", IPad, "Kindle", Office, Word, "paste".

Do we need to "update" the language of the Bible?

God knew that languages would change over time and that His pure words, as found only in the King James Bible, would sound slightly “strange, different and old fashioned”, but this is a good thing. When people read out of the King James Bible we are immediately struck by the fact that it reads like NO OTHER BOOK on this earth. It is an OLD Book that has been around for a good long time, and it speaks God’s eternal truths to us like no other book or Bible on this earth. The very way it is written sticks in the mind and makes you think about what it is saying the way the watered down and dumbed down modern versions do not.

Most modern versions have more the taste of cardboard than of the sweet honey of God’s pure words as found in the King James Bible. And it is the ONLY one seriously believed by thousands even today to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God.

 

[Tintin]

What Joe Blogs (the average person) needs is a freaking Bible they can read and understand. It's the message that's meant to be mulled over, not the presentation of the text. As for many Christians not believing in the infallibility of the Bible as God's Word, that has little to do with them reading modern translations and far more to do with the rise of secular humanism (it's at an all-time high) by way of that evil, evil religion - evolution. Also, far too many Christians don't read their Bibles. I understand your frustration, I really do, but the KJV isn't the answer to this problem. Good biblical hermeneutics is the answer.

 

[John146]

"Readability statistics generated from Grammatik and Word for Windows show why the KJV is 5[SUP]th[/SUP] grade reading level, while the NKJV and NASB are 6[SUP]th[/SUP] grade, and the NIV is 8[SUP]th[/SUP]grade reading level! The KJV averages:

less syllables per word

less letters per word

less words per sentence

smaller percentage of long words

greater percentage of short words than the NKJV, NIV, NASB and NRSV
​

 

[gb9]

What Joe Blogs (the average person) needs is a freaking Bible they can read and understand. It's the message that's meant to be mulled over, not the presentation of the text. As for many Christians not believing in the infallibility of the Bible as God's Word, that has little to do with them reading modern translations and far more to do with the rise of secular humanism (it's at an all-time high) by way of that evil, evil religion - evolution. Also, far too many Christians don't read their Bibles. I understand your frustration, I really do, but the KJV isn't the answer to this problem. Good biblical hermeneutics is the answer.

and that is the key. we need more Bible reading overall, not trying to convince people to read a certain translation only. we need more Bible-literate Christians.

 

[Agricola]

But it is still in early 17th Century English. YOu still have not answered my question I originally posted and continued to post, show me in the Bible that we are all supposed to read the King James Bible.