The King James Only Debate

[GaryA]

Why has God not translated an english bible with uses modern english understandable by all people. Why is he still using an old outdated hard to understand language which no one (unless they grew up in it) can understand.

"Since when does man put God on a leash?"

He is God.

He does not need to - and, is not going to - have His Word translated every five years so that people - who do not happen to use the word 'ye' in their everyday social speech - can understand the Word of God. He had it translated once [ into English ] - and, in effect - tells us to "learn the language - and study the scriptures"...

'learn the language' => "learn the [ English ] 'biblical language' [ of the KJV ]"


In other words --- God wants everyone to "grow up with it"...

( Don't give me any petty CRAP about my use of the word 'everyone'. Understand the context. I am referring to people who [ can ] read and speak English. )


Yes, I know about the earlier Bibles - and, they have their part; however, the KJV is the culmination of a "special work" of God to produce an English translation of His Word that would not change with the "watering-down" - and "dumbing-down" - of the English language over time. And, history clearly bears this out...


It is not outdated! { Actually, the exact opposite is true. }

And, it is not [ that ] difficult to understand! { People CHOOSE to not understand it. ( believe it or not ! ) }

What people don't understand about the KJV is that it will NEVER be "out-dated"...

In 5 years, you may need a new [modern bible version] - because the modern language will have changed enough to alter the meaning of the text.

In 10 years, you may need another still...

("Speaking strictly in terms of translation - not to mention 'error', etc.")

NOT SO with the KJV.

Unlike modern English - which is changing continually - the "middle English" of the KJV is "a snapshot in time" - fixed and un-changing.

No matter what changes in modern language, the language of the KJV will not have changed "one iota" -- in truth, it is actually "timeless"...

That is the "beauty" of it. God has "seen to it" that it does not change with the times...

You have to think of it like a second language -- once you learn that language - you are "good for life" - because it will not ever change -- this is how you have to look at it.

And then, you get the benefit of the "completeness" of the KJV.

I grew up with the KJV. I understand it better than any other version I have ever read from. I wouldn't trade it for any other version - under any circumstances.

It contains information that all the others have lost in their translation.

It is that good. It is that important. It is that "vital" to gaining the most accurate understanding of the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

"Has it ever occurred to you that Satan is trying to change the modern language as fast as he can so that people will 'throw out' the KJV?"

Believe it!

"I believe the KJV is STILL the BEST available English Bible translation BY FAR."



.

When Satan discovered that God was not going to let him "stamp out" the bible, he decided to try to destroy it by creating 'corrupted' / 'perverted' / "watered-down" manuscripts ( i.e. - via Wescott and Hort ) from which humpteen-zillion 'corrupted' / 'perverted' / "watered-down" bibles could be "translated" -- in hopes of "overtaking" the [ KJV ] -- so that people would "throw away" the [ KJV ].

Satan wants everyone to "thow it away"...


And -- he knew / knows what he was / is doing -- because, "it is working"...

 

[GaryA]

They don't just assert that all other translations are merely flawed; they go as far as to say that whoever uses anything besides the KJV is following the devil.

"I wouldn't exactly go that far..."

My view on the topic can "pretty-well" be summed up this way:

"The KJV is the best, most accurate, [ English ] translation available. Why would anyone ( who wanted the "purest and truest" Word of God ) want to use anything else / less...?!?!"

 

[lv2ski]

1 Timothy tells us not to spend our time in such foolish debates. Preach the gospel, make disciples.

Since people get saved and grow by virtually all versions I don't think it's really a fruitful conversation. Also many of the ones you guys always mention, like NIV are paraphrases, not translations.

Plus you could stumble some with these frivolous debates.

 

[GaryA]

I do believe that :

~ God said that He would preserve His Word

~ The KJV is that-by-which he has preserved His Word

 

[lv2ski]

I do believe that :

~ God said that He would preserve His Word

~ The KJV is that-by-which he has preserved His Word

In your opinion....don't forget that part

 

[nowyouseem033]

"I wouldn't exactly go that far..."

My view on the topic can "pretty-well" be summed up this way:

"The KJV is the best, most accurate, [ English ] translation available. Why would anyone ( who wanted the "purest and truest" Word of God ) want to use anything else / less...?!?!"

Everyones entitled to there own opinion but I would have to say no the KJV is not the best and most accurate. The KJV comes directly from the textus receptus and the textus receptus had limited manuscripts to translate from. Our modern versions have actually more reliable manuscripts given the discovery of recent and has given the reader adequate information about certain passages that the KJV does not do. Whats more beneficial and helpful are the modern versions of today because they give the reader the ability to probe deeper with any certain text (its origin, author, manuscript wherebouts and reliability) where as the KJV does not.

 

[The_Bible]

Everyones entitled to there own opinion but I would have to say no the KJV is not the best and most accurate. The KJV comes directly from the textus receptus and the textus receptus had limited manuscripts to translate from. Our modern versions have actually more reliable manuscripts given the discovery of recent and has given the reader adequate information about certain passages that the KJV does not do. Whats more beneficial and helpful are the modern versions of today because they give the reader the ability to probe deeper with any certain text (its origin, author, manuscript wherebouts and reliability) where as the KJV does not.

You are wrong when you say the KJV only had limited manuscripts, they were directly from the original Greek in which we have 6,000 of them. Now you do not need ALL 6,000 manuscripts, to look at each and every single one for accurate translation, you simply choose the best ones and translate from that. Just because some manuscripts pop up claiming to be older and reliable doesnt mean is true much rather it should raise suspicion.

Tyndale was the first Bible translated into English into which he got burned for being "heretic" they all got the NT Greek from the original mansucripts of Antioch published by Erasmus and through a series of revisions by Martin Luther but the KJV itself says they used the last two editions of Theodore Beza and Stephanius. If your not a Catholic why would you use all these other bibles strictly going against the people who have been persecuted to perserve the word of God. Your a Reformer not a papist heathen.


The Codex Sinaiticus is missing all 4 chapters of Genesis, missing all of Exodus, all but 3 chapters of Leviticus, all but 12 chapters of Numbers, all but 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, all but 3 chapter of Joshua, all but 7 chapter of Judges, missing all of Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, it jumps from 1 Chronicles 19:17 to the middle of the sentence of Ezra 9:9 without fixing & keeps going! Missing first 8 chapters of Ezra, missing Lamentations after 2:20, missing all of Ezekiel, all of Daniel, Hosea, all of Amos, and all of Micah. That is 11 entire books missing & most of 6 more. 1/4 of the Bible books! But ofc they maintain all of the Apocryphas. (If you think I'm lying you can go to the website below).


Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |


Proverbs (30:5-6) - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


All of these missing chapters and you want to believe and actually support the lies they teach you? The Bible clearly states do not add unto the word of God, well if they are missing all these verses what is actually considered scriptural? Wouldn't they have to idk ADD unto the missing passages eventually having to make an error and be found a LIAR? Is pretty simple, start reading a real Bible aka KJV and respect the preservation it has maintained.

 

[GaryA]

Prove then that the "utmost reverence" exceeded greatly the reverence with which the translators of modern Bibles did their work. Otherwise your comment is irrelevant.

Prove then that the qualifications of the group of KJV translators exceeded the qualifications of the groups of modern translators (not by picking 'best' vs 'worst' either!).

Prove your opinion of "prime" language with any evidence at all, other than mere opinion.

"I just love it when people say stuff like this -- as if - you can [ totally and completely ] answer it in your next post [ with just a paragraph or two ]."

( Do you have any idea how long it would take...? )


The "proof" may be found through an in-depth understanding of the "spritual falling-away" of Christianity over the past ~2000 years. Bible-and-History bears these things out very clearly - "if you pay attention to detail"...

I do not believe that there is a man alive today - much less a group the size of those who translated the KJV --- even "comparable" to the group of men who translated the KJV -- especially and particularly, with specific regard to the things I mentioned that you quoted above.

Study the history. Examine how these men carried out the translating method-and-process that they performed. Examine how men today "translate" the bible. Then compare...

I am not saying that it is an impossible task; rather, I am saying that it is extremely highly unlikely that it could be accomplished today at the same "level of quality" as could be done by those men because of what they possessed at that time that is hardly existant today at all. These men had a more in-depth understanding of "all languages involved" ( not to mention, others as well ) that cannot be equaled today. In virtually every case where the question is asked - "Why did they use that word / phrase / grammar / structure / etc. ?" -- if it is "studied-out" enough - an answer is found - "there is a reason" - "it is there" - in the 'grammar of the language'. And, while it is true that it is possible to loose [ something ] from the original languages when it is translated into English -- it is also true that the "Middle English" of that era best contains the "fullest" and "closest" meaning to the original languages than any modern English 'dialect' in existance today. You will only understand "why this is" if you make sufficient study of the "language" of the KJV.

 

[lv2ski]

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Mt 28:19*-‬20 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/mat.28.19-20.NKJV

Please tell me how discussions like this build up or bring in? As Jesus commanded. I wonder that it's just a big distraction from our commission. These discussions don't win people to Christ, nor do they edify.

 

[GaryA]

The english language is the most "open" language out there.. You can have one english word which can be translated 100 different ways. That is why it is so weak as a translation. because it can be transated in many different ways, and no one really can refute it

Congratulations! You just illlustrated quite clearly one of the most important reasons why the KJV is more reliable than any modern translation! What you say above is TRUE for modern English --- but --- NOT SO for the "language" of the KJV - which has many more words and far less meanings-for-a-word than modern English words.

The greek and hebrew is not this way..

Of course! And, if anyone can study the original Greek / Hebrew, they may obtain a better understanding. However, we are talking about having, reading, and studying an English Bible.

 

[GaryA]

the word gay is enough to to make your point moot. what it meant in 1611 and now in 2016 are completely different, words change over time, slang, idioms, culture... come on.

If the modern meaning of the word 'gay' changes in three years, will you need a new bible translation after that? I won't -- the word 'gay' in the "language" of the KJV will not have changed - and, I will know what it means where-ever it is used in the scriptures --- the same as five years ago, ten years ago, fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, ...

 

[The_Bible]

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Mt 28:19*-‬20 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/mat.28.19-20.NKJV

Please tell me how discussions like this build up or bring in? As Jesus commanded. I wonder that it's just a big distraction from our commission. These discussions don't win people to Christ, nor do they edify.

John 17:17 - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Ephesians 6:17 - And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,s quick, 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.

The Bible is what teaches us what to believe about God, and with all these versions, one is going to have a corrupt interpretation based on the corrupt version of the bible they are using. Especially, when you are going to witness and bring up bible verses they will be criticized, and the sword they wield would be dull, not being ready for combat against the lies that the devil speaketh bc the words that they speak are corrupt as well.

 

[lv2ski]

John 17:17 - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Ephesians 6:17 - And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,s quick, 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.

The Bible is what teaches us what to believe about God, and with all these versions, one is going to have a corrupt interpretation based on the corrupt version of the bible they are using. Especially, when you are going to witness and bring up bible verses they will be criticized, and the sword they wield would be dull, not being ready for combat against the lies that the devil speaketh bc the words that they speak are corrupt as well.

I use the NKJV and have never come up short. I don't like the paraphrases,but I've never been stumped in debate or reasoning

 

[GaryA]

In your opinion....don't forget that part

"It should be automatically understood-by-default that anything anyone on here writes into a post should be considered to [ simply ] be their opinion..."

 

[GaryA]

Everyones entitled to there own opinion but I would have to say no the KJV is not the best and most accurate. The KJV comes directly from the textus receptus and the textus receptus had limited manuscripts to translate from. Our modern versions have actually more reliable manuscripts given the discovery of recent and has given the reader adequate information about certain passages that the KJV does not do. Whats more beneficial and helpful are the modern versions of today because they give the reader the ability to probe deeper with any certain text (its origin, author, manuscript wherebouts and reliability) where as the KJV does not.

"I'm afraid that you have been fed some serious bull..."

The only thing you said [ above ] that has any truth to it at all is that "the KJV comes directly from the textus receptus"...

 

[trofimus]

1 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)

[FONT=&]16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[/FONT]

1 Timothy 3:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

[FONT=&]16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:[/FONT]
[FONT=&][FONT=&]He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was [a]vindicated [b]in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

A few questions I have about the NASB... Someone please explain.

1. Why use he instead of God?
2. Why use revealed in the flesh? It gives the impression that God appeared in a human body rather than God became fully man.
3. Why use vindicated? Vindicate means to clear someone of blame or suspicion. Jesus wasn't vindicated, he was justified.

Its very simple and I think you know the answer - because it is so in Greek.

Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

1. because there is no word "God" in the text.
2. because that is what the Greek says - flesh, meat
3. I am not native English speaker, so I will pass this one

 

[nowyouseem033]

"I'm afraid that you have been fed some serious bull..."

The only thing you said [ above ] that has any truth to it at all is that "the KJV comes directly from the textus receptus"...

A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. KJV is not better than this or that for simple reasons that it is a translation from Greek and the original manuscripts into English. Why should people start reading a old English/Outdated bible?
My loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and NT. Yours are clearly in a translation into English from which convey difficulty in a modern 21st century reader.
Again the KJV is no better than say the NIV or ESV. To suggest that the KJV is the ONLY inspired WOG is arrogant and prideful. Afterall its ONLY a translation.
Christians can be saved by reading the gospels in the NIV. Whats your problem with that?

 

[KJV1611]

"Since when does man put God on a leash?"

He is God.

He does not need to - and, is not going to - have His Word translated every five years so that people - who do not happen to use the word 'ye' in their everyday social speech - can understand the Word of God. He had it translated once [ into English ] - and, in effect - tells us to "learn the language - and study the scriptures"...

'learn the language' => "learn the [ English ] 'biblical language' [ of the KJV ]"


In other words --- God wants everyone to "grow up with it"...

( Don't give me any petty CRAP about my use of the word 'everyone'. Understand the context. I am referring to people who [ can ] read and speak English. )


Yes, I know about the earlier Bibles - and, they have their part; however, the KJV is the culmination of a "special work" of God to produce an English translation of His Word that would not change with the "watering-down" - and "dumbing-down" - of the English language over time. And, history clearly bears this out...


It is not outdated! { Actually, the exact opposite is true. }

And, it is not [ that ] difficult to understand! { People CHOOSE to not understand it. ( believe it or not ! ) }





When Satan discovered that God was not going to let him "stamp out" the bible, he decided to try to destroy it by creating 'corrupted' / 'perverted' / "watered-down" manuscripts ( i.e. - via Wescott and Hort ) from which humpteen-zillion 'corrupted' / 'perverted' / "watered-down" bibles could be "translated" -- in hopes of "overtaking" the [ KJV ] -- so that people would "throw away" the [ KJV ].

Satan wants everyone to "thow it away"...


And -- he knew / knows what he was / is doing -- because, "it is working"...

That was impressive! I wish I could articulate as well.

 

[KJV1611]

1 Timothy tells us not to spend our time in such foolish debates. Preach the gospel, make disciples.

Since people get saved and grow by virtually all versions I don't think it's really a fruitful conversation. Also many of the ones you guys always mention, like NIV are paraphrases, not translations.

Plus you could stumble some with these frivolous debates.

I've been a Christian for over 20 years and for the first15 of those years I never grew or matured spiritually. It was a chore for me to read the bible because it was so boring! I regret that I wasn't shown the truth about the KJV way back then.

 

[KJV1611]

Everyones entitled to there own opinion but I would have to say no the KJV is not the best and most accurate. The KJV comes directly from the textus receptus and the textus receptus had limited manuscripts to translate from. Our modern versions have actually more reliable manuscripts given the discovery of recent and has given the reader adequate information about certain passages that the KJV does not do. Whats more beneficial and helpful are the modern versions of today because they give the reader the ability to probe deeper with any certain text (its origin, author, manuscript wherebouts and reliability) where as the KJV does not.

Why do you think the modern versions are based off of more reliable manuscripts? How does one know that one manuscript is more accurate than another?

Also what passages in the modern translations have given better information than the KJV? The reason I ask is because I see the opposite is true, the newer translations are less revealing than the KJV. The divinity of Jesus for example.