King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[graceNpeace]

Gonna get some heat here, but here goes...

I think the KJV needs to go. It's antiquated 17th century language that no one uses today. The newer versions are written to better comprehend what was written. It has had a really good run, but now it needs to be tossed.

No other translation, that I know of that is, has caused such a strife amongst God's ppl. When one goes so far as to say the KJV is God's word preserved for us, then that tells me all I need to know.

Ducking for cover now...

No need to duck on my account!

ALL translations have their plus points and minus points.
You are right about kerfuffle this debate generates but, unfortunately, most of the opinions are not really based on verifiable facts.

Your point about the folksy language has some merit.

 

[SovereignGrace]

My problem with the KJVO stance is their superiority complex. It's like they cornered the market on the bible. Look at the Pentateuch for example. Moses wrote under God's inspiration, and then the scribes wrote from what Moses wrote. Then the other books were penned by the OT saints. And then scribes wrote from that. Then the scribes re-wrote from those, seeing that the copies were getting old and decayed. I can't imagine how many times the OT books have been written and re-written down through the ages. The scribes wrote so that ppl could have a copy of what the Prophets had written, seeing printing presses were not available.

And ppl have the audacity to say that the KJV IS the word of God? That's the very apex of ignorance.

 

[graceNpeace]

....

And ppl have the audacity to say that the KJV IS the word of God? That's the very apex of ignorance.

Indeed and absolutely!

 

[SovereignGrace]

No need to duck on my account!

ALL translations have their plus points and minus points.
You are right about kerfuffle this debate generates but, unfortunately, most of the opinions are not really based on verifiable facts.

Your point about the folksy language has some merit.

When's the last time you heard someone say, "Hey, where's that crisping pin?"

 

[SovereignGrace]

Indeed and absolutely!

When's the last time you heard somebody ask, "Hey, have you seen my wimples?"

 

[graceNpeace]

When's the last time you heard somebody ask, "Hey, have you seen my wimples?"

I don't even know what a wimple is....

 

[SovereignGrace]

Steven Anderson is mentally unstable, I don't want to hear or watch anything he has to say about anything.

View attachment 170125

I've heard him speak about Zionism before in a Documentary someone else produced, and they were able to contain him and he sounded somewhat reasonable. Left to his own devices he makes a mockery of himself.

What's wrong with that pic? Looks perfectly normal to me for a pastor to stand on the pulpit and point his finger at ppl.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I don't even know what a wimple is....

Ain't that what a dog does when its hurt?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Steven Anderson is mentally unstable, I don't want to hear or watch anything he has to say about anything.

View attachment 170125

I've heard him speak about Zionism before in a Documentary someone else produced, and they were able to contain him and he sounded somewhat reasonable. Left to his own devices he makes a mockery of himself.

Someone blew his pilot light out.

 

[Angela53510]

Says you and some but not all:

"The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking. This was not the case in the East, which had a Jewish majority (especially in Babylon and Adiabene) for a much longer period. Even when the Church of the East became mostly Gentile, the Aramaic was preserved and used rather than translated into the various vernacular languages of the regions to the East of the Euphrates river."

The fact is, there is not a single extant manuscript of the NT in either Aramaic or Hebrew. If the NT was written in these languages, surely somewhere they would have found at least a scrap of the NT in Aramaic or Hebrew from the decades and early centuries of the church?

The Greek NT has a partial manuscript from as early as 100-150 AD (Rylands Papyrus of parts of John 18, P52) Full copies of the NT date to the 200s and there are almost 6000 early manuscripts in Greek which have been completely catalogued, compared and collated into data bases.

And yet NOT one single manuscript in Aramaic and Hebrew. So, no, the NT was written in Greek, and Trofimus dealt with the issue of WHY it was written in Greek. In addition, the first century was the "fullness of time." Jesus came to earth, and the world was ripe for his message. Between the safe Roman roads and seas, the common language of Greek spoken by everyone in the empire, the gospel, driven by the Holy Spirit was unfettered in its travel to all the known nations.


As for the camel mistake, or not in the KJV, it really isn't important, because it doesn't affect theology if it is a rope, a heavy rope or a camel. There are many errors like this, most of them caused by copyists errors in the later Byzantine manuscripts, from which the KJV was translated. That is why the earlier manuscripts are so much better. The tendency is to add things into manuscripts. The fact that things were not their hundreds of years earlier, then appear in the margins of various Byzantine manuscripts, which are subsequently incorporated into the text of the NT.

This is another reason I cannot abide by the KJV. It simply has too much added by scribes who thought they were helping, when in fact, they were distorting the Word of God.

 

[trofimus]

The fact is, there is not a single extant manuscript of the NT in either Aramaic or Hebrew. If the NT was written in these languages, surely somewhere they would have found at least a scrap of the NT in Aramaic or Hebrew from the decades and early centuries of the church?

The Greek NT has a partial manuscript from as early as 100-150 AD (Rylands Papyrus of parts of John 18, P52) Full copies of the NT date to the 200s and there are almost 6000 early manuscripts in Greek which have been completely catalogued, compared and collated into data bases.

And yet NOT one single manuscript in Aramaic and Hebrew. So, no, the NT was written in Greek, and Trofimus dealt with the issue of WHY it was written in Greek. In addition, the first century was the "fullness of time." Jesus came to earth, and the world was ripe for his message. Between the safe Roman roads and seas, the common language of Greek spoken by everyone in the empire, the gospel, driven by the Holy Spirit was unfettered in its travel to all the known nations.


As for the camel mistake, or not in the KJV, it really isn't important, because it doesn't affect theology if it is a rope, a heavy rope or a camel. There are many errors like this, most of them caused by copyists errors in the later Byzantine manuscripts, from which the KJV was translated. That is why the earlier manuscripts are so much better. The tendency is to add things into manuscripts. The fact that things were not their hundreds of years earlier, then appear in the margins of various Byzantine manuscripts, which are subsequently incorporated into the text of the NT.

This is another reason I cannot abide by the KJV. It simply has too much added by scribes who thought they were helping, when in fact, they were distorting the Word of God.

Even though the KJV manuscripts (non-continental version of TR) are from the byzantine family, the byzantine Greek New Testaments is quite different from it and the Eastern Church sees KJV/TR as a bad representative of the majority texts.

So, even if somebody hold to the majority text theory, the KJV is still very outdated and there are better sources like from Robinson/Pierpont(based on the real majority, not just 7 manuscripts).

And the Eastern Greek Church uses the patriarchal edition from 1902 (based on several manuscripts selected by the church as the best ones).

We must realize that the Western Europe (not to say some isolated island) was not the center of the knowledge those days. The East was.

 

[Angela53510]

I already mentioned he's a pulpit hitter, but that doesn't make the movie wrong. I already mentioned I read and have the NIV, ESV,NKJV, GIDEON'S, AMP, KJV. So your point of being occultist is a bit daft. I said I would read them and highlight the errors compared to KJV, then avoid them, and read KJV quotes. I've watched & still watch, James White, John MacArthur, John Piper, shepherds conference, cross, ligoniere, etc. So just because your limiting your biblical education, doesn't mean I should. Are you saying God decided to hide His Word for a over, uhh, 2000 years and the new versions are accurate when they say the morning star has fallen? CHRIST? Watch the video and see the depth of translation compared to a couple of guys with a laptop working for a profiteering printing company. I mean they say things like Joseph is Jesus father, he's not, he's stepfather as it were. Spelling mistakes or having camel going through a needle eye instead of a rope, is insignificant as they mean the same thing (KJV), it doesn't have the rope turning the needle into a chicken, you get the point.
Hopefully someone will watch the video and make a factual rebuttal, as this is Bible discussion and not family spat area.

What is uneducated and ignorant to me, is thinking some internet ranter has all the answers and enhances our "biblical education." What rot!

I read both Greek and Hebrew. When I took Hebrew, we compared the Hebrew Masoretic text to various English translations. I was assigned the KJV to compare to Hebrew. It was a reasonable translation, but not without faults. Of course, my issue was sometimes I could not make hide nor hair out of the English of the KJV to compare.

I am an advanced Greek student. I learned Greek in seminary, and I just spent the last 1 1/2 years upgrading by taking Intermediate Greek. Now, there are many here who have studied Greek or Hebrew on their own, which is also valid, providing they use study materials that are recommended by scholars. (All the people I have talked to!) That is educating yourself Biblically.

There are those who do not study the original languages, but do spend a lot of time studying and comparing translations, and digging into the Word. Those people are also Biblically educated.

But as for some cultist (not occultist as you write above!) with a video on youtube being a source of education, not so much. You basically are try to shame those of us who will not watch your video, saying we are not educated Biblically. I beg to differ! Anyone that falls for this kind of tripe by a cultist is the one who needs to broaden his horizons. You might do that by reading some primarily documents on early manuscripts, translational issues and the evidence supporting other manuscripts.

So, by your reasoning, God decided to hide his Word the first 1600 years of the church, until the KJV was translated? Not so much! The latest translations are better, because instead of 7 late corrupted manuscripts which the KJV used to translate it we have thousands of early manuscripts, and the science of lower textual criticism (which are the best options for word usage) has advanced tremendously.

But don't take my word for it - learn Greek and Hebrew, and then maybe you will understand why KJV Onlyism is just so totally wrong! That, my friend, is being educated Biblically!!

 

[astropolis]

If the KJV is so important why did God make the church wait more than 16 centuries before revealing it?

The KJV is a translation. It's not a very good translation because it depends on a smaller set of manuscripts than are now available. It's also in an obsolete, though very beautiful, version of English.

Language changes. Compare the meaning of the word "prevent" in the KJV with its modern meaning. Translators therefore are dealing with a moving target. Every translation goes obsolete in time, and needs to be replaced.

Prov 24:6 "in multitude of counsellors there is safety". It's useful to read the same passage in several translations to avoid falling into the assumptions of one group of translators.

Either that or learn Hebrew and Greek.

 

[John146]

Aaaand, here we go again. John14:6, your brain has been duly and thoroughly washed by the Sam Gipp soap company. Yours is a false dichotomy, as I have told you MANY times. Your comment about scholarship and higher education applies to the translators of the KJV just as much as to anyone else. Get your head out of the 17th century, pass it through some education on logic, and open it to the possibility that you have embraced something less than the truth.

Are you promoting a Savior from which you read of in a book that is not trustworthy?

 

[John146]

If the KJV is so important why did God make the church wait more than 16 centuries before revealing it?

The KJV is a translation. It's not a very good translation because it depends on a smaller set of manuscripts than are now available. It's also in an obsolete, though very beautiful, version of English.

Language changes. Compare the meaning of the word "prevent" in the KJV with its modern meaning. Translators therefore are dealing with a moving target. Every translation goes obsolete in time, and needs to be replaced.

Prov 24:6 "in multitude of counsellors there is safety". It's useful to read the same passage in several translations to avoid falling into the assumptions of one group of translators.

Either that or learn Hebrew and Greek.

It's called the "fullness of times." Why did God wait so long to become flesh and die on the cross? Because it was the perfect time in history. The word of God was being preserved through the centuries but was not made available to man until the perfect time in history.

 

[John146]

I read both Greek and Hebrew. When I took Hebrew, we compared the Hebrew Masoretic text to various English translations. I was assigned the KJV to compare to Hebrew. It was a reasonable translation, but not without faults. Of course, my issue was sometimes I could not make hide nor hair out of the English of the KJV to compare.

I am an advanced Greek student.

There's the problem. Angela, you are your own final authority on what God has said. Scholarship has educated you right out of your belief in the word of God.

With all your scholarship and education, why don't you just go through the entire Bible, correct all the errors, and give us a Bible that is 100% trustworthy?

 

[trofimus]

It's called the "fullness of times." Why did God wait so long to become flesh and die on the cross? Because it was the perfect time in history. The word of God was being preserved through the centuries but was not made available to man until the perfect time in history.

And now its the fullness of times to make it better.

Also, have you heard of Vulgate? The word of God was available.

 

[Dai3234]

What is uneducated and ignorant to me, is thinking some internet ranter has all the answers and enhances our "biblical education." What rot!

I read both Greek and Hebrew. When I took Hebrew, we compared the Hebrew Masoretic text to various English translations. I was assigned the KJV to compare to Hebrew. It was a reasonable translation, but not without faults. Of course, my issue was sometimes I could not make hide nor hair out of the English of the KJV to compare.

I am an advanced Greek student. I learned Greek in seminary, and I just spent the last 1 1/2 years upgrading by taking Intermediate Greek. Now, there are many here who have studied Greek or Hebrew on their own, which is also valid, providing they use study materials that are recommended by scholars. (All the people I have talked to!) That is educating yourself Biblically.

There are those who do not study the original languages, but do spend a lot of time studying and comparing translations, and digging into the Word. Those people are also Biblically educated.

But as for some cultist (not occultist as you write above!) with a video on youtube being a source of education, not so much. You basically are try to shame those of us who will not watch your video, saying we are not educated Biblically. I beg to differ! Anyone that falls for this kind of tripe by a cultist is the one who needs to broaden his horizons. You might do that by reading some primarily documents on early manuscripts, translational issues and the evidence supporting other manuscripts.

So, by your reasoning, God decided to hide his Word the first 1600 years of the church, until the KJV was translated? Not so much! The latest translations are better, because instead of 7 late corrupted manuscripts which the KJV used to translate it we have thousands of early manuscripts, and the science of lower textual criticism (which are the best options for word usage) has advanced tremendously.

But don't take my word for it - learn Greek and Hebrew, and then maybe you will understand why KJV Onlyism is just so totally wrong! That, my friend, is being educated Biblically!!

Ok, I'll explain a little better.

KJV --- followed on from the current texts through 7 years of 50 or 52? Scholars from around the world, who's lives were the church. And not just intellectual part-timers.

Yes their are flaws in the KJV. But mostly insignificant (camel / rope etc).

No the KJV ----- WAS NOT MADE AFTER 1600 YEARS. As previous CROWN versions existed before. The KJV was re-edited and translated because of the separation of the Catholic church and the royal family. The Catholic church altered the translation. And the Catholic translation of truth and altered, were printed in the same documents side by side in different languages. Showing the falsities.

Also, if you don't understand the English of old, that's not my fault. That actually says you don't see the problem. Because you don't understand it right?

And then theirs the NEW CONVERT, NEW BELIEVER. If a believer reads the new translated Bibles (not buying and studying everything etc), the top sellers make Jesus Christ the son of Joseph, they say He, the morning star has fallen as Lucifer. They remove the requirement of faith in Christ for salvation from PHILEMON.

THESE ARE NOT MINOR TRANSLATION ISSUES.

But yes, KJV should be like for like updated for better reading. Maybe you would know what I was talking about then.

The issue is a Bible for believers, and not just it's accuracy. If all are inaccurate, but most change the meaning of salvation, the believer believes the WRONG GOSPEL. AND IS NOT SAVED.

That's what is important. But yes I would like a perfect translation. But, when I've just picked up a new Amplified Bible and read about 5 plus verses and find this:

Matthew 24:30
And throw out the worthless servant into the outer darkness; in that place of (of grief and torment) there will be weeping (over sorrow and pain) and grinding of teeth ( OVER DISTRESS AND ANGER).

OVER DISTRESS AND ANGER? What are they talking about. Gnashing of teeth in KJV implies physical pain and damage. Not I'm angry and distressed I'll grind my teeth.

You see the issue?

 

[Dai3234]

If the KJV is so important why did God make the church wait more than 16 centuries before revealing it?

The KJV is a translation. It's not a very good translation because it depends on a smaller set of manuscripts than are now available. It's also in an obsolete, though very beautiful, version of English.

Language changes. Compare the meaning of the word "prevent" in the KJV with its modern meaning. Translators therefore are dealing with a moving target. Every translation goes obsolete in time, and needs to be replaced.

Prov 24:6 "in multitude of counsellors there is safety". It's useful to read the same passage in several translations to avoid falling into the assumptions of one group of translators.

Either that or learn Hebrew and Greek.

The KJV --- WAS NOT REALLY MADE 1600 YEARS LATER. It has previous royal versions that it is based on. A new version was made probably because of Catholic interference which is shown side by side in other historical documents of the translators of the previous versions. Showing errors side by side in two different languages. Proving the catholics likely messed with things. And my New Amplified Bible is very poor

 

[trofimus]

And my New Amplified Bible is very poor

Try NASB.

I do not use English translations, but whenever I look at the biblehub.com - parallel versions, NASB or Berean Literal Bible seem to be the best ones to me.