Let me say that I love the KJV; it's one of my favorite translations. So me not being KJVO is not being anti-KJV. I'm like Dr. James White in that way. 
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
My authority, first, is the Greek and Hebrew, which God actually inspired. It is esp. valuable for grammar, particularly participles, which Greek uses in abundance, but don’t translate well into English. KJV is pretty bad with participles, I could give you 50 examples off the top of my head.
Word for word is a lie, of course. Because word order in Greek is so radically different than English. KJV doesn’t come close to it, although my Martin Luther Bible in German is able to be much closer to the original word order, not that it matters.
So, here’s the thing for you English-only speakers. There are many possible definitions of a word, when going from one language to another. For instance, think about how many definitions of the word “run” there are in English. Well, Greek and Hebrew are the same. There is no straight word for word possible. Because there are numerous possibilities. Some translations get it right, some don’t. That is why revisions are necessary, and the KJV certainly went through a lot of those, in the first couple of centuries, didn’t it?
As for all the added spurious texts in the KJV, that is what you really are trusting? Words added centuries after the originals? By what authority, do you trust a text which was not in the original? Textus Receptus is the most corrupted of all the texts, because of that telephone game, played by Greek scribes, handed down over generations, mistakes made, recopied, till the manuscripts the KJV was translated from, were just a corrupted mess. Even Erasmus vouched for that.
So, back to the question? My authority is the Bible! Any version communicates the gospel. If it doesn’t, like the New World Translation, well, then those are the ones I don’t rely upon. I will say, I knew a woman who was a JW for 15 years, and when she got saved, and left, she could still prove that Christ was God, and what the gospel was from that Bible. Which, she used with other JWs.
I’ve read almost every modern translation, differences are mostly style, and too much tendency to either fall on the side of too rigid, losing the meanings of the text, because the receiving language is ignored, KJV (ESV, NASB) or go to the other extreme, and paraphrase, which includes too much of the author’s own theology. NASB is good, but stilted, ESV the same, although a bit more modern, NIV is a bit too fluid. I”m on my third read through of HCSB, and it is so readable, it is delightful. But, sometimes they change a beautiful metaphor into crass prose. That happened a couple of days ago.
I’m soon onto my new NET, but already, some issues I question. And of course, a certain theology comes through. I just trust God he will not lead me astray, as I read his word. Oh, and the Martin Luther Neues Bibel is really good. I accidently took it to German class last week, instead of my dictionary, and we got into a very interesting discussion. God has a way of using pretty much anything to open doors, doesn’t he?
And no one should ever make up doctrines unless they know the original languages. I guess for some people, KJV English is so weird, they think they are reading the original languages?? LOL It seems like about 100% of the time someone comes into this forum and posts some off base theological discovery, it comes out of a wrong reading of the KJV, because they don’t understand it. OK, I exaggerate! 99% of the time.
Word for word is a lie, of course. Because word order in Greek is so radically different than English. KJV doesn’t come close to it, although my Martin Luther Bible in German is able to be much closer to the original word order, not that it matters.
So, here’s the thing for you English-only speakers. There are many possible definitions of a word, when going from one language to another. For instance, think about how many definitions of the word “run” there are in English. Well, Greek and Hebrew are the same. There is no straight word for word possible. Because there are numerous possibilities. Some translations get it right, some don’t. That is why revisions are necessary, and the KJV certainly went through a lot of those, in the first couple of centuries, didn’t it?
As for all the added spurious texts in the KJV, that is what you really are trusting? Words added centuries after the originals? By what authority, do you trust a text which was not in the original? Textus Receptus is the most corrupted of all the texts, because of that telephone game, played by Greek scribes, handed down over generations, mistakes made, recopied, till the manuscripts the KJV was translated from, were just a corrupted mess. Even Erasmus vouched for that.
So, back to the question? My authority is the Bible! Any version communicates the gospel. If it doesn’t, like the New World Translation, well, then those are the ones I don’t rely upon. I will say, I knew a woman who was a JW for 15 years, and when she got saved, and left, she could still prove that Christ was God, and what the gospel was from that Bible. Which, she used with other JWs.
I’ve read almost every modern translation, differences are mostly style, and too much tendency to either fall on the side of too rigid, losing the meanings of the text, because the receiving language is ignored, KJV (ESV, NASB) or go to the other extreme, and paraphrase, which includes too much of the author’s own theology. NASB is good, but stilted, ESV the same, although a bit more modern, NIV is a bit too fluid. I”m on my third read through of HCSB, and it is so readable, it is delightful. But, sometimes they change a beautiful metaphor into crass prose. That happened a couple of days ago.
I’m soon onto my new NET, but already, some issues I question. And of course, a certain theology comes through. I just trust God he will not lead me astray, as I read his word. Oh, and the Martin Luther Neues Bibel is really good. I accidently took it to German class last week, instead of my dictionary, and we got into a very interesting discussion. God has a way of using pretty much anything to open doors, doesn’t he?
And no one should ever make up doctrines unless they know the original languages. I guess for some people, KJV English is so weird, they think they are reading the original languages?? LOL It seems like about 100% of the time someone comes into this forum and posts some off base theological discovery, it comes out of a wrong reading of the KJV, because they don’t understand it. OK, I exaggerate! 99% of the time.
You've been a member an hour and already insulting a well-respected member?
My authority, first, is the Greek and Hebrew, which God actually inspired. The original or the copies Angela?
So, here’s the thing for you English-only speakers. There are many possible definitions of a word, when going from one language to another. For instance, think about how many definitions of the word “run” there are in English. Well, Greek and Hebrew are the same. There is no straight word for word possible. Because there are numerous possibilities. Some translations get it right, some don’t. That is why revisions are necessary, and the KJV certainly went through a lot of those, in the first couple of centuries, didn’t it? The changes in the King James Bible were merely to correct things such as standardized spelling and typographical errors. The context of the King James Bible has never once been changed.
My authority is the Bible! Which Bible Angela? Can you hold and read anything that you can say is your final authority on all matters of faith and practice? Or is it your scholarship that determines what God has said?
I get what you are saying, John146, in that you accuse "us" of depending on scholarship rather than on the actual words of the text for our authority . . .
But what you are missing is that the KJV was also done by "scholarship" - it was men of the time working under the best scholarship and means they had to put the words into the best English they could.
But what you are doing is saying that something that was done in 1611 is somehow "inspired" by God. This is blatant heresy. Inspiration ended when the canon was complete:
Rev. 22:18,19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: [SUP]19 [/SUP]and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Those words from Revelation were written long before 1611 and the they were not written in KJV English.
I and most others here are not against the KJV. It is a good translation. But for the NT ,it is the original words given in Greek to the writers (OT - Hebrew) that God inspired. Scholarship simply tries to figure out as closely as possible what those original words were (since none of the original autographs is available).
We are just honest about the transmission of the text rather than trying to insist that God 1600 years later had to somehow come up with another inspired version.
Why can’t you just trust God? That he has conveyed everything he wanted to in the original autographs, and the over 6000 manuscripts handed down, have basically the same message, in the nearly identical words as the autographs.
Again, why do you trust a Bible with so many added parts? Like the longer ending of Mark 16, for example. Different, theology than the rest of Mark, including words that are not found in the rest of Mark and a high Christology which Mark never uses elsewhere.
You trust a version, which certainly is useable for correction, instruction and rebuking! But by what authority do you claim they KJV to be the perfect version? Because when compared even with Stephanus, there quite simply are mistakes, let alone the earlier manuscripts which are much closer to the original autographs than the corrupt versions which existed at the time the KJV was translated.
So, your “authority” is because a homosexual Anglican King, who believed in the Divine Right of Kings, pulled together a translation committee, who got it mostly right, given the knowledge and the manuscripts that were available, but still so many mistakes? Why do you trust a homosexual Anglican King?
God is truly the final authority on all things, and we are just his imperfect followers, trusting the inspiration of God, in spite of translations, mistakes and other things. There is no perfect, final authority on this earth, except God. Too bad you worship a Bible instead of God. And that you are so terrified of losing your faith if it turns out the KJV is not the perfect authority. Biblioidolatry is a very sad thing.
My trust has always been in God, and that is why I have the freedom to learn and grow, including using different Bible versions. That means I have been able to change my theology, as I read the Bible, and the Holy Spirit shows me new things, or clarifies things, including the way I formerly read it.
Sorry you are so afraid that you have to defend a Bible translation, instead of trusting God.
OOOHHHHHHHHHH..... I GET it now..... how could I have missed it before?
You're a TROLL!!
Why didn't you just tell us at the start?
Seriously, though.... what point are you trying to make?
Last edited:
Your pointing out the KJV revisions in the past, when those revisions were only old english words to newer modern english words that mean the same thing in meaning. Most of Revisions i would absolutely think were were v to u , F to s ect. You can sit the 1611 AV King James and set it right next to the 1769 (Modern day Standard text for the King James Version Bible) and look at every inch of this book and never find a single versse thats meaning was changed by revision. Because it is so very easy to physicaly do so the English Christian culture cannot at at all disagree or find an argument and the whole world but you recognices that.
......................
Then you turn around and so bravely worship out of a book that has meaning revisions & it is evadent in all modern english failed attempts of translation. I am safer Christian.
.....................
Have you people never heard the phrase "Better safe than sorry?"
- This is your eternal afterlife you are gambeling with, yet chose to roll the dice?
Some things I wanted you to add to your side of the argument.
Wanted you to see it, Together we are stronger:
Your pointing out the KJV revisions in the past, when those revisions were only old english words to newer modern english words that mean the same thing in meaning. Most of Revisions i would absolutely think were were v to u , F to s ect. You can sit the 1611 AV King James and set it right next to the 1769 (Modern day Standard text for the King James Version Bible) and look at every inch of this book and never find a single versse thats meaning was changed by revision. Because it is so very easy to physicaly do so the English Christian culture cannot at at all disagree or find an argument and the whole world but you recognices that.
......................
Then you turn around and so bravely worship out of a book that has meaning revisions & it is evadent in all modern english failed attempts of translation. I am safer Christian.
.....................
Have you people never heard the phrase "Better safe than sorry?"
- This is your eternal afterlife you are gambeling with, yet chose to roll the dice?
......................
Then you turn around and so bravely worship out of a book that has meaning revisions & it is evadent in all modern english failed attempts of translation. I am safer Christian.
.....................
Have you people never heard the phrase "Better safe than sorry?"
- This is your eternal afterlife you are gambeling with, yet chose to roll the dice?
How do you ignore the fact that the KJV Bible was the book that landed as the foundation for English language Bibles? How could you possibly walk away from the largest possible hint (of God) in the History of English Christianity. In my eyes it is just the proof of God, and I am so fortunate to clearly notice his very obvious works.
Something else I wanted you to see:
Your pointing out the KJV revisions in the past, when those revisions were only old english words to newer modern english words that mean the same thing in meaning. Most of Revisions i would absolutely think were were v to u , F to s ect. You can sit the 1611 AV King James and set it right next to the 1769 (Modern day Standard text for the King James Version Bible) and look at every inch of this book and never find a single versse thats meaning was changed by revision. Because it is so very easy to physicaly do so the English Christian culture cannot at at all disagree or find an argument and the whole world but you recognices that.
......................
Then you turn around and so bravely worship out of a book that has meaning revisions & it is evadent in all modern english failed attempts of translation. I am safer Christian.
.....................
Have you people never heard the phrase "Better safe than sorry?"
- This is your eternal afterlife you are gambeling with, yet chose to roll the dice?
I somehow understand that the KJVO do not know much about things outside the KJV. It makes sense, somehow.
But I really do not understand why the KJVO do not know the KJV facts.
Your statement is simply not true:
1611 vs. 1769
Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”
And many others.
BTW, the difference in 1 J5:12 is something that if present in modern translations, you would pick it up as a corruption and attack on deity. But because its in KJV, it will be OK and the same thing, of course. I do not expect anything else.
Last edited:
I read Greek and Hebrew well, do you? I can easily find errors in any version, including the KJV. Can you?
I do not “worship out of a book!” I worship out of my heart, the living God. The Bible is my guide, it teaches me and reveals Jesus Christ.
If you knew knew anything about theology, you would realize the concept is what counts, not wooden literalism. The KJV is not aeays effective in conveying meaning in the receiving language, in our case, English. Especially because the grammar and many words are obsolete! The KJV is fine but it is not the best translation!
My advice to worship Jesus, read whichever version you like! But no person’s salvation is ever dependent on a Bible translation. That is beyond absurd.
Are you a ‘bot?
All this bad English and repeated posts sure sounds like it.
