King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[Dino246]

You

Left out the Geneva Bible. Also, there's the Bishop's Bible, iirc.

Nope... canna have more than one or we'll be confuzzed... the "gospel" according to John146 sayeth so.

 

[Dai3234]

OK! I guess I was never that way. I have over 15 hard copy Bibles, quite a few of them study Bibles. And Bibles in French, Spanish and German. To say nothing of Hebrew and Greek.

However, now, with the internet, comparing versions is so easy. in Greek, many of the students had Accordance or Logos and multiple copies at hand. I just opened a few pages of Biblegateway. We would translate, then see which versions were more true to the verb usage, esp, participles. Word order and syntax were also interesting to compare.

In the end, our professor believed that what is important in translating is taking the words in the original languages and making them clear to modern readers. This is where the KJV totally fails. Too many obscure and archaic words. He is on the translation committees for the ESV and NIV. He said that was where he realized that communicating God's Word was the most important thing when translating.

I love Greek, and I seem to have a flare for linguistics. However, if someone reads only one version, they will still understand that the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ, and the plan of salvation, written in its pages. And if they stick to modern translations, they will get to know and follow Jesus by steady and disciplined reading of the Bible.

By your point all anyone has to do is get an MKJV / KJV 21ST, just for modern English, though expensive. Annoyingly. If they go for one Bible only?

 

[notbythesword]

Is the KJV correct saying in? And would you go for a KJV for accuracy or is it just as inaccurate to you so your saying strongs?

I don’t have a problem with someone reading a KJV, it’s just not what I personally prefer. I just don’t understand the whole KJV is infallible concept. I believe the correct word used there should have been “on”, not “in”. This is not just from Strong’s, but from multiple interlinear translations.

 

[Dai3234]

Put it this way. If your buying a Bible as a present for an out of touch believer or non-believer, what would you buy them?

 

[Dino246]

Put it this way. If your buying a Bible as a present for an out of touch believer or non-believer, what would you buy them?

For a new believer, assuming English is their first language, I'd try to find an older NIV, not because it is the best translation but because it is the clearest and easiest to understand and therefore well-suited to the need. Granted, I'm not familiar with the ESV, CSV, or some other newer versions. For an out-of-touch believer, I'd communicate and find out more about them first; they probably already have at least one.

In either case, and regardless of which version, I would emphasize reading it consistently and thoroughly AND discipleship with a more experienced believer. Both are important.

 

[Dai3234]

I don’t have a problem with someone reading a KJV, it’s just not what I personally prefer. I just don’t understand the whole KJV is infallible concept. I believe the correct word used there should have been “on”, not “in”. This is not just from Strong’s, but from multiple interlinear translations.

With such a small word you would think they would put in brackets ( KJV says in) etc, just for safety on an important point in the AMP or other noted versions etc. I just pray that one day I could get hold of a full bible that is as fast to read as the AMP BIBLE, with truthful notes included (better than AMP assumptions), with the fuller meanings like the KJV (a floor of sapphire) not NIV lapis lazuli etc. With red letter version and not really expensive. With colour maps and arrows etc, with ribbons, no bad ghosting, tough edges, In the not so distant future.

Even if it didn't include a KJV like reading manual or concordance etc. As long as it was the best it could be, that's all I hope for in a Bible. Just one.

 

[trofimus]

Hmm, I think active believers probably have more than one, but most believers go to church and follow the church Bible choice, I think? Which is NIV in Europe as far as I know and it's popular in other nations also. Catholics obviously stick to theirs and Mormons/ Jehovah's etc, otherwise there wouldn't be any.

NIV in Europe? Are you sure? Europeans do not use English Bibles Well, except of the UK.

If Europeans have some printed English Bible, you are right its mostly NIV. From the very simple reason - NIV is given for free in so called English Camps (camps with American missionaries and with English teaching). But reading it or using it in daily reading, I do not think so.

 

[preacher4truth]

Put it this way. If your buying a Bible as a present for an out of touch believer or non-believer, what would you buy them?

For English speaking folk? If it were 17th century, KJV.

In this century, an ESV, NASB, or CSB.

 

[John146]

United Bible Societies Greek NT

HCSB

ESV

NIV

NASB

I like to read and compare many different versions. I don't know what this obsession is with only one Bible!

It's called final authority. Do you use any of those versions as your final authority on what God has said? You stated earlier that you believe every word of the Bible. Which one? It can't be more than one since they all say different things and even hold different truths.

Do you have a final authority on what God has said?

 

[Dai3234]

For English speaking folk? If it were 17th century, KJV.

In this century, an ESV, NASB, or CSB.

Sorry I'm in UK so NASB is not happening. ESV maybe. Haven't seen CSB. Will have to look.

 

[Angela53510]

It's called final authority. Do you use any of those versions as your final authority on what God has said? You stated earlier that you believe every word of the Bible. Which one? It can't be more than one since they all say different things and even hold different truths.

Do you have a final authority on what God has said?

So, I checked the ESV and KJV for the words "final authority" being together. They are not. So, no where in the Bible does it say the KJV is the final authority, because the words are just not there. No Bible version is the "final authority." But Jesus is!

So I checked on the word "authority" in this case, exousia. Here is what I found.

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matt. 7:28-29



"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18 ESV

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."KJV.

Hmm! Both versions are right! Jesus has πᾶσα ἐξουσία or "pasa exousia" which is all power or authority.

Maybe this is your problem John? You do not realize Jesus has all authority, not a translation?

 

[Angela53510]

Put it this way. If your buying a Bible as a present for an out of touch believer or non-believer, what would you buy them?

I would go with NIV or Holman's HCSB. Both are easily readable and accurate. I find ESV and NASB a bit too slitled and stiff to make it easy and interesting reading. You want to engage a new believer, so a readable version, which is accurate is preferable.

 

[UnderGrace]

Thank you Angela, brilliant!!

Where did this idea originate that it was the final authority.

I find it baffling there is a belief held by some, that the translators of the KJV were inspired directly by the Holy Spirit when they were working on the translation.

So, I checked the ESV and KJV for the words "final authority" being together. They are not. So, no where in the Bible does it say the KJV is the final authority, because the words are just not there. No Bible version is the "final authority." But Jesus is!

So I checked on the word "authority" in this case, exousia. Here is what I found.

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matt. 7:28-29



"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matt 28:18 ESV

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."KJV.

Hmm! Both versions are right! Jesus has πᾶσα ἐξουσία or "pasa exousia" which is all power or authority.

Maybe this is your problem John? You do not realize Jesus has all authority, not a translation?

 

[KJV1611]

Daniel 3:25New Living Translation (NLT)

25 “Look!” Nebuchadnezzar shouted. “I see four men, unbound, walking around in the fire unharmed! And the fourth looks like a god is not promoting Jesus as son of the gods though.


This is not promoting Jesus as son of the gods though. It is a quote by a Nebuchadnezzar who worshipped false gods, but recognised a miricle by the true God. We also do not know if it was Jesus in the fire. could have been an angel.

Had you read something on lines of "Paul told the crowd that Jesus son of the gods, was going to save them.." Then yes this is utterly wrong. Please learn to read things in context.

We do know who was in the fire because we have a sure word of prophecy... the true God inspired bible is never wrong and we can trust it 100% that every word is right. We have the son of God in the fiery furnace from the vulgate to the KJV. It appears that "a son of the gods" only became part of the bible after Wescott and Hort.

All an uninspired translator has to go on is the defintion below.

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

If we put the slightest bit of thought into it, it is assinine to think that a translator could know God's intentions for cases like this and hundreds of other similar cases. How would a translator know if God intended God or god?

 

[Dai3234]

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended by this thread or that felt insulted by me. Sorry for starting this argument. I pray for forgiveness to the father, through the the holy spirit in Jesus name Amen. I should have known better.

 

[preacher4truth]

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended by this thread or that felt insulted by me. Sorry for starting this argument. I pray for forgiveness to the father, through the the holy spirit in Jesus name Amen. I should have known better.

No worries sir. Take into account this is of course a forum, and with the many KJVO cultists out there an on here many who have been here for awhile will automatically think "troll thread" whenever the issue is brought up, especially if done by a newer member.

Steve Anderson, Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, all names that bring on the KJVO cult teachings. Many are hoodwinked by this false teaching, and some are on here ready to engage in a battle over a Bible version.

Best thing is let them get their last word in. They won't come out of that cult but by the grace of God.

No hard feelings here.

 

[KJV1611]

I would venture to guess the KJV had it wrong, and here's why. Daniel has recorded the words of a pagan king. He does not know the God of Israel at that time, so for him to see this miracle, three Hebrews bound hand and foot, tossed into a fiery pit, so fiery the flames consumed those who tossed those Israelites into that pit, and he sees Someone with them, and they are walking around unbound, and the flames having no effect on them, neither their clothing.

After they come out, he proclaims their God to be the God his ppl, the Babylonians, would worship. However, in Daniel 4, Daniel gives him a stern warning that when he took credit for what God gave him, his kingdom, he'd lose his mind and go stark-raving mad. It was only after he looked upwards that God restored his mind unto him and he said, "At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; his kingdom endures from generation to generation.All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?”At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble."[vss 34-37]

So, to him, at the time of the fiery furnace, Jesus, or whoever was there with them(I've read where it was an angel of the Lord, not saying I agree with that, but just to show there are varying views), he did believe in gods, just not the God of Israel. So, to see just a miracle, he expressed this the best he could with the info he had.

I see the logic on that but it's just a guess, we can't say for certain that that is truly the way it happened. We don't really know what Nebuchadnezzar knew about Daniel's God at that time. My question to you would be why did all bibles before the newer translations have "the son of God"?

 

[KJV1611]

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...

It's like the KJV has become stumbling stone and Rock of offence since the church has fallen away... just an observation.

 

[KJV1611]

Hey man, if you want to be hoodwinked by Anderson, by his false arguments and ignorance of translations &c, and by kjvo then ok. Christ is enough for me so I don't need to join a cult and fly it's heretical flag. I'm sure some on here can help to further your indoctrination and ensnare you.

Why is a person who believes that God gave people a perfect bible a cultist? I would also like to know what some of Anderson's false arguments are.

 

[KJV1611]

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.

Why don't you tell us why the KJV is NOT the word of God.... what proof do you have? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know how you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the KJV is not inspired by God?