Why the king james?

[John146]

The pure words, plural, of God.

Are we talkin' dabar daw-baw' or logos?

 

[John146]

Why put so much stress on the originals? God didn't.

As originally written.........rather simple....and we atill have Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.....nice try but no ceegar.....now my question....why will you not acknowledge the truth?

 

[dcontroversal]

Are you out of your mind....he used Alexander the Great to Hellinize the known world and then had the N.T written in common Greek and then killed the language...the more you speak the more obvious it is that you are grasping at straws because of indictrination into this KJ only crew......seriously..cannot believe you said that...wow. I will also add....Gid did not inspire false teachers to give his word....Holy Men spake....Episcopals are not holy men!

Why put so much stress on the originals? God didn't.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The pure words, plural, of God.

'imrah im-raw' or memrah {em-raw'} ? (femine)

Guessing we're on Psalms 12:6 here?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Man perverted that word not God. Don't blame the Bible for that perversion. I believe in a perfect God who is not bound by the Greek or Hebrew language. I believe that God can give me a perfect Bible in my language, the English language.

then where is it?

And do not say some 1611 bible that is written in outdated english, or you will lose all credability.

 

[JesusIsAll]

All the textual criticism I've seen is cats, chasing their tails, it all coming down to what manuscripts you're going to accept, and on what basis. I never bought into the notion older is better, when many more other manuscripts agree. You come down to a matter of faith one manuscript is better than the next, what little there is of any questioned verse in the King James, in any case, not lacking in truth. But, of the King James, using it over a lifetime, the language isn't a problem, as you get to know all the old words, probably wouldn't even know of agape love, where it not for King James charity in 1 Corinthians 13. So, I've found the 17th century language even useful, as a matter of fact, perhaps ironically, encouraging deeper study. The King James only cultishness seems to neglect the great usefulness of comparative translations study, though.

Whatever, I will always prefer the King James for its centuries-honored place in English Bibles and having brought countless to faith in Jesus Christ and an understanding of all the things of God, as well as the fact that the most admired, scholarly and deepest Bible teachers I've known and trusted have used the King James Bible, far and wide. What's been good for more than 400 years now and still good for many fine Christians is good enough for me. And word changes or omissions in some translations are disturbing, so many that serve to reduce the deity of Jesus Christ or the likes of even omitting the word blood. This pattern of diminution in many changes can't be ignored, so I'm happy to stick with the King James, trust the King James most, my reasons thus and having nothing to do with some cult.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That's our laziness to pick the book up and study to shew ourselves approved unto God a workman who needeth not to be ashamed. The problem is not the book, the problem is us. Growing up, I knew more about the land of OZ the home of a wizard, than the land of UZ, the home of Job.

I would not force anyone to make that decision. But if one is truly searching, I would encourage them to study the differences, especially the manuscripts in which they were translated. One comes from the Textus Receptus and all the others come from the Alexandrian Texts. One God, or many. The doctrine of one.

1. You did not answer my question.
2 I have studied both the KJV and the NASB, I see no differences so severe that I would believe in a different God, or a different gospel. They both teach Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Then answer, did God fulfill His promise to preserve His words? If so, where are they?

Go to a book store. You will find them in the bible section. They may not be perfect. Then again, Nothing done by men is..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Why put so much stress on the originals? God didn't.

Say what?

Did God go around reading the latin bible? Or what english bible did he read out of?? How about chinese??

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Ive probably have upset some already,Dont mean to and there was much more that could be said but it takes a while for it to sink in,did me anywaysIt would be some can explore when the time is right for them.Its up to the person which text or bible they wish to use,

Haven't seen Angelfire for a while! ;-)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

All the textual criticism I've seen is cats, chasing their tails, it all coming down to what manuscripts you're going to accept, and on what basis. I never bought into the notion older is better, when many more other manuscripts agree. You come down to a matter of faith one manuscript is better than the next, what little there is of any questioned verse in the King James, in any case, not lacking in truth. But, of the King James, using it over a lifetime, the language isn't a problem, as you get to know all the old words, probably wouldn't even know of agape love, where it not for King James charity in 1 Corinthians 13. So, I've found the 17th century language even useful, as a matter of fact, perhaps ironically, encouraging deeper study. The King James only cultishness seems to neglect the great usefulness of comparative translations study, though.

Whatever, I will always prefer the King James for its centuries-honored place in English Bibles and having brought countless to faith in Jesus Christ and an understanding of all the things of God, as well as the fact that the most admired, scholarly and deepest Bible teachers I've known and trusted have used the King James Bible, far and wide. What's been good for more than 400 years now and still good for many fine Christians is good enough for me. And word changes or omissions in some translations are disturbing, so many that serve to reduce the deity of Jesus Christ or the likes of even omitting the word blood. This pattern of diminution in many changes can't be ignored, so I'm happy to stick with the King James, trust the King James most, my reasons thus and having nothing to do with some cult.

No one here is bashing the KJV, Or saying it is not a great bible or has not led many to Christ.

The arguent is idolotry, Not about a well used, well trusted version of scripture.

 

[Nikki84]

The KJV is outdated imo. I just don't like ye olde English

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Something that may interest some, many words from the original test of the Tanakh (OT) are yet a mystery to Hebrew scholars as to their actual meaning. I know there are some who would say this is not so, but it is. A very unusual error in translation that endured for centuries is that Moses came down from the Mount with horns emitting from his head. Look up the Michaelangelo statue of Moses, and you willl see him with the tablets, pointing at the words with horns. He had rays emitting from his head of course.

PW appreciates Brother Grandpa's words here!

 

[JesusIsAll]

1. You did not answer my question.
2 I have studied both the KJV and the NASB, I see no differences so severe that I would believe in a different God, or a different gospel. They both teach Christ.

Yes, the NASB is quite good, conservative, literal. It's always been my second "go to" Bible for clarification, and it can be a good Bible to quote some verses from, for unregenerate people. Here and there, even some of the paraphrases capture things in modern English very well, drive home points to the modern audience that may escape the KJV rendering.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No one here is bashing the KJV, Or saying it is not a great bible or has not led many to Christ.

The arguent is idolotry, Not about a well used, well trusted version of scripture.

I pray this did not come across wrong sis. I did not mean it in a derogetory way, was just stating something..

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

If you don't believe that the KJV is THE word of God, then which one is? Can you say, "I have God's word right here in my hand." Each version says something different. There are different truths taught in each one. Btw, older manuscripts does not mean better. Older simply means no one used them back then because they were rejected by the majority and believed to be corrupted, so they were better kept in tack because no one read them.

God promised to preserve His words for all generations. Where are they today? Did God lie? Would God hold us accountable to His word and not give it to us?

There are some truths in this statement as well as a not-so-truth. Also, part(s) of this statement can be easily misunderstood.

-Calling it like I see it.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Here's an interesting question to ponder: When you put your faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins and the salvation of your soul...were you placing your faith upon Jesus Christ or were you placing your faith in the word of God?

Would you put your soul's eternal destination in a book that you don't believe every word to be true? In other words, "I don't believe all the words of this book to be true, but I'm going to trust this part to be true concerning the salvation of my soul."

If I don't have a perfect book to appeal to, how can I defend myself against a world who is against me? God's word is final authority or is it? If so, where is it?

John 1, man, John 1.

 

[Gr8grace]

The context of the whole book of Hosea would suggest that this is the best way to translate this Hebrew phrase is exactly as the King James Bible (and some others) has it - "who love flagons of wine".

Hosea 2:8 "For she did not know that I gave her corn, and WINE, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal."

Hosea 4:11 "Whoredom and WINE AND NEW WINE take away the heart."

Hosea 7:5 "In the day of our king the princes have made him sick with BOTTLES OF WINE; he stretched out his hand with scorners."

Hosea 7:14 "And they have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled upon their beds: they assemble themselves for corn and WINE, and they rebel against me."

Hosea 9:2 and 4 - "The floor and the WINEPRESS shall not feed them, and THE NEW WINE shall fail in her...They shall not offer WINE offerings to the LORD, neither shall they be pleasing unto him."

Thank you sir. what did they mean by this?...............

The KJV translators to the reader in the Preface to 1611 version........

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, the NASB is quite good, conservative, literal. It's always been my second "go to" Bible for clarification, and it can be a good Bible to quote some verses from, for unregenerate people. Here and there, even some of the paraphrases capture things in modern English very well, drive home points to the modern audience that may escape the KJV rendering.

I use the NASB when I teach, because my church uses that as its main bible.. When I use king james, they always joke with me about speaking king jimmy (alot in my church was sickened by the KJV only cult, and would not read a KJV based on that fact alone.

 

[JesusIsAll]

No one here is bashing the KJV, Or saying it is not a great bible or has not led many to Christ.

The arguent is idolotry, Not about a well used, well trusted version of scripture.

No, I understand what you're saying, was merely offering a view that one can hold the King James preeminent in a reasoned way.