King James Version Only...?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
11,342
17,179
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Wrong.

The farther we get from history, the less we know.

That is exactly why the "Greek" word ALSO means this and this and this....

They keep redefining the text as if they lived 2000 years ago.
Of course I am! But only to those who will insist that no modern translation is good enough. I once got excluded from a so-called Christian forum because I preferred the modern ones and said that there were mistakes in the King James.
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,510
2,872
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why do people believe that? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were clearly individual people, Adam was the first MAN but not the first human. I see no indication that there is any reiteration. Eve became the mother of all living after the fall. Before the fall humans were just animals but God wanted to make them into His image and He started His amazing plan to accomplish that. If you look at what historians and scientists have found there was a fantastic leap for humanity about 6000 years ago with modern farming, writing and the first cities all coming from that time. The invention of the plough was about then and Adam was a farmer and before him there was not a man to till the ground. It all fits perfectly!
Many times in the Bible a chapter will go into a previous chapter with more detail.

I would love to know your definition of human, since you say Adam was a man but there were humans before him. Why can't Genesis be taken literally?
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not us, them. But I almost didn't notice the dodge of the point that it applies to other translations EQUALLY.
I am partial to ancient translators.

Modern translators are trying to make a buck with their PHD.

They just want to be "different" at the expense of misrepresenting the pure word of God.

Do notice, nobody claims the modern translations are pure, they just attempt to trash the KJV so they can keep quoting their Strongs.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why do people believe that? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were clearly individual people, Adam was the first MAN but not the first human. I see no indication that there is any reiteration. Eve became the mother of all living after the fall. Before the fall humans were just animals but God wanted to make them into His image and He started His amazing plan to accomplish that. If you look at what historians and scientists have found there was a fantastic leap for humanity about 6000 years ago with modern farming, writing and the first cities all coming from that time. The invention of the plough was about then and Adam was a farmer and before him there was not a man to till the ground. It all fits perfectly!
Adam(and Eve) were made in the image of Jesus that was to come(Rom 5:14).

She was the mother of all the living and Adam was the father of all the living.

She was not involved with another fella.

Aint nobody gonna talk about our mama.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Of course I can!

The version that lodges in the memory is the one that you have most exposure to.
Not under the inspiration of God.

It is supernatural when God uses folks to quote from the KJV when witnessing or ministering.

It takes nearly no IQ also.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, they reject the KJV template because it is wrong.

One of the biggest misconceptions of KVJ-only-ism is the idea that modern translations start with the KJV and go down hill from there.

That is not what happens in modern translations. They go back to the beginning. Not only do we know much more than half a millennia ago, the language we speak today is not what was spoken half a millennia ago. The introductions to some translations talk about how language has changed even since the 1960's.
Which translation is the pure word of God, Wrangler?

The word of God endureth forever, right?

Since you think they are all flawed, shall we quote Strongs and create our own closet pure word of God?

If not, who is left on earth that God will raise up to make God's word endure forever?

Maybe the lesbian proofreader Mohlencott for the NIV?

Must be lonely out there with a library full of flawed translations to hopefully piece together a faux word of God, huh?
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Of course I am! But only to those who will insist that no modern translation is good enough. I once got excluded from a so-called Christian forum because I preferred the modern ones and said that there were mistakes in the King James.
You should never be excluded for being wrong.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,800
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am partial to ancient translators.

Your bias is obvious.

Modern translators are trying to make a buck with their PHD.

AS IF there is something wrong with making a living and serving God. :rolleyes:

They just want to be "different" at the expense of misrepresenting the pure word of God.

Sir, this reveals your God complex. Only God knows their heart.

As another poster pointed out, have you ever read the introduction of these modern translations? They do a fair job of articulating their faith-based motivation and answering the call of God to do the work for another generation of image bearers of God.

Do notice, nobody claims the modern translations are pure, they just attempt to trash the KJV so they can keep quoting their Strongs.

Let me say two things right off the bat that appear contradictory.
  1. The KJV is the most significant, important book ever written in the English language.
  2. The KJV's time in the sun has come and gone.
Translations are not pure. This is why nobody claims it. And it has nothing to do with religion. There are often not exact word for word equating. The syntax of the FROM and TO language is not the same. And, there is a reasonable compromise between literal and readability that requires judgment. For instance, I am sadly reading the NSRV now in daily devotional reading.

The translators decided to use the literal translation of units of measure. I completed last year 2 wonderful thought translations that used modern units of measure. Such literal translation of archaic units of measurement is an incomplete translation, IMO. The translator is leaving up to the reader to complete the translation, e.g., cubits, talents, mite, dram, obsolete calendar references, etc.

If I may make a comparison. The job of a resume is to get the interview. The resume is not the end but the means to the end. The same with translations. The job of the translation is to bring people to God. It is not the end but the means to the end. I literally cannot read the KJV. Modern translations are for me and they have brought me closer to God. One cannot expect more out of a translation than that.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
10,295
1,479
113
62
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your bias is obvious.



AS IF there is something wrong with making a living and serving God. :rolleyes:



Sir, this reveals your God complex. Only God knows their heart.

As another poster pointed out, have you ever read the introduction of these modern translations? They do a fair job of articulating their faith-based motivation and answering the call of God to do the work for another generation of image bearers of God.



Let me say two things right off the bat that appear contradictory.
  1. The KJV is the most significant, important book ever written in the English language.
  2. The KJV's time in the sun has come and gone.
Translations are not pure. This is why nobody claims it. And it has nothing to do with religion. There are often not exact word for word equating. The syntax of the FROM and TO language is not the same. And, there is a reasonable compromise between literal and readability that requires judgment. For instance, I am sadly reading the NSRV now in daily devotional reading.

The translators decided to use the literal translation of units of measure. I completed last year 2 wonderful thought translations that used modern units of measure. Such literal translation of archaic units of measurement is an incomplete translation, IMO. The translator is leaving up to the reader to complete the translation, e.g., cubits, talents, mite, dram, obsolete calendar references, etc.

If I may make a comparison. The job of a resume is to get the interview. The resume is not the end but the means to the end. The same with translations. The job of the translation is to bring people to God. It is not the end but the means to the end. I literally cannot read the KJV. Modern translations are for me and they have brought me closer to God. One cannot expect more out of a translation than that.
Busted!

You just admitted that God's pure word does NOT endure forever.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,001
4,800
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Busted!

You just admitted that God's pure word does NOT endure forever.
I said nothing of the kind. The proper way to read God's Word is with God's Spirit.

Translations are not pure. Odd for you to invoke Strawman and to suppose that means I am claiming something blasphemous about God.

The KJV is now the worst translation available in English. The best translation might be Italian but I don't speak Italian - and no one today speaks the 16th century king's English.
 

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Out of all the theological ideas and topics that I've come across over the years, the issue of KJV only is one that I have not encountered until recently. I do appreciate the KJV and have a few Bibles in that translation, but to say that it is the only true word of God in English seems to be a far stretch. Also, this opens up a can of worms.

a) Do missionaries that travel to foreign countries where English is not the language require the people to learn old school English in order to have God's true Word?

b) Is English the only language that the Bible must be in?

c) What about all the Bible translations before the 1611 KJV?

Those are just a few questions I have regarding this topic. I'd like to ask the members here, what are you thoughts on the subject?


Although the KJV is not the version I would recommend first LC, I do believe that Jehovah accepted it, especially for a few centuries. Why do I say that? I see His protection of His name. Jehovah progressively increased the plagues on Egypt rather that just freeing His people right off, in order to have His name declared in all the earth Ex 9:16. His name occurs more than any other name in Scripture, we believe it was in the original Hebrew scriptures 6973 times. Jesus made that name manifest to his followers Jn 17:6 and pointed out in his model prayer that it was to be sanctified, or held holy Mat 6:9. The translators of the KJV were dead set against removing God's name from their version, but Jehovah was well aware that it would become the primary version that Christians would be exposed to and use personally for centuries. Therefore with all their trying, they were unable to remove His name. It occurs in it's entirety 4 times and several more times as the shortened form Jah. When we entered into the last days, and Jehovah's name became easily obtained through other versions, as well as other means, He allowed newer versions to remove it, but not entirely, as I believe every single English Bible still includes His name in Revelation. The Hebrew word Hallelujah in English is Praise Jehovah.

So truth can be found in the KJV, although I believe with the old English it is much more difficult to do so. We live in the age of information now, where most of Scripture has been opened to us. Dan 12:4
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,466
2,500
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You teach that the Church misses the wedding and supper of Rev 19, then meets up to return with Him somewhere.

And you tell lies, because I NEVER said that Christ's faithful Church misses the supper He is going to provide at His return.

That supper just so happens is going to be ON EARTH, IN JERUSALEM AFTER HIS FUTURE RETURN. If you had taken time to 'read' the Zechariah 14 Chapter which shows where Jesus returns to WITH His faithful Church, then you would have known this. But go ahead, keep playing church and being deceived by false teachers instead of staying in God's Word as written. As long as you are rebellious against His Word, you deserve... to be deceived by the devil.
 

strobe

Member
May 11, 2020
99
20
8
54
Gateshead
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Many times in the Bible a chapter will go into a previous chapter with more detail.

I would love to know your definition of human, since you say Adam was a man but there were humans before him. Why can't Genesis be taken literally?
Actually I do take it literally as far as I believe it is meant to be. If you mean six days of creation, they relate to a prophesy of six 1000 year periods which are drawing to a close as we speak. When Jesus returns, man will finally be made in God's image, creation will be complete and we will enter the Sabbath.
 
Last edited:

strobe

Member
May 11, 2020
99
20
8
54
Gateshead
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Adam(and Eve) were made in the image of Jesus that was to come(Rom 5:14).
I agree that Adam was in His image, not Eve. So were they individuals or do you think they are all people?

She was the mother of all the living and Adam was the father of all the living.
But she only became that after the fall and hence got her name. Before the fall she was just "woman" Adam's name didn't change. The fall was an essential part of God's plan.

She was not involved with another fella.

Aint nobody gonna talk about our mama.
? Okay
 

GEN2REV

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2021
3,850
1,436
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Lambano said:
6:4 שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

should read

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one:
Can you make out any discernible difference to the meaning of those two translations? Is one more correct for some reason?

I couldn't see any real difference to what is being stated. In the second version, 'the Lord' is repeated, and 'our God.' is defining who 'The LORD' is. So you can eliminate the first part of it 'The LORD our God, ...' and just have the second part meaning the same thing. '... the LORD is one.'

In other words, 'The LORD our God is one LORD' is exactly the same meaning as 'the LORD is one.'

Do you see it differently?