THE FAKE KJV ONLY ARGUMENT

[Rockerduck]

I went from the KJV for a long time, because every used it when I grew up. I went to the NKJ because of bible studies when women used the NLT or something like that. fast forward I had several translations on my desk, all the main ones, and found errors. I asked the Lord which translation to use or should I just use the KJV again. The next day my wife came home from a Goodwill store and found 3 bibles. All 1977 NASB. That night the Holy Spirit said that's the one for me to use.

 

[Justified]

Yet the KJV is the only Bible that has an abundance of 7's in it at a level NOT SEEN in any other version
What does that prove ?
Bother yourself to have a read through to answer that question for yourself

KJV Code

kjvcode.com

Here are some of MANY
..
View attachment 82188
View attachment 82189
View attachment 82190

View attachment 82191

That, even if true, proves nothing; it is not at all relevant. Numerology doesn't determine which translation is best.

 

[rvmb]

That, even if true, proves nothing; it is not at all relevant. Numerology doesn't determine which translation is best.

So except for a quick glimpse if that, you haven't bothered to have a deeper look, based on your type of postings, I'm not surprised

 

[Davy]

Yes, they certainly do.


And that happens with word-for-word translations as well, since words can have multiple meanings depending on context and no language translates directly at all times into another language.

That is only in certain cases. Most languages have an equivalent word or phrase that relays the same meaning. If this were not so, then people of a different language would have a major problem with conveying their thoughts from their language of origin to the new language. Thus some things don't translate well, but not in the majority of cases.

Agreed.


False. The NASB, LSB, NRSV, and ESV are also formal equivalence and considered better word-for-word translations than the KJV. Then there are dynamic equivalence translations (thought-for-thought) such as the CSB/HCSB, NIV, and NLT. Then there are the paraphrase versions, like the GNT and The Message.

That's misleading.

The NASB uses the Critical Greek text for the New Testament, which instead relying on Wescott and Hort's new 1881 Greek New Testament translation from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The KJV did not use those Greek texts.

The LSB is just a revision of the NASB.

The NRSV, same, just a new revision of the NASB.

The ESV uses the Novum Testamentum Graecum by Nestle from the school of Textual Criticism, and not the Traditional Text the KJV used. Nestle used the Greek text editions of Tischendorf (who discovered Sinaiticus), Wescott and Hort's new 1881 Greek text they translated from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and from texts produced by Weymouth.

So... it's like I said, English Bible translations after the 1880's use different Greek text sources than what was used in the 1611 KJV. Even the New King Jame Version, in addition to using the Greek texts for the original KJV, it also uses the texts of Textual Criticism which the KJV translators did not use, so the NKJV isn't true to the original.

I don't think there's any better evidence like the above that the school of Textual Criticism purposefully getting away from the Greek Traditional Texts and Textus Receptus is an attack on the 1611 KJV Bible, and Bibles that used the Majority Text prior to the 1800's.

 

[Wrangler]

English speaking Bible students still have no excuse to NOT use a 1611 KJV translation.

We don't need any more 'paraphrase' type Bible translations

Wrong. We don't need an excuse to reject a translation not in modern English! Who the hell do you think you are imposing such IDOLATRY? What authority and power do you claim over others that they must answer - and you warn no excuse will be tolerated - by you? What a petty dictator!

So called "literal"translations aren't really so AND they are also not rendered into proper modern English, which makes what you pejoratively call paraphrase in demand. Let me give an example. It is not just the words but the sentence structure.

• In Japanese, the order of subject and object is reversed. "Book, give to me."
• In Spanish, the adjective-noun order is reversed. "House Big."

Any casual reader reading such "literal" translations will quickly conclude it is a horrible translation and this is because the TO part of the translation, your IDOL of literal is wrong, not proper English. What we don't need is any more so-called literal translations. And in case I didn't tell you this before and how you know this is IDOLATRY on your part is such fools proclaiming this kept me from reading the Bible for 2 decades. When you advance something over people coming to Christ, that is how you know you've embraced IDOLATRY.

 

[Wrangler]

The NASB uses the Critical Greek text for the New Testament, which instead relying on Wescott and Hort's new 1881 Greek New Testament translation from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The KJV did not use those Greek texts.

Another reason why the KJV is the worst translation available in English today! Older and better manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were found AFTER Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which is what modern translations rely on.

The FROM and TO part of the translation is better and so is modern translators knowledge of the original language of the manuscripts compared to the relatively ignorant KJV translators. Just think about it for a moment. It's absurd to suppose half a millennia later, humans cannot improve on a translation.

 

[Armour of God]

I personally don't understand why people insist that the KJV is the only version you should use. Why? What's the difference?

I myself was always good at maths but never good at reading. I remember how hard it was. I would start a page and by the end of it I would forget what I read at the start of the page because it was such an effort for me to read. Thankfully now I'm much better but still not as good at reading as most people are.

Trying to read the KJV is difficult for me. With that old style of English from the 17th century I'm always wondering what things mean instead of just absorbing the information. For a young person who struggles to read like I was it is a nightmare to try and learn anything from it.

Reading a modern version like NIV or ESV means I can follow the text much more easily instead of getting hung up on words and phrases that don't make sense to me. I really like listening to audio while following the text, that helps me out a lot. I just pause it when I want to ponder something that was read.

 

[Justified]

That is only in certain cases. Most languages have an equivalent word or phrase that relays the same meaning.

Which, by definition, is not word-for-word. Hence the need for dynamic equivalence or paraphrase.

That's misleading.

No, it isn't. You claimed: "The 1611 KJV Bible is the last, non-paraphrase Bible in the English." And that is false.

The NASB uses the Critical Greek text for the New Testament, which instead relying on Wescott and Hort's new 1881 Greek New Testament translation from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The KJV did not use those Greek texts.

Which isn't relevant to anything I've stated.

The LSB is just a revision of the NASB.

The NRSV, same, just a new revision of the NASB.

No, the NRSV is a revision of the RSV, just as the NKJV is a revision of the KJV. The NASB is a revision of the ASV.

The ESV uses the Novum Testamentum Graecum by Nestle from the school of Textual Criticism, and not the Traditional Text the KJV used. Nestle used the Greek text editions of Tischendorf (who discovered Sinaiticus), Wescott and Hort's new 1881 Greek text they translated from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and from texts produced by Weymouth.

This, also, isn't relevant to anything I've said.

So... it's like I said, English Bible translations after the 1880's use different Greek text sources than what was used in the 1611 KJV.

You didn't say that in our discussion. Again, all you stated was: "The 1611 KJV Bible is the last, non-paraphrase Bible in the English." Which, again, is false.

Even the New King Jame Version, in addition to using the Greek texts for the original KJV, it also uses the texts of Textual Criticism which the KJV translators did not use, so the NKJV isn't true to the original.

I don't think there's any better evidence like the above that the school of Textual Criticism purposefully getting away from the Greek Traditional Texts and Textus Receptus is an attack on the 1611 KJV Bible, and Bibles that used the Majority Text prior to the 1800's.

That's your opinion. A lot of scholars, probably most scholars, disagree.

 

[Wrangler]

I personally don't understand why people insist that the KJV is the only version you should use. Why? What's the difference?

It’s IDOLATRY. They proceed as if we are saved by a book! And not just that, a translation of that book - and the manmade doctrines derived from that translation.

When certain verses they rely on to ”support” their manmade doctrine does not hold up to academic scrutiny, their foundation collapses. What if I told you that from the Illiad, a certain word was translated “wood” but actually is best rendered ‘would’ in English, it doesn’t rock your world. No biggie. “They would go“ rather than “the wood goes.”

When you are doctrinally invested in such verses you can’t let it go. Anyone who replaces ‘wood’ with ‘would’ must be in league with Satan or some such nonsense. And the worst part of their IDOLATRY is keeping people like us - unwilling to read something that is written in Middle English - from Christ. They make their IDOL an obstacle for us to get closer to God.

 

[Davy]

Which, by definition, is not word-for-word. Hence the need for dynamic equivalence or paraphrase.

An equivalent word between languages is... a word for word application. You've got your understanding of paraphrase backwards. A paraphrase is to put it into one's 'own' words using the new language, at the expense of translating word for word.

No, it isn't. You claimed: "The 1611 KJV Bible is the last, non-paraphrase Bible in the English." And that is false.

No, it is true.
Although the many Bible versions you claim are not paraphrases where the school of Textual Criticism has gotten involved, they are 'deemed'... accurate, when they are not. Here is why...

Wescott and Hort actually 'created'... a NEW Greek translation from questionable Greek texts like the Codex Vaticanus (mainly), and Codex Sinaiticus (which was only discovered partially by Tischendorf in a waste basket in a monastery in the 1800's).

The early Church did not use those Greek texts.

Yet Wescott and Hort claimed those Codices were the oldest and best, telling a huge lie, because they hated the Textus Receptus used for the KJV Bible, which they stated in their personal letters written to each other. Those letters are available on archive.org, photocopies of them. So anytime one sees the WH abbreviation in the translation of the New Testament it refers to Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation they did in 1881.

Textual Criticism skews the idea of multiple copies of the Greek texts. They believe that a Greek text that is in only a 'few' copies should be equal to a Greek text that many copies have been made and used. This was one of Wescott and Hort's arguments for using the Alexandrian texts, because they claimed they were older, even though few copies exist. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus do not show many copies with wide usage. Wescott and Hort even argued that the existence of many copies revealed a corruption with additions that happened over time with copying, and that is why the Alexadrian texts are shorter and omit many readings that are found in the western texts. Bad... argument.

The most copied and used... Greek text of The New Testament Bible as revealed by the early Christian Church set the standard on what the early Church agreed was the accurate Word of God. If the Alexandrian text of the New Testament was in wide usage by the early Church instead, it would have historically been proven through the writings of the early Church. Wescott and Hort's claimed history on those Alexandrian texts being used by the early Church is missing from Church history. They just made it up, just like their claim that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest Greek texts. They made that up too.

The field of Textual Criticism supports Wescott and Hort's false assumptions about the Alexandrian texts. And modern English Bible translations are based on the 'Critical Text' by that school, and not on the Greek texts used by the early Church prior to the 1800's.

 

[Davy]

Another reason why the KJV is the worst translation available in English today! Older and better manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were found AFTER Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which is what modern translations rely on.

The FROM and TO part of the translation is better and so is modern translators knowledge of the original language of the manuscripts compared to the relatively ignorant KJV translators. Just think about it for a moment. It's absurd to suppose half a millennia later, humans cannot improve on a translation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls involve the writings of Old Testament Scripture, not The New Testament. It does NOT mention Lord Jesus and His Ministry at all!

So what you are saying is just you regurgitating what you heard... from someone else, without you looking deeper into it.

 

[Davy]

Wrong. We don't need an excuse to reject a translation not in modern English! Who the hell do you think you are imposing such IDOLATRY? What authority and power do you claim over others that they must answer - and you warn no excuse will be tolerated - by you? What a petty dictator!

So called "literal"translations aren't really so AND they are also not rendered into proper modern English, which makes what you pejoratively call paraphrase in demand. Let me give an example. It is not just the words but the sentence structure.

• In Japanese, the order of subject and object is reversed. "Book, give to me."
• In Spanish, the adjective-noun order is reversed. "House Big."

Any casual reader reading such "literal" translations will quickly conclude it is a horrible translation and this is because the TO part of the translation, your IDOL of literal is wrong, not proper English. What we don't need is any more so-called literal translations. And in case I didn't tell you this before and how you know this is IDOLATRY on your part is such fools proclaiming this kept me from reading the Bible for 2 decades. When you advance something over people coming to Christ, that is how you know you've embraced IDOLATRY.

Based just on your false claims about the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Bible, anyone listening to you are be like a Gumby.

 

[Davy]

HERE IS MY BOTTOM LINE ON THE MATTER, AND WHAT I RECOMMEND:

Use whatever English Bible translation you want, but always refer back to the 1611 King James Version and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. The KJV and the Strong's ought to be your main tools, that is for English speaking peoples.

Over time you may even find out why.. the 1611 KJV Bible is still the most accurate English translation to date by comparison of the readings in the translations by Textual Criticism. And don't forget, the 1st Edition of the 1611 KJV Bible has MARGIN NOTES the KJV translators gave for alternate readings. Why have all those Margin Notes by the KJV translators been removed in later Editions? Just that alone ought to make you question what group of people would be behind that, including removal of the two Letters the KJV translators put in the 1st Edition, one for The Reader, and another for King James, Defender of The Faith.

 

[Wrangler]

The Dead Sea Scrolls involve the writings of Old Testament Scripture, not The New Testament. It does mention Lord Jesus and His Ministry at all!

You keep riding the losing horse. From this, In this article, I’d like to explore some of the details this manuscript relays about the Messiah, and how they corroborate the New Testament’s understanding of Jesus.

 

[doctrox]

Another reason why the KJV is the worst translation available in English today! Older and better manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were found AFTER Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which is what modern translations rely on.

Yet again, the tired "Older and Better" refrain is beckoning us.

The Rockefeller Foundation - infamous for its involvement in one-world political organizations, such as the Council on Foreign
Relations and the Trilateral Commission - funded the research on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, the U.S. government’s top-secret research lab at Los Alamos, New Mexico, digitized these Dead Sea Scrolls so that they can be more clearly read. Anyone might ask, “Why would these parties be interested in this material?” This is happening because the Dead Sea Scrolls prescribe all of the elements needed to coerce people to adapt to the one-world political and religious system advocated by these parties. The Dead Sea Scrolls advocate:

1. The confiscation of personal property to the group.
2. The coming of two Messiahs: one a religious prophet, the other a civil leader.

Students of Bible prophecy know that this corresponds exactly to the beast and the false prophet of Revelation. The Dead Sea Scrolls say that the Essenes are “sons of the light,” ruled by the “angel of light.” Bible students know that the “angel of light” is Satan.

Even Google is in on this.

Multispectral Imaging and the Digitization of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and
West Meets East - The Story of Rockefeller Museum

 

[Justified]

An equivalent word between languages is... a word for word application. You've got your understanding of paraphrase backwards. A paraphrase is to put it into one's 'own' words using the new language, at the expense of translating word for word.

First, try to read what I write. Second, I know what paraphrasing is. Third, learn the difference between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase; you’re conflating the two.

No, it is true.

No, it isn’t. This—“The 1611 KJV Bible is the last, non-paraphrase Bible in the English."—is false.

Although the many Bible versions you claim are not paraphrases where the school of Textual Criticism has gotten involved, they are 'deemed'... accurate, when they are not. Here is why...

Wescott and Hort actually 'created'... a NEW Greek translation from questionable Greek texts like the Codex Vaticanus (mainly), and Codex Sinaiticus (which was only discovered partially by Tischendorf in a waste basket in a monastery in the 1800's).

The early Church did not use those Greek texts.

Yet Wescott and Hort claimed those Codices were the oldest and best, telling a huge lie, because they hated the Textus Receptus used for the KJV Bible, which they stated in their personal letters written to each other. Those letters are available on archive.org, photocopies of them. So anytime one sees the WH abbreviation in the translation of the New Testament it refers to Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation they did in 1881.

Textual Criticism skews the idea of multiple copies of the Greek texts. They believe that a Greek text that is in only a 'few' copies should be equal to a Greek text that many copies have been made and used. This was one of Wescott and Hort's arguments for using the Alexandrian texts, because they claimed they were older, even though few copies exist. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus do not show many copies with wide usage. Wescott and Hort even argued that the existence of many copies revealed a corruption with additions that happened over time with copying, and that is why the Alexadrian texts are shorter and omit many readings that are found in the western texts. Bad... argument.

The most copied and used... Greek text of The New Testament Bible as revealed by the early Christian Church set the standard on what the early Church agreed was the accurate Word of God. If the Alexandrian text of the New Testament was in wide usage by the early Church instead, it would have historically been proven through the writings of the early Church. Wescott and Hort's claimed history on those Alexandrian texts being used by the early Church is missing from Church history. They just made it up, just like their claim that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest Greek texts. They made that up too.

The field of Textual Criticism supports Wescott and Hort's false assumptions about the Alexandrian texts. And modern English Bible translations are based on the 'Critical Text' by that school, and not on the Greek texts used by the early Church prior to the 1800's.

Again, that is merely your opinion and many scholars, if not most, disagree.

 

[Justified]

HERE IS MY BOTTOM LINE ON THE MATTER, AND WHAT I RECOMMEND:

Use whatever English Bible translation you want, but always refer back to the 1611 King James Version and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. The KJV and the Strong's ought to be your main tools, that is for English speaking peoples.

No. Use multiple translations, lexicons, dictionaries, and commentaries, after drawing your own conclusions. One need not use the KJV, especially the 1611.

 

[Wrangler]

Based just on your false claims about the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Bible, anyone listening to you are be like a Gumby.

Not an answer to my question of who do you think you are that others need to overcome your intolerance for choosing not to read the worst translation available in English today.

 

[rvmb]

No. Use multiple translations, lexicons, dictionaries, and commentaries, after drawing your own conclusions. One need not use the KJV, especially the 1611.

Based on your use and understanding of multiple Bibles who do they teach :-
-- Is the Apostle to believers today
-- Who are believers today
-- What is the Gospel that teaches how they are eternally saved
-- What are the performance requirements

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Stick with the King of all translations​

​