King James Only

[Taken]

I for one do not reject the KJV, but it is ridiculous to view the KJV as the only inspired translation. Not even the translators thought that it was perfect and said so in the preface to the original 1611. And the KJV underwent revisions since the original 1611 came out.

I really like the KJV. I grew up on it. But I also know that it does have some errors, like any other translation. No translation can perfectly convey the literal meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. At least the KJV has been around long enough so that those errors are well known. As far as prose, it is a beautiful translation.

I like it. I use it. But I use many translations, including the 1599 Geneva that preceded the KJV. And I will concede that there are some passages that are better translated in the KJV than in others. But the reverse can be said also.

If one is going to be hyper literal in terms of the Scripture, then learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Problem solved.

Personally I have no interest to learn, Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. My preference is using a tool for translation in what I am particularly studying.

I perfer for everyday use, the KJV, and have other Bibles as well that I compare. Some Bibles I find in Keeping with the intent, others, particularly quite modern versions, I find the choice for translation words, changing the meaning of original intent.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Helen]

by curiosity wat are the errors in the KJV?

In my own opinion I would say because of the words we use 'these days' mean something different than they did back in 1600's..
The first KJV I had said .. the word 'prevented him' ( at the tomb) meaning in 1600's 'went before' ( got in there first) ..these days when we read prevented ...it means 'stopped'...Im pretty sure the KJV I use now doesnt use the old word prevent any more.

I love the KJV and always use it...
None of us can say it is 'perfect' ...nothing is perfect...but 'for me' it had a very strong anointing upon it, more so than any other translation.

Thats why I like the OP so much... Being that I am a KJV fan, I liked what was being said about "King James only" and showing us what IS King James Only...AND what is NOT "King James Only"...with which I totally agree.

But most responses on here seem to miss that point altogether, and just posts about liking or disliking the KJV itself... It happens....lol

Blessings...H

 

[Helen]

If something has already been translated, it should be unnecessary to have to have someone translate to you what is written on its pages. No one here can claim they have not had to go to someone else to explain parts of the KJV to them. There is something wrong with that kind of situation.

And, now, are we to automatically assume that the person (or book) we had to go to in order to explain the confusion of the KJV to us is somehow "inspired?"

I don't usually , or ever...disagree with you :)
But here I do...I don't remember ever going to anyone since 1964 and asking them what something means.
My dad taught us to go to God and ask Him to open our eyes and anoint them to see.

I am a King James Only ...but not if what the second half of the OP says
is King James Only. A good read. Many thanks to @Enoch111

I have many other translations ...I have the "Concordant Literal OT and NT" which reads really odd as would the original...some verses kind of backward etc
At least the KJV is very readable and anointed ...better then some of the adulterated " translations" which came after it.
I do like the Berkley ... We have many 'translations' here we can cross reference with. But that said-

The King James has God's fingerprints all over it, others don't!
IMHO

 

[Willie T]

I don't usually , or ever...disagree with you :)
But here I do...I don't remember ever going to anyone since 1964 and asking them what something means.
My dad taught us to go to God and ask Him to open our eyes and anoint them to see.

I am a King James Only ...but not if what the second half of the OP says
is King James Only. A good read. Many thanks to @Enoch111

I have many other translations ...I have the "Concordant Literal OT and NT" which reads really odd as would the original...some verses kind of backward etc
At least the KJV is very readable and anointed ...better then some of the adulterated " translations" which came after it.
I do like the Berkley ... We have many 'translations' here we can cross reference with. But that said-

The King James has God's fingerprints all over it, others don't!
IMHO

How did you come to know Luke 14:26 doesn't mean exactly what it says? The Westboro Mob take it at face value, and I would be ashamed to. You know very well that someone explained to you that it didn't mean what it says.

Do you believe someone with money cannot go to Heaven? Of course you don't believe that since Jesus told a parable about Abraham (one of the richest people in the world) being in Heaven. Someone told you that "the eye of a needle" reference was a figurative thing. (No matter which of the several explanations was given to you.)

 

[Ezra]

My preference is using a tool for translation in what I am particularly studying.

i have some programs but have no idea how to use them

 

[Berserk]

Few Christians are aware of the dramatic story of how and why the KJV was translated, the scholars of dubious character and reputation who did the translating (drunks, violent bigots, sycophants, etc.), and the political and hierarchical bias that the translators were required to serve. Despite all this, the following KJV documentary for the Discovery Channel explains in detail why these very flaws helped make the KJV the greatest book ever written in the English language. It is must viewing for anyone who appreciates the KJV:

youtube documentary king james version - Bing video

 

[Helen]

You know very well that someone explained to you that it didn't mean what it says.

With the word 'prevented' ...it had 'before' in the margin.

Eye of the needle , yes, we had a book by a pastor who lived out there...it explained all the old traditions and strange sayings to the western mind.
On that I agree , we read his book and it opened up so much.

What irritates me is wishy washy Christians who say... " Oh I can't read the KJV , I like The Message it is so much easier to understand ."

'Understand' the black words yes maybe , but far too lazy to ask the Lord what HE has to say , which is hidden deeper in the Scriptures if we would spend the time with Him.
No wonder people have soggy brains these days and prefer the well chewed meat spat into their mouths like baby birds with a mother regurgitated worm.

 

[Helen]

Few Christians are aware of the dramatic story of how and why the KJV was translated, the scholars of dubious character and reputation who did the translating (drunks, violent bigots, sycophants, etc.), and the political and hierarchical bias that the translators were required to serve. Despite all this, the following KJV documentary for the Discovery Channel explains in detail why these very flaws helped make the KJV the greatest book ever written in the English language. It is must viewing for anyone who appreciates the KJV:

youtube documentary king james version - Bing video

Now let us see you also post all the dirt and miss quotes on every single other translation.
Then indeed we can judge fairly which translation we wish to use.

 

[Willie T]

With the word 'prevented' ...it had 'before' in the margin.

Eye of the needle , yes, we had a book by a pastor who lived out there...it explained all the old traditions and strange sayings to the western mind.
On that I agree , we read his book and it opened up so much.

What irritates me is wishy washy Christians who say... " Oh I can't read the KJV , I like The Message it is so much easier to understand .

Understand the black words maybe , but too lazy to ask the Lord what HE has to say , which is hidden deeper in the Scriptures if we would spend the time with Him.
No wonder people have soggy brains these days and prefer the well chewed meat spat into their mouths like baby birds with a mother regurgitated worm.

The point I was making is that there are literally dozens of places in the KJV (maybe hundreds) where we have to turn to something else besides only that book to understand it. Even the notes in the margin were not in the original. There, you are actually reading an explanation of the text that someone added later because what was actually written was confusing thousands of people, right and left...….. and that had to be straightened out, and the confusion explained away.

If we are honest with ourselves, even the renowned 23rd Psalm had to be explained to us in several of its verses. Seriously, read it slowly, only going one line at a time..... stopping at each colon or semi-colon. It really makes no sense unless you interject and substitute particular and specific meanings other people have taught you about those seemingly incoherent phrases.

On the other hand, if a person was to read that Psalm for the very first time in, say, The Passion Translation, they would be immediately and directly told what the Psalmist was trying to convey about God, (Really, go read it in that version.)
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 23 - The Passion Translation

 

[Helen]

The point I was making is that there are literally dozens of places in the KJV (maybe hundreds) where we have to turn to something else besides only that book to understand it. Even the notes in the margin were not in the original. There, you are actually reading an explanation of the text that someone added later because what was actually written was confusing thousands of people, right and left...….. and that had to be straightened out, and the confusion explained away.

If we are honest with ourselves, even the renowned 23rd Psalm had to be explained to in several of its verses. Seriously, read it slowly, only going one line at a time. It really makes no sense unless you interject and substitute particular and specific meanings other people have taught you about those seemingly incoherent phrases.

On the other hand, if a person was to read that Psalm for the very first time in, say, The Passion Translation, they would be immediately and directly told what the Psalmist was trying to convey about God, (Really, go read it in that version.)
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 23 - The Passion Translation

We obviously aren't going to be on the same page on this one.

The argument is okay IF a person is a "King James Only " as in the second part of the OP, but I have the King James as my daily bible which I believe is the most anointed ....and I have many others on the side if I need to cross check....these days I don't very much.

Im probably contradicting myself here... But I know what I mean.

 

[Willie T]

Put the 23rd psalm, side-by-side, in those two versions, and you will instantly see that the TPT is explaining to you what the KJV is not making clear, at all.

 

[reformed1689]

I am posting this excellent article by David Cloud, since it expresses my own position perfectly.

July 31, 2019 (first published January 20, 1996)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, [email protected]

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Only." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are given a nebulously-defined label.

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying original language texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. And I know that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
[1] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

[2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. That is a fundamental error. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the preserved Word of God is located today.

[3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources and bad luck, chose an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the supposed best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that this supposed corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the alleged best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe it is absolute nonsense.

[4] Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

[5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
[1] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given byinspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

[2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and heresy, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

[3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”

[4] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a proper understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were influenced by the unsound theories of modern textual criticism.

[5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

[6] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

[7] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

[8] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy and unchangeable or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

[9] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
Copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature

So in other words, the people against KJVO are right in what he believes and that they refuse to accept what has been discovered and textual criticism and rely on a translation 400 years old that does not use the oldest manuscripts.

 

[Berserk]

Now let us see you also post all the dirt and miss quotes on every single other translation.
Then indeed we can judge fairly which translation we wish to use.

The posted video documents the facts of the KJV translation, not subjective opinion, apart from the narrator's opinion that the KJV is the greatest book ever written in the English language! I agree that no modern translation rivals it for majesty, despite its archaic language. My beef is with the error-filled Hebrew and Greek manuscripts on which it is based. The KJV translators simply lacked access to the earliest and most accurate texts in the original languages. On this point, I know no modern PhD Bible scholar, conservative or liberal who disagrees!

Consider the case of the bogus KJV ending to Mark (16:9-20). It is missing in the earliest manuscripts, is attributed in one manuscript to Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD), has a totally different Greek style that betrays its non-Markan authorship, and contains this ghastly verse, which has sadly inspired many Appalachian Christians to kill themselves by handling Eastern Diamondback rattlers and drinking strychnine rat poison:

"These signs will accompany those who believe:...they will pick up (poisonous) serpents in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them (Mark 16:17-18)."

Listing these bizarre acts as "a sign" of the true "believer" is horrid, even if one tries to rationalize them by citing the accidental acts reported in Luke 10:19 and Acts 28:3-5.

There are 10 million variant readings in New Testament Greek manuscripts.
The KJV is based on the latest and most corrupt of these manuscripts.
Text Criticism is the science of retrieving a text as close as possible to the original. It does this first by grouping the manuscripts into families by date, locale, and patterns of known copy errors and then by discovering when, how, and why errors crept into the Greek text. It also compares the text with quotations of the same passage by church fathers who wrote before the manuscript in question. The KJV comes out the worst of all when subjected to such objective analysis. It always amazes me that the Christians who champion the highest view of biblical inspiration choose to use by far the most corrupt text. Many examples of this corruption could be provided. Most KJV Only people lack the intellectual integrity to read a scholarly book on Text Criticism, preferring instead to grieve the Spirit by dismissing all such scholars as ungodly and do so to slothfully avoid the hard work of honest and open inquiry. And I doubt that most KJV Only people have the integrity and interest to watch the posted objective and laudatory documentary on how the KJV was produced.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

Wow, that would be a very lengthy prose. If you really are interested, there is a lot of good material on the subject from some very good Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scholars. Dr. John Ankerberg had a 8 or 9 show series revolving around KJV vs the modern translations with the editors of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, and adherents of the KJV only crowd. Very good discussion and many of the problems with the KJV were brought out.

One error that is pretty fragrant in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. the "falling away". That is not what the Greek says. Apostasia simply means departure. Without a text from what is being fallen away, departed from, distancing from, etc, to say "falling away" is taking liberties with the text that a translator should not do. This has been addressed by many top Greek Scholars like Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, Dr. Ed Hinson, et al. in their writings.

Since the actual Greek simply is departure, the context of the passage is laid out in verse one and two, the day of Christ and our gathering to Him, not our departing from Him. So the departure of Verse 3 is something other than a departing from the faith, falling away, etc. All the English translations prior to the KJV used "a departing", "departure", "the departing", etc. When the KJV translators got their hands on the text, they wrongly changed the meaning of the passage to "falling away" which conveys a very different idea than the Greek or the context of the passage does. Why they did that, I can speculate, but speculation doesn't matter. The Latin Vulgate, which the KJV translators had a great fondness for, also used dicessio, which is literally "departure" in the English and not "falling away".

The proper name of "Lucifer" is another and many KJV only folks love to jump on the other translations about this. Isaiah 14:12. Yet, "lucifer" is the Latin for Morning Star. Many of the newer translations actually use Morning Star, which is what the Hebrew says, much to the chagrin of the KJV only crowd. So by using "lucifer" by the KJV (and NKJV), it is implying that Satan (Hebrew..."adversary") has a literal name of Lucifer, which is not true. over 1000 years of the Latin Vulgate had tainted the KJV translators. They had a great fondness for the Vulgate.

Wow. Got me started. I don't want to write a dissertation here. Many scholars of much higher pay grade than me have outlined extensively the errors in the KJV. Go study and show thyself approved.

The KJV is a very good translation. It has stood the test of time. It expresses the main points of the scripture and the Gospel most adequately. One can trust the translation that they have one of the best. But like every translation, it does fall down in a few places. There is no perfect translation. Only the original writings are totally without flaw and direct from the Holy Spirit.

I mean yeah!! the whole Christian theocracy agrees dat their are textual variants in the KJV but they don't take away they the original but I have both Hebrew and greek translations and ill check it out speshly dat "falling away" looks important but when u say it doesn't match the original greek are u talking about the textus receptors?

 

[Jamesthefirst]

I tried to follow the "why" of this post. Are we discussing a book or an anointed book that will take us to The Word and thereby we will hear him who was The word and the word was God. With that light shining on the page all things are possible.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The posted video documents the facts of the KJV translation, not subjective opinion, apart from the narrator's opinion that the KJV is the greatest book ever written in the English language! I agree that no modern translation rivals it for majesty, despite its archaic language. My beef is with the error-filled Hebrew and Greek manuscripts on which it is based. The KJV translators simply lacked access to the earliest and most accurate texts in the original languages. On this point, I know no modern PhD Bible scholar, conservative or liberal who disagrees!

This is my position as well.

Consider the case of the bogus KJV ending to Mark (16:9-20). It is missing in the earliest manuscripts, is attributed in one manuscript to Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD), has a totally different Greek style that betrays its non-Markan authorship, and contains this ghastly verse, which has sadly inspired many Appalachian Christians to kill themselves by handling Eastern Diamondback rattlers and drinking strychnine rat poison:

"These signs will accompany those who believe:...they will pick up (poisonous) serpents in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them (Mark 16:17-18)."

Listing these bizarre acts as "a sign" of the true "believer" is horrid, even if one tries to rationalize them by citing the accidental acts reported in Luke 10:19 and Acts 28:3-5.

About this, I believe in the principle that the shortest reading is with almost certainty likely the earliest. But now, I don't take the position that longer readings are necessarily not inspired. In fact, often the embellishments are in perfect agreement with how I believe the shorter reading should be taken. Applying this view (liberally, I admit) to the passage in Mark 16, I honestly don't have much problem with the passage itself, only with distorted applications of it. If anything, I see its inclusion as an attempt to retain divine manifestations of the supernatural power of God as identifying characteristics of the Christian faith, lest it be thought of as merely an intellectual religion, devoid of supernatural confirmations from an All-Powerful God like we have in much of Christianity today.

But yes, the KJV is a mess in places. Some readings are not just embellishments, they are flat out direct contradictions of the earliest readings.

Blessings in Christ, and hope you are well.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I tried to follow the "why" of this post. Are we discussing a book or an anointed book that will take us to The Word and thereby we will hear him who was The word and the word was God. With that light shining on the page all things are possible.

I like this perspective, and welcome to Christianity Board!

I agree. As a student of original texts, I tend to have a hard time reading paraphrases, especially when the "translators" really read into the text their own interpretations and the end results resemble actual translations in almost no way whatsoever. But I came to feel the way you do here even about Bible paraphrases like The Living Bible and The Message in time. I still believe despite their numerous flaws, embellishments and inaccuracies that the Lord Jesus Christ can and will use them to reach people with His word : )

Now where they go in their spiritual development after the new birth is hopefully directed by the Spirit of God, but who should limit God in the matter, and forbid Him from saving some by whatever means possible?

Blessings in Christ, and nice to have you. Hope you stay awhile!
Hidden

 

[Enoch111]

So in other words, the people against KJVO are right in what he believes and that they refuse to accept what has been discovered and textual criticism and rely on a translation 400 years old that does not use the oldest manuscripts.

Did you know that the oldest manuscripts are the MOST CORRUPT? Therefore a hoax was perpetrated to claim that they are *the best*. So if you want the truth you will need to study the matter in depth, and access the writings of Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, etc. to understand what really happened.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Put the 23rd psalm, side-by-side, in those two versions, and you will instantly see that the TPT is explaining to you what the KJV is not making clear, at all.

Thank GOD we don't have to talk like that anymore.
Wouldst drive me, forsooth, straight out of me ever-loving cranium, yea verily.

 

[Willie T]

Thank GOD we don't have to talk like that anymore.
Wouldst drive me out, forsooth, straight out of me ever-loving cranium, yea verily.

Hey, don't knock those "Thee's" and "Thou's." That's the language Jesus, Peter & Paul spoke...… and if the King James Bible was good enough for them to preach from, it is good enough for me.