Is it time to say good bye to the KJV
- Thread starter joshhuntnm
- Start date
-
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!
Time long ago past. I hardly ever use it anymore. There are far more accurate, readable, and reliable translations for English than the King James.
I don't ever foresee the KJV dropping by the wayside until the return of our Savior. I think that it's poetical value alone will ensure that it sticks around simply because there will never be a more beautiful version of the English Bible. All of our current translation trends are for simplified language, and these translations will never achieve the same level of literary beauty unless things drastically change.
With that said, I think in the sense that it needs to be let go by KJV-onlyists, yes, it does need to be let go.
With that said, I think in the sense that it needs to be let go by KJV-onlyists, yes, it does need to be let go.
Eventually it will be completely unreadable--as it is now for most of the planet --people who do not speak English
Don't throw out your old KJV bibles. They will become collectors items like old currency.
Do put them away somewhere and find something more readable.
Trying to teach people unfamiliar with Christ from the KJV is insanity. Even for myself, just trying to read those archaic words is an extra and unecessary obstable to undertanding God's revelation
Do put them away somewhere and find something more readable.
Trying to teach people unfamiliar with Christ from the KJV is insanity. Even for myself, just trying to read those archaic words is an extra and unecessary obstable to undertanding God's revelation
The oldest King James printing I have is copyrighted 1792 and it cost me 10 bucks at a Goodwill store. And old currency only is worth a premium over it's face value if it's in pristine condition (i.e. unused). An unused King James (the most printed book in history) no matter the printing year, is as common as a cold day in Alaska.
Andy, I have a AD33 copy of the KJV in Elizabethan English that's much older than yours. I know it's authentic because it's called the King James Bible and the back cover is signed by Jesus in red ink. 
(Tongue-in-cheek disclaimer.)
(Tongue-in-cheek disclaimer.)
I have a leaf from a 1611 King James old testament book. Don't let the kjonlyists tell you there are no differences, there are plenty.
King James Onlyism
First, here is a King James Only position that I respect. (This also is not quite King James Onlyism.) It is a statement on a web page of a Christian book seller.
The great 19th century preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, said: “If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority….We shall gradually be so bedoubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy… and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness.” [emphasis mine]
http://bibletranslation.ws/king-james-onlyism/
First, here is a King James Only position that I respect. (This also is not quite King James Onlyism.) It is a statement on a web page of a Christian book seller.
The great 19th century preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, said: “If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority….We shall gradually be so bedoubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy… and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness.” [emphasis mine]
http://bibletranslation.ws/king-james-onlyism/
I do not believe we should let the KJV go. It to me is a very regal book in its language and descriptions. LOL I know it sounds weird but reading the KJV makes it seem more like God is speaking lol! But I can not study for the KJV I use other versions they break things down and makes things plain and simple for me!
joshhuntnm said:
It is almost time to say good bye to all translations. It is almost time for the Word to come in the flesh again.
joshhuntnm said:
How long are you thinking it's going to be before He gets back? ...
I'm not asking you to set dates, I just think it's rather absurd with all that's happening lately, that we could actually think that language will change enough, that no one could understand the KJV.
The King James has served me well for fifty years. I have a copy of the 1611 which was the first version of our English Bible.
It's Old English is a joy to read.
I don't like the newer versions because they tend to "water" down the power of God and the Christ by using words like "wish" for the original and more powerful
word "will". This makes the creator of all almost impotent. The newer version change the whole meaning of many scriptures.
I say the original translators were closer to the times and were inspired by God. Modern translators are far removed from the times and are hardly inspired.
Just my own thoughts. I have not found the King James to be hard to understand.
It's Old English is a joy to read.
I don't like the newer versions because they tend to "water" down the power of God and the Christ by using words like "wish" for the original and more powerful
word "will". This makes the creator of all almost impotent. The newer version change the whole meaning of many scriptures.
I say the original translators were closer to the times and were inspired by God. Modern translators are far removed from the times and are hardly inspired.
Just my own thoughts. I have not found the King James to be hard to understand.
The KJV isn't the best translation anymore but it is still classic. I don't think it will ever fall out of use, especially with the increase of KJV Onlyism.
That is such a wild fantastical assumption, I barely know how to respond to it.joshhuntnm said:
MOST of the planet DOES speak English. Study of English is a requirement in many elementary schools in Europe and in other nations outside the West. It is also the REQUIRED language for ALL aviation pilots, it is an international language in that sense.
So that actually means MORE of the planet being able to read the King James Bible. That's a good thing, because it is still... the best English Bible translation to date.
Amen, Veteran. It is the best English Bible and most accurate Bible (faithful to the original manuscripts), today.veteran said:
My children read the KJV and are not too lazy to look up words. Their vocabulary grew from reading the KJV. Also, the KJV has a natural rhythm and syncopation to it so it is much easier to memorize passages and most scripture songs come from the KJV as it's stanzas are balanced and poetic. I showed my children the built-in dictionary in the Bible and how to use it and they could figure more of the words out on their own without a dictionary and that also increased their vocabulary.
I have found way too many inaccuracies in the other Bibles. Disciples of Christ are not holy in the new versions:
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
New versions just say "men of God". That makes sense because no one believes you can be holy anymore.
Is anything or anyone holy anymore?
God wasn't manifest in the flesh in the new versions. Just "he".
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The KJV has produced good fruit. For nearly 400 years it was the translation that evangelized the world.
The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God in your Bible?
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. " John 1:18
There are some pretty serious changes. Is anyone really paying attention?
Do New Bible Versions teach Salvation by Works or Faith in Jesus Christ? You be the judge.
Nah, I don't see it going away. Especially with all the inaccuracies and dumbing down of so many Biblical principles.
Axehead, the reality is actually that the KJV added these differences you note, and not that the modern translations took them out. The KJV is based on a different manuscript tradition than most modern translations. In 1611, they didn't have access to manuscripts more than a few centuries old at that time. Today, with all the discoveries made over the last 400 years, we have many manuscripts much closer to the originals. We are able to gather a more accurate reading of what the originals actually said, and this in reality is what accounts for the differences you note.
There is a number of great articles on this subject which you can read on here. Don't get me wrong, I like the KJV and think it is a good translation, but the arguments that it is better or more authoritative than the modern translations are simply not grounded in the facts.
Besides, the same exact arguments can be made in reverse. There are examples that can be given where the modern translations say "Jesus Christ" etc. and all the KJV says is "him." It goes both ways. So like I said, the arguments for the KJV being more authoritative are simply not grounded in the facts. They are very poorly researched.
There is a number of great articles on this subject which you can read on here. Don't get me wrong, I like the KJV and think it is a good translation, but the arguments that it is better or more authoritative than the modern translations are simply not grounded in the facts.
Besides, the same exact arguments can be made in reverse. There are examples that can be given where the modern translations say "Jesus Christ" etc. and all the KJV says is "him." It goes both ways. So like I said, the arguments for the KJV being more authoritative are simply not grounded in the facts. They are very poorly researched.
Similar threads
