King James Version Only...?

[CharismaticLady]

If you are not sure of the meaning of a verse, look it up in biblegateway.com. I use the old version you can click on when the site comes up. Type in the verse. Just one. And bring it up. Then look further down and you can click on "all translations." And that verse will come up in a list as how every version translates it.

 

[Berserk]

Enoch: "There is no question that the last twelve verse of Mark are genuine. Just ignore the naysayers and ALL modern bible versions. They are all corrupt, bar none."

Modern evangelical and liberal Bible scholars alike find it highly ironic that Fundamentalists with the highest view of biblical inpiration insist on using the most corrupt version of Scripture, the KJV and NKJV. When I read a Christian book that quotes the KJV, I often stop reading because I know the author is poorly trained in Greek and Hebrew and exegetical method. Fundamentalists lack the integrity to settle the question by reading a respected book on Text Criticism, the science of determining the original reading of Scripture by tracing when, where, and why all the errors crept into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They do this by first grouping these manuscripts into families by date, place of origin, and text type. The KJV translation committee lacked access to the earliest and most accurate manuscripts. so that they can see how tired eyes over the millenia miscipied texts and inadvertently created 10 million errors in the NT alone.

Many of the copying errors fall into patterns which indicate 3 principles of text criticism: (1) Generally, the shorter reading is to be preferred. For example, if one manuscript reads "grace be with you" and another reads "Peace be with you," confused scribes wrongly include both "grace and peace be with you"). (2) The harder reading is often to be preferred. Scribes tried to smooth over difficulties they perceived in the text. For example, in Mark 9:29 the original text reads, "This kind can only come out through prayer." Jesus is referring to a lifestyle of prayerfulness, a point the copyists fail to grasp because they assume the disciples did pray for the epileptic boy. So to fit their preconceptions, scribes add "and fasting" (the KJV reading) in later manuscripts. (3) That reading is to be preferred which best explains how the later variant readings crept into the text. Once the time and place errors crept into the text are determined, comparisons with quotes from church fathers prior to the biblical manuscript in question often support the inferred text. Origen (c. 220 AD) is particularly valuable because he precedes all the biblical manuscripts and he tells us words (in the KJV) that are absent from all earlier manuscripts.

A large local Baptist church uses KJV only. But I have made their music director realize how corrupt the KJV really is and he is very upset with his pastors about their poor judgment.

 

[Enoch111]

Kjvo is bogus, as there are few reputable textual critics that would subscribe to it!
Even the patron saint of the Kjvo, dean Burgeon, would not hold to it!

Just goes to show that you are CLUELESS about the KJV.

 

[Enoch111]

Modern evangelical and liberal Bible scholars alike find it highly ironic that Fundamentalists with the highest view of biblical inpiration insist on using the most corrupt version of Scripture, the KJV and NKJV.

More baloney from those who know little or nothing about the matter.

 

[Truman]

The King James scholars translated ekklesia to church 113 times, even though the correct translation is "congregation." Church means "a house of a lord." Which is generally what we have today.
In order to not change scripture, the word fear is left as it was in the KJV. This caused the meaning of some scripture to change over time. I've seen people boasting about how afraid they were of God.
The KJV also mistranslated Genesis 6:4 as giants when it should read Nephilim. All giants were Nephilim though not all Nephilim were giants.
While translations were being written out long ago, some translators would add notes in the border. These somehow ended up being added to scripture. Translators of bibles like the N.I.V. would take out what the oldest manuscript copies showed were not original. They also clearly explain why they did that.
My purpose here is not to run the KJV into the ground. KJVonlyism is a Christian superstition. The book itself is one of the most-used bibles in history. I got saved with it. There are times when I think of a verse that the KJV says best.
We are the house of the Lord and not a building. People are supposed to be ministered to, not buildings. We are to build God's Kingdom, not some guy's empire.
Read whatever translation you want. But please don't stick books like New Age Bible Translations in my face. Shalom.

 

[Berserk]

More baloney from those who know little or nothing about the matter.

As usual, you pontificate from ignorance. I have a doctorate in NT and have studied under Bruce Metzger, the top Text Critic in the world. You on the other hand, have obviously not read a single respected scholarly book on the subject.

 

[Enoch111]

The King James is Not perfect.

The real issue is whether the KJV is (1) accurate, (2) faithful and (3) reliable. Since it has been the leading English translation for over 300 years, and continues to be at the forefront of English-language bibles, that is sufficient evidence that for all practical purposes it was (and is) the Word of God for millions of Christians. And possession of the field is 9/10ths of the proof.

And the last part of mark is a major issue as it can not be trusted. And is definitely not true

This remark shows that you know nothing about the matter, and I have already given an appropriate response.

 

[Enoch111]

As usual, you pontificate from ignorance. I have a doctorate in NT and have studied under Bruce Metzger, the top Text Critic in the world. You on the other hand, have obviously not read a single respected scholarly book on the subject.

Bruce Metzger is the leading rationalistic scholar of the whole bunch. So you have have simply been corrupted by the promoter of corrupt critical texts.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The real issue is whether the KJV is (1) accurate, (2) faithful and (3) reliable. Since it has been the leading English translation for over 300 years, and continues to be at the forefront of English-language bibles, that is sufficient evidence that for all practical purposes it was (and is) the Word of God for millions of Christians. And possession of the field is 9/10ths of the proof.

The KJV has flaws. It does not matter how many think it is perfect or the best one. It is not infallible
-

This remark shows that you know nothing about the matter, and I have already given an appropriate response.

I just stated a fact. Weather you agree with the fact or not Is a different story

I understood what you said and disagreed with you which is why I stated the fact

 

[Candidus]

Origen (c. 220 AD) is particularly valuable because he precedes all the biblical manuscripts and he tells us words (in the KJV) that are absent from all earlier manuscripts.

Since there is no proof that everyone else that believed something other than Origin's additions to Scripture were not reading real Scripture, I will cast this suggestion off as partisan fantasy. I will believe the weight of Scripture before his distortions, and the consensus of the entirety of Early Church Fathers that quoted from Scripture itself.

When you read the Early Church fathers and the Earliest known manuscripts of Scripture, they agree. Origen had a limited "few" variants that were consistent with manuscripts that were not known for half a Millennium after the originals were written.

Your conclusion is, that since some of these late appearances of variant Scriptures agree with a few of Origen's statements, that there existed a text which he was quoting from. What you are claiming is, the entire known library of the letters of the Early Church were erroneously quoting from Scriptures that differed from Origen, and that they were all wrong; and Origen was right.

I choose a more logical answer: That the Earliest known manuscripts are likely the most accurate manuscripts. Especially when every Early Church Father agrees with them without the expansions that Origen added. There are no manuscripts that agree with Origen that date at this period. It is not until three-hundred years after Origen before any manuscript that adopts some of his expansions has proof of being in existence. So, were all of the early Church Fathers wrong, and all of the existing Scriptures in error, with the exception of one that Origen possessed and quoted from? Or did Origen add to those Scriptures, and after several hundred years, a translation using some of Origen's expansions (adding to ) emerged as a text that became known as the Byzantine Text-type?

I do not see the idea of ignoring history and fact about the existence of manuscripts, and the consensus of the Early Church being a valid argument. The Byzantine text of Scripture did not exist for the first half of a millennia of the Church, which is a fact that questions the validity of the argument that the Byzantine text type is the original.

 

[101G]

I disagree

it is written in an outdated language someone who is not versed in that language would be hard pressed to understand what it says

the NKJV is what I use. But it is because I am used to it. I grew up with the old KJV and even remember memory verses from it. But when my mom passed away I got her bible. Which is an original KJV. When I try to read it. It is very hard to read and confusing. I need my NKJV to sometimes remind myself what it was trying to say

most KJV only people Even say the NKJV is Corrupt so They would get on me for even doing that

First thanks for the reply, second, I did said, "this is my own opinion" ... right. anything is Hard at first until one learn it. language is not the barrier, no, it's the understanding of the Language that's the problem, and English is the worest. hence the reason why I say get an old English dictionary. good hermeneutics dictate that we should discover what the writer is saying instead of coming with preconceived thoughts of what we think the writter said, (we need to take us out of the equation). so the language is not the problem, it's us.

and i stand firm in what I said about all these newer translation, including the NKJV. when one contridict itself, that's it for me with that translation. when a translation lie on itself in one place I guarantee you it's lying somewhere else.

and again, this is my oponion. if someone believe that a certian translation help them to understand, great for them. but don't get one's lunch ate up because of it.....

so again, I recommend one get the Holy Spirit, to guide them in the TRUTH of the Scriptures.

PICJAG.

 

[YeshuaFan1]

I disagree

it is written in an outdated language someone who is not versed in that language would be hard pressed to understand what it says

the NKJV is what I use. But it is because I am used to it. I grew up with the old KJV and even remember memory verses from it. But when my mom passed away I got her bible. Which is an original KJV. When I try to read it. It is very hard to read and confusing. I need my NKJV to sometimes remind myself what it was trying to say

most KJV only people Even say the NKJV is Corrupt so They would get on me for even doing that

Just goes to show that you are CLUELESS about the KJV.

see #42!

 

[CharismaticLady]

Enoch: "There is no question that the last twelve verse of Mark are genuine. Just ignore the naysayers and ALL modern bible versions. They are all corrupt, bar none."

Modern evangelical and liberal Bible scholars alike find it highly ironic that Fundamentalists with the highest view of biblical inpiration insist on using the most corrupt version of Scripture, the KJV and NKJV. When I read a Christian book that quotes the KJV, I often stop reading because I know the author is poorly trained in Greek and Hebrew and exegetical method. Fundamentalists lack the integrity to settle the question by reading a respected book on Text Criticism, the science of determining the original reading of Scripture by tracing when, where, and why all the errors crept into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They do this by first grouping these manuscripts into families by date, place of origin, and text type. The KJV translation committee lacked access to the earliest and most accurate manuscripts. so that they can see how tired eyes over the millenia miscipied texts and inadvertently created 10 million errors in the NT alone.

Many of the copying errors fall into patterns which indicate 3 principles of text criticism: (1) Generally, the shorter reading is to be preferred. For example, if one manuscript reads "grace be with you" and another reads "Peace be with you," confused scribes wrongly include both "grace and peace be with you"). (2) The harder reading is often to be preferred. Scribes tried to smooth over difficulties they perceived in the text. For example, in Mark 9:29 the original text reads, "This kind can only come out through prayer." Jesus is referring to a lifestyle of prayerfulness, a point the copyists fail to grasp because they assume the disciples did pray for the epileptic boy. So to fit their preconceptions, scribes add "and fasting" (the KJV reading) in later manuscripts. (3) That reading is to be preferred which best explains how the later variant readings crept into the text. Once the time and place errors crept into the text are determined, comparisons with quotes from church fathers prior to the biblical manuscript in question often support the inferred text. Origen (c. 220 AD) is particularly valuable because he precedes all the biblical manuscripts and he tells us words (in the KJV) that are absent from all earlier manuscripts.

A large local Baptist church uses KJV only. But I have made their music director realize how corrupt the KJV really is and he is very upset with his pastors about their poor judgment.

KJV: Romans 8:1
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

NASB: Romans 8:1
1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Now would you rather believe that there is no condemnation in those who are in Christ Jesus. Just believe in Him and you can do what you want without condemnation as false teachers will tell you what you want to hear.

OR

Would you seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Christ gives those who want to serve Him so you can do the prerequisite of no condemnation by walking in the Spirit?

Are you really going to chance your eternal soul on a myth?

 

[YeshuaFan1]

The King James scholars translated ekklesia to church 113 times, even though the correct translation is "congregation." Church means "a house of a lord." Which is generally what we have today.
In order to not change scripture, the word fear is left as it was in the KJV. This caused the meaning of some scripture to change over time. I've seen people boasting about how afraid they were of God.
The KJV also mistranslated Genesis 6:4 as giants when it should read Nephilim. All giants were Nephilim though not all Nephilim were giants.
While translations were being written out long ago, some translators would add notes in the border. These somehow ended up being added to scripture. Translators of bibles like the N.I.V. would take out what the oldest manuscript copies showed were not original. They also clearly explain why they did that.
My purpose here is not to run the KJV into the ground. KJVonlyism is a Christian superstition. The book itself is one of the most-used bibles in history. I got saved with it. There are times when I think of a verse that the KJV says best.
We are the house of the Lord and not a building. People are supposed to be ministered to, not buildings. We are to build God's Kingdom, not some guy's empire.
Read whatever translation you want. But please don't stick books like New Age Bible Translations in my face. Shalom.

Do those holding to Kjvo even have a reputable textual critic?

 

[YeshuaFan1]

The real issue is whether the KJV is (1) accurate, (2) faithful and (3) reliable. Since it has been the leading English translation for over 300 years, and continues to be at the forefront of English-language bibles, that is sufficient evidence that for all practical purposes it was (and is) the Word of God for millions of Christians. And possession of the field is 9/10ths of the proof.

This remark shows that you know nothing about the matter, and I have already given an appropriate response.

Those same reasons can be used to support nas/esv/Niv!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

First thanks for the reply, second, I did said, "this is my own opinion" ... right. anything is Hard at first until one learn it. language is not the barrier, no, it's the understanding of the Language that's the problem, and English is the worest. hence the reason why I say get an old English dictionary. good hermeneutics dictate that we should discover what the writer is saying instead of coming with preconceived thoughts of what we think the writter said, (we need to take us out of the equation). so the language is not the problem, it's us.

and i stand firm in what I said about all these newer translation, including the NKJV. when one contridict itself, that's it for me with that translation. when a translation lie on itself in one place I guarantee you it's lying somewhere else.

and again, this is my oponion. if someone believe that a certian translation help them to understand, great for them. but don't get one's lunch ate up because of it.....

so again, I recommend one get the Holy Spirit, to guide them in the TRUTH of the Scriptures.

PICJAG.

you would be better if getting a modern version and getting a Greek Hebrew lexicon

any English bible is flawed due to the fact the English language is flawed. People who trust a 1600 bible as would authority miss out on so Much in the word because they rely on a faulty language

Jesus conversation with peter in John is just one of many examples. Even the KJV in old English misses a very important lesson in that conversation due to there only being one English word for love

 

[YeshuaFan1]

The KJV has flaws. It does not matter how many think it is perfect or the best one. It is not infallible
-
I just stated a fact. Weather you agree with the fact or not Is a different story

I understood what you said and disagreed with you which is why I stated the fact

Best of its time, but there have been advances in textual criticism and source texts!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

you would be better if getting a modern version and getting a Greek Hebrew lexicon

any English bible is flawed due to the fact the English language is flawed. People who trust a 1600 bible as would authority miss out on so Much in the word because they rely on a faulty language

Jesus conversation with peter in John is just one of many examples. Even the KJV in old English misses a very important lesson in that conversation due to there only being one English word for love

I have found an interlinear to be helpful also.

 

[101G]

you would be better if getting a modern version and getting a Greek Hebrew lexicon

any English bible is flawed due to the fact the English language is flawed. People who trust a 1600 bible as would authority miss out on so Much in the word because they rely on a faulty language

Jesus conversation with peter in John is just one of many examples. Even the KJV in old English misses a very important lesson in that conversation due to there only being one English word for love

first thanks, but no thanks. for now I'll keep the KJV, and it's teacher to me the Holy Spirit. so again thanks.

PICJAG.

 

[BarneyFife]

So please read this article slowly and carefully and believe what it says is true.

Why? Because you say so?