King James Version Only...?

[JohnDB]

The first translations in English weren't complete Bibles...
Miles Coverdale compiled the first one...
But it went fairly unread...

King Henry the VIII (yep that one) wanted to separate himself from the Catholic Church and created the Church of England and commissioned The Great Bible to be read publicly in church.

It leaned heavily on Wycliffe's work. (Whom the King had killed) and again was assembled under Miles Coverdale...
Most "scripture reading" was from the Psalter and book of prayers (not Psalms)

Then came Queen Mary...AKA Bloody Mary.

 

[BarneyFife]

Millions have gone to their grave knowing nothing but the NASB, are they any less saved?

I never said they could not help anyone. I sai we miss some parts if we only use them as a guide

please try to read what I am saying,

buffalo bagels to you for misapplying my words

Horse hockey. You are misrepresenting your own words. I read them very carefully.

 

[marks]

I'm curious whether someone can show me a doctrine that appears in the King James Bible that doesn't appear in, let's say, the NASB? Or the NIV? Or Holman?

Is there a doctrine that appears in one of these others, but not in the King James?

I've only found one variant myself that is not addressed in other passages, and this in no wise affecting anything except a poor argument for a pre-trib rapture.

Is there in reality a difference?

Much love!

 

[JohnDB]

The Geneva Bible was created by those escaping Bloody Mary to Geneva Switzerland...(then Germany)
And this was the predominant Bible that changed the course of history.
It had "glosses" that helped explain scripture and lots of pictures.

King James came along after Elizabeth and wanted a new Bible without those voting Calvinist notes. (Monarchies doesn't allow voting)
But it was a failure...no one read it or purchased it...all who tried went bankrupt.

It was revised but that too failed.

Eventually Oxford and Cambridge universities worked on a whole new translation with only a nod to traditions set by Tyndale...
It too failed...
But it's popularity is due to a massive marketing campaign in the early 1900's.
Those who worked on the KJV immediately started another one after completing the KJV and named it The Revised Standard Edition...both copies (KJV and RSV) were bent towards the Church of England theologies.

 

[Enoch111]

Like the Ruckermites and Riplings?

Correct. And that's Ruckmanites and Riplingers. But close enough.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm curious whether someone can show me a doctrine that appears in the King James Bible that doesn't appear in, let's say, the NASB? Or the NIV? Or Holman?

The Comma Yohanim...
It creates a theological position that is difficult to answer to when comparing it to other scriptures.

BUT

In Matthew 19 it is actually more accurate on the subject of divorce than any modern translation because it accurately reflects the anthropology of that day and time which allows it to agree with the rest of scripture.

So...it has its pluses and detractors.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The cultists are a LUNATIC FRINGE. Just ignore them.

I have yet to meet a KJV only person that is not like them, maybe you are different?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Which we no longer have to get into!

We don’t?

 

[Enoch111]

I'm curious whether someone can show me a doctrine that appears in the King James Bible that doesn't appear in, let's say, the NASB? Or the NIV? Or Holman?

Take Acts 8:37 as a prime example. The doctrine of believer's baptism is embedded in that passage. But this verse has been EXPUNGED from all modern versions. Yet even the Catholic Douay Rheims Bible has it.

VERSE PRESENT
New American Standard Bible
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
King James Bible
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Jubilee Bible 2000
And Philip said, If thou dost believe with all thine heart, thou may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
American Standard Version
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Webster's Bible Translation
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Young's Literal Translation
And Philip said, 'If thou dost believe out of all the heart, it is lawful;' and he answering said, 'I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God;'

VERSE ABSENT
International Standard Version
[EMPTY]
NET Bible
[EMPTY]
GOD'S WORD® Translation
[EMPTY]
New Living Translation
[EMPTY]
English Standard Version
[EMPTY]
Darby Bible Translation
[EMPTY]
English Revised Version
[EMPTY]
Weymouth New Testament
[EMPTY]
World English Bible
[EMPTY]

And without that verse the passage makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Some KJVI do hold that non ehave ever been saved apart from the Kjv!

Yes they do correct. The extreme

 

[Truther]

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?

The KJV is the plumbline for all foreign translations. When creating a foreign language translation, the meanings must be equal with the KJV English language meanings.

The minor revisions still say the same exact thing.

 

[JohnDB]

Here's what I do know...

When looking at various translations and judging someone by the translation they use I'm reminded of Stephan in Acts...the first martyr.

When he figured out that no matter what happened he was going to be in trouble from his trial...he started quoting scriptures at them interlaced with his testimony. He wasn't quoting the Hebrew scriptures but the Septuagint...which infuriated them even more and insured that he was going to die...

Yes, they were sure they were going to kill Stephan by the translation of Bible he used...that "heathen Septuagint translation". (Best and only Greek translation of the Old Testament at that time)

 

[FollowHim]

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?

A work of art is for a gallery, to be hung on a wall, but is not alive, changing, growing and finding new expression in the heart.

I admire those who hold KJV only position because they have a position but equally they openly declare themselves observers of truth not participants. It's like admiring a kitchen but never cooking.

I visited a church in Copenhagen that has chairs for the King and Queen of Denmark to sit in which they did in 1880. The King of creation does not visit, but royalty once did.

It shows their truth and value system and lack of life eternal. God bless you.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Horse hockey. You are misrepresenting your own words. I read them very carefully.

Horse hockey. If you read them well why did you misrepresent what I said?

 

[Truther]

Take Acts 8:37 as a prime example. The doctrine of believer's baptism is embedded in that passage. But this verse has been EXPUNGED from all modern versions. Yet even the Catholic Douay Rheims Bible has it.

VERSE PRESENT
New American Standard Bible
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
King James Bible
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Jubilee Bible 2000
And Philip said, If thou dost believe with all thine heart, thou may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
American Standard Version
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Webster's Bible Translation
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Young's Literal Translation
And Philip said, 'If thou dost believe out of all the heart, it is lawful;' and he answering said, 'I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God;'

VERSE ABSENT
International Standard Version
[EMPTY]
NET Bible
[EMPTY]
GOD'S WORD® Translation
[EMPTY]
New Living Translation
[EMPTY]
English Standard Version
[EMPTY]
Darby Bible Translation
[EMPTY]
English Revised Version
[EMPTY]
Weymouth New Testament
[EMPTY]
World English Bible
[EMPTY]

And without that verse the passage makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

Crazy modern versions...yet folks seek them. People are a trip.

 

[marks]

The Comma Yohanim...
It creates a theological position that is difficult to answer to when comparing it to other scriptures.

BUT

In Matthew 19 it is actually more accurate on the subject of divorce than any modern translation because it accurately reflects the anthropology of that day and time which allows it to agree with the rest of scripture.

So...it has its pluses and detractors.

The Johannine Comma, yes, that's one of the more striking differences. Do you find it to be not in harmony with other Scriptures? For myself, I think of where Jesus said that He and the Father are One, I think of Romans 8 that seems to speak of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ in just the same way.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Take Acts 8:37 as a prime example. The doctrine of believer's baptism is embedded in that passage. But this verse has been EXPUNGED from all modern versions. Yet even the Catholic Douay Rheims Bible has it.

I love your emphesis on "expunged". So loaded! I trust you've studied about different manuscript families, so that you understand where these differences originate?

OK, Acts 8:37 . . .

KJV
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

NASB
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 [m]">[m]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 And he ordered the n]">[n]chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

NIV
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] c]">[c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

So then, Vs 37 is included in the TR and MMS, but not in the others.

What doctrine is changed by it's ommission in the NIV, let's say?

Much love!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I love your emphesis on "expunged". So loaded! I trust you've studied about different manuscript families, so that you understand where these differences originate?

OK, Acts 8:37 . . .

KJV
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

NASB
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 [m]">[m]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 And he ordered the n]">[n]chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

NIV
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] c]">[c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

So then, Vs 37 is included in the TR and MMS, but not in the others.

What doctrine is changed by it's ommission in the NIV, let's say?

Much love!

I can’t think of any

 

[YeshuaFan1]

You're absolutely correct LC627, their position and defense is as absurd as it sounds. There is not a rational argument under the sun, to defend such an outrageous claim as that one particular English translation, written several centuries ago when textual criticism was in its infancy, and the scarcity of source texts that were available, takes precedence over all other translations that came, in any language, before and after it. Even the 40 scholarly authors themselves would never make such an audacious claim.

And take note of the KJVO's specious defense, their predominant claim is that verses were taken away. But this only has any merit if we assume that the KJV is the standard to compare all other translations with. Yes, it's circular reasoning.
Anyhow, if you get a chance, or can even be bothered to entertain such a ridiculous notion, briefly examine the arguments against such exclusivity, and very shortly all your suspicions will be justified.
Again, it's as absurd as it sounds.

The problem is that they are being used by satan, without their knowing this, to set up division among Christians, as they see all other translations as spurious or even satanic!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

I love your emphesis on "expunged". So loaded! I trust you've studied about different manuscript families, so that you understand where these differences originate?

OK, Acts 8:37 . . .

KJV
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

NASB
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 [m]">[m]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 And he ordered the n]">[n]chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

NIV
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] c]">[c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

So then, Vs 37 is included in the TR and MMS, but not in the others.

What doctrine is changed by it's ommission in the NIV, let's say?

Much love!

By their own logic, does this mean that when the Kjv calls the Holy Spirit an It, that is valid then?