King James Version only?

[Botz]

1Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4 For when one says,

[Murse32]

1Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4 For when one says,

[kross]

I will say that I believe that KJV is the one version that was put together by the leading of the HOLY SPIRIT. It was the Bible where GOD used men to accurately interpret scriptures and weed out those that were false and or questionable. I am one who believes it to be the perfect word of GOD.

That said, I use the NKJV as well. It is taken from the same manuscript and has ver little deviation from the original and best.

There are thse who state that because the NIV is touted as coming from earlier transcripts, that it is more accurate. I do not agree. These earlier transcripts were written on more expensive paper by the rich aristocracy of the day. As a result, they lasted longer. If you look at the differences between the KJV and the NIV you will see that the NIV is a more palatable Bible for those who would rather not believe JESUS is GOD or would prefer to believe in their own merits. It is my opinion that, though I have not seen this stated by anyone else, that these earlier texts were copied and altered to please the masters of the scribes who copied them.

Also, these supposed "New Translations" are translated by people who already have pre-concieved notions of what the scriptures say as a result of reading the KJV. Those who translated the KJV did not have those notions.

In addition, the level of scholarly and theological education of the translators of the KJV is far above that of those who have done the modern translations. (my opinion)

So, to re-cap, Lead of the HOLY SPIRIT, more accurate original texts (written by poor people on lesser quality paper), and all the other points I made above makes me believe in the KJV/NKJV over the rest.

Just my less than learned opinion.

Peace

[Paul 84]

I must agree with SamP, Butero, and kross I believe the KJV is superior to the other translations. Many would call me a KJV only person, a few in the KJV only camp wouldn't. With passages such as Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 being question by many of the modern translation(s) to name a few of the verses, I can't understand why there are not more of us. I think whatever translation you prefer is more of a personal choice, but I never could understand how all these newer translations question certain verses in the Bible and we as believers don't even pay attention.

I can here the serpent whispering in my ears when I look at a footnote on Matthew 17:21, 18:11; Mark 16:-9-20; John 7:53-8:11; "Yea hath God said." (Genesis 3:1) I believe God promise to keep His word forever in Psalms 119:89: Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So when I heard from people on the modern translation camp that God"s Word is something like 99.5% accurrate I think that would be great for human standards but by God's Standard that is far to short. With God a promise is a 100% true or it is a lie. "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Romans 3:4)

I'm not saying you must read from the King James Version to be saved, but I believe (IMPO) you would be rooted in faith must more secuely. And I most defintely don't care if words are a little different in a translation but when you leave out 10 to 12 verses at a time (see footnotes on Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11) something is terribly wrong.

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Deuteronomy 12:32 (see also Deuteronomy 4:2)

"(18) For I testify unto every man thath heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19) And yes Murse32 I have read the website you left but after looking at the Geneva Bible and the Pershitta (which is a Syrian manuscript/translation from the 2nd or 3rd century AD) I'm most assured that these verses are in the Textus Receptus.

So if you prefer to read another translation may God Bless you, but for me I love my King James Version, and please, please do not question what is in the Word of God. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but I'm sure I did.

[EricH]

The belief that the KJV (or any of the English translations) was put together under the direct guidance if the Holy Spirit is just that (a belief or opinion). The doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original autographs.

[Murse32]

I'm not saying you must read from the King James Version to be saved, but I believe (IMPO) you would be rooted in faith must more secuely. And I most defintely don't care if words are a little different in a translation but when you leave out 10 to 12 verses at a time (see footnotes on Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11) something is terribly wrong.

Paul84, please explain to me why this is so important to you. After you quoted these verses, I got up and grabbed my NIV and my NASB. Both these versions declare this..."Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53-8:11" or "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11".

YET, both of my versions still printed the verses. They enter the footnotes, whether true or false, but give the verses anyway. I compared chapter 8 NIV and NASB to my KJV...not much change...the message is still there.

This goes out to everyone...if you want to really attack a version...go after such like the NWT or Dake' annotated, now these, distort the 'message'.

From the NIV:

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[a] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now, if we look at all this in context, we can clearly see the NIV isn't try to hide that Jesus is God.

one more: 1 Corinthains 8:6 (NIV)

6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

See how this version of the verse equates God and Jesus? also in doing this, this verse beautifully shows there is not salvation by any other than our Lord Jesus.

I must say, I would feel secure enough to give those who aren't supreme in understanding of the old english an NIV so they may understand and hear the word. My opinion only.

God bless you

[BlessedHope]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

When I got saved, I knew absolutely nothing about the Bible version issue. The lady who led me to the Lord did use the KJV, but others gave me copies of the Living Bible (by Kenneth Taylor) and the NASB and the NKJV. My first Bible I purchased on my own was a KJV Open Bible (1976 edition) ...and I still have it! The Living Bible is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. I also took a look at the NIV...and I just didn't like it...and I still don't like it...but not for the same reasons I had 25 years ago.

In 1999, I started going to a church which used the KJV exclusively (they weren't "radicals") and I really started growing spiritually at that point. I still had my NASB and NKJV and would argue with the KJV people on the net about what was so great about the KJV. They were honest with me and pretty much told me to do a study of Bible versions (which I did for almost a year). To make a long story short, I now use the KJV exclusively. My husband and I go to an IFB/KJV church (which are rare around here). I wouldn't call myself a KJV "purist"...really never heard the term until the "Ruckmanite" radicals came along. I do not worship the written Word of God, I worship the Author of that Word because His Word says that "He alone is Worthy":

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:11)

As far as some of the words being archaic, yes there is some archaic language in the KJV, but there are lots of "helps" available...for instance, I have a couple of copies of KJV dictionaries and also a copy of the "Defined KJB" published by Bible for Today... that particular Bible is not red letter and does not have a concordance...but the "helps" in that Bible are really good. I believe the KJV is the most accurate translation in the English language because it was translated from superior Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

The old King James was never translated into Latvian or Spanish or Swahiili because Bibles are translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, not the KJV English. The KJV is the ENGLISH translation from the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Old Testament) and the Textus Receptus/Received Text (Greek New Testament).

BTW, "easy to read" isn't always the "most accurate".

[Born Crucified]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

To imply that one cannot be saved through the reading of the King James Bible is to deny the Salvation of all those who were led to Christ over the last 398 years that had nothing prior to the modern versions being released. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why is He not able to minister His Word through the same means He used 398 years ago? Language is not the barrier at all. I was saved under the teaching and preaching of the cross through the King James Version. If one truly wishes to understand God's Word, God will give to that one an understanding.

The Holy Spirit doesn't need our help if we are going to dismiss what was written already. Just because the language is 'archaic' does not mean God wants us to throw it away or that He wants us to dismiss it as being ineffective. The "thee's and thou's" of the King James English are still being used amongst the Amish and some Mennonite communities today. And they have no problem there. The problem is not a language barrier at all, it is the heart.

[Murse32]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

To imply that one cannot be saved through the reading of the King James Bible is to deny the Salvation of all those who were led to Christ over the last 398 years that had nothing prior to the modern versions being released. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why is He not able to minister His Word through the same means He used 398 years ago? Language is not the barrier at all. I was saved under the teaching and preaching of the cross through the King James Version. If one truly wishes to understand God's Word, God will give to that one an understanding.

The Holy Spirit doesn't need our help if we are going to dismiss what was written already. Just because the language is 'archaic' does not mean God wants us to throw it away or that He wants us to dismiss it as being ineffective. The "thee's and thou's" of the King James English are still being used amongst the Amish and some Mennonite communities today. And they have no problem there. The problem is not a language barrier at all, it is the heart.

Wow!! it always suprises me how brothers and sisters in Christ can remain so contentious. If you twist the bible how you twist my words...I feel for you.

I will say only this. God's message rings true and clear in many versions. That includes KJV. I never said someone couldn't pull the message out of the KJV and not be saved...don't be ridiculous.

My only implication was that according to KJV purists...this is the only version that should be read....despite if you understand the meaning or not. If you would read all the posts carefully, you would understand my view point. That view point once again, is...If a person has a hard time understand the KJV and stumbles on the old english, there is no reason that is logical that says they shouldn't read a current version to extract the meaning. We are saved through faith and grace by the works of Jesus Christ...not by each scripture. Scripture is a guideline for our lives. Sorry if the NIV declares that original manuscripts did not contain something yet prints the verses anyways. Those people reading it...still receive the message of the gospel clearly. Period.

[Murse32]

Language is not the barrier at all. I was saved under the teaching and preaching of the cross through the King James Version. If one truly wishes to understand God's Word, God will give to that one an understanding.

In all honesty, think of this logic carefully. If what you say is true. Than you should be reading from the inerrant versions, The hebrew and greek, and pray God gives you understanding.

to some, The old english is greek to them.