King james bible only

[myland]

Bottom line is read a translation you are comfortable with . . . one the Holy Spirit leads you to. You'll know it when you find it -- but stay away from The Message - its a paraphrase, not a translation. There is a difference, and its important.

 

As an example, I was lead away from certain translations when I was first saved and used the KJV because most churches in my area used it at the time. I didn't have any experience at that point in my life, but my background let me use the KJV with no problem. I moved to the ESV later on for church and general reading, but still use the KJV for study -- mainly because many of my reference books are keyed to that version and I see no reason to replace them since I don't have the money.

 

If you run a search you will find there have been quite a few threads on KJV Only over the years. Much of the "debate" seems to be endless arguments to me, but like many things there are differences of opinion and some hold really strongly to their particular take on it. Its another subject that can lead to much division if taken too far.

 

Have a look at http://www.biblegateway.com/ which has a drop down list of English and other language translations you can use for free. Its great for finding one you are comfortable with. 

I think english is a language that has progressed and  has been improved as any other language as time went on.either the bible is written in ancient english like in Kjv or in modern or simpliest english it does not matter . the point is the formal and integral content of the bible 's word and meaning shall be strictly adequate but not distorted. for the word of GOD be understood by everyone . actually I am experiencing these difficulties of getting right the words from KJV rather than NKJV because english is my second language and I find the NKJV better to read and keep verses in my mind. the christian must feel at ease in reading the bible . that is tthe very point that might have led people to paraphrased KJV.

[ayin jade]

 

So because people died, it's the one and true manuscript?  Because it was made against the wishes of the evil Catholics?  Who destroyed the native Americans and Hawaiians?

 

What has the destruction of the Native Americans got to do with anything at all other than a tedious crazy straw man that I have heard so many times. I think you're confusing colonialism with Christianity. By the way the Native Americans and the Hawaiians are still around today.

Of course there are Native American tribes in South America who were wiped out completely by the Spanish who were guess what? Catholic!!!

 

So tell me, what exactly is the point of your statement?

 

 

Look at the california mission tribes to see how the rcc mission system deliberately sought to destroy those tribes. Look at how mexican authorities (a catholic country) are currently today seeking genocide of tribes in mexico.

 

But this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Guest shiloh357]

The new translations leave out portions of the text that is found in my KJV Bible.  They remove those things entirely, discredit them, or place them in footnotes.  Their only answer to what gives them the authority to do this is to claim "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  Forget about my claim the TR is the most reliable manuscripts.  I do that to counter those who have been making the bogus claims about the Majority Text.  They like to claim they are more reliable.  I know for a fact the modern English translators have manuscripts that include every word found in the KJV translation, but they will choose to use manuscripts that are incomplete over those that are complete, and make the claim that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  What makes those manuscripts "more reliable" to the point where they can justify leaving out part of the text?  Until someone can answer this question to my satisfaction, I don't care about debate points.  I care about the fact people are omitting part of the Bible, and I will stand against that regardless of any arguments you come up with over silly things like unicorn instead of ox.  The problem is Another Poster, these new translations have no business taking verses out of the text.  And again, if they are doing that in Revelation, there are curses for that.  I don't know if there will be curses for promoting translations when they remove part of Revelation, but there are curses on those who actually did the work of removing part of the text. 

The argument that all other translations are wrong because they leave out words or verses that are contained in your KJV is a meaningless argument unless it can be established that the KJV is the plumline against which all other translations must be measured.

 

If it cannot be established that the Textus Receptus is THE superior and best Greek manuscript from which all New Testament texts in English should be derived, then there really is no substance to the claim that all other translations are inferior or are in some way not honoring to God.

 

It must also be established that the texts used by the KJV translators for the OT are also equally superior to any other OT used by any other translation. 

[Guest shiloh357]

I think it is helpful to understand the rules they had for making the KJV translation  From this link>>>   http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

 

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
15. By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."

When you boil it all down, the KJV is really nothing more than a revision. as other English manuscripts prior to the KJV are consulted. Common cultural idioms are maintained as well.

 

The Geneva Bible evidently according to this source was still the Bible of choice for at least a generation after the KJV was published.  It was not seen as an "inspired" translation at all by those of the time period.  

 

The notion that the KJV is an inspired translation is a modern "romantic" notion held by KJV only folks, but really has no basis in history.

[Guest shiloh357]

If you don't believe there is any 100 percent reliable translation, you aren't really standing for inerrancy of scripture.  Oh I know you will say the originals were inerrant, but if you can't access them, you don't have an inerrant translation.

 

You're confused about the doctrine of inerrancy.  Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.  The original text was God breathed directly from God to man. Translations are not God breathed because translations work from other copies. Inerrancy is rooted in the divine origin of the text.

 

In the process of translation from one language to another there are going to be problems and there always are.  There is nothing "God breathed" about a translation.  A translation is just that; it is a translation from one language to another.  That doesn't come from God. 

 

The Textus Receptus as we know it, didn't exist when the KJV translators were working in 1611.  It has been edited and revised since the KJV was first published.  

 

We don't need the originals.  The reasoning being is that we have a wealth of Greek Manuscripts both complete and incomplete dating to early 2nd century. through the 5th century.  We have 25,000 copies essentially, in Greek, and we can compare those documents with one another. 

[another_poster]

I don't see how #4 is not legitimate.  Those things are not biblical.  The apocrypha is rejected because it contradicts the Bible.  So putting the Apocrypha into the Bible would not make those doctrines biblical.   It's  nonstarter.

 

 

 

 

Actually more Christians over the ages have accepted the Apocrypha than have rejected it. But that is irrelevant.  The BBC probably has done documentaries on the Apocrypha, but none of them have been hostile to it.  The only books that they are hostile to  are the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

I know of no place in the Bible where any major Christian doctrine hinges on punctuation.   I know of no legitimate scholar or commentator who views punctuation as inspired.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is a good point.  I was working from class notes I took in college in a class I took on the Apocrypha and I discovered that verses I used were coming from the NRSV Apocrypha.

 

 

 

However, in the KJV version, Nebuchadnezzar is still referred to as the King of the Assyrians in Judith 1:7    Tobit 12:9 even in the KJV still teaches salvation by works.

 

It appears that Baruch 6  appears in some versions of the Apocrypha and not others.  I was not previously aware of that fact.  That makes it even more suspect.  While the KJV apocrypha has Baruch at only 5 chapters, the NRSV and other versions contain the sixth chapter.

 

The overall character of the Apocrypha, no matter what version of it you are using demonstrates it uninspired and unbiblical character.

 

As I said #4 is unbiblical becuase it is not in the bible. However it is in the bible that others use and therefore viewed as biblical by them and then other views like butero has expressed. I am simply suggesting that if one has been raised to believe it is part of scripture and it has always been in every bible you have owned then your view most likely would be different and you would be saying it is biblical.

 

While more people may have accepted it the majority of denominations do not. I should have been clearer in that. Most denominations will make a statement in response to those kinds of things. Reason for large numbers accepting the apocrypha is because of the denominations that accept it.

 

In regards to punctuation I was not limiting myself to scholars. Once again I should have clarified that. In discussions people use the location of punctuation as evidence in debating meaning of passages. I have seen heated discussions becuase one translation had the word and while the other didn't. If one accepts that translations are inspired then they logically accept the punctuation is as well. Not sure what your personal view is on the topic.

 

When I looked at some translations of the apocrypha it is not as clear as the one you presented. I can certainly understand how people people could see it that way but it doesn't actually say that. It can be understood either way.

[another_poster]

The new translations leave out portions of the text that is found in my KJV Bible.

 

The problem is Another Poster, these new translations have no business taking verses out of the text.   

However the problem is your starting point. Your starting point is the the KJV is correct and because others leave out passages in the KJV they must therefore be wrong. You need to justify why those passages belong just as much as others need to justify why they are removed. The best argument you have made so far in that regard is that it is better to be safe than sorry so you are not cursed.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh said it is meaningless to say that the new translations are wrong unless it can be established that the KJV is the plumline against which all other translations must be measured.  I am saying that the comment that the manuscripts being used by modern English translators that they are using the most reliable manuscripts is meaningless until they can prove that statement is valid.  Why are those manuscripts the most reliable?  They can make a meaningless comment like that and people accept it because they want to, so I feel just as justified in saying that if the KJV Bible contains something, it belongs, and I feel just as justified in saying the TR is the most reliable manuscripts.  Until the new translations can prove their claim is true, I have no reason to justify my position in the eyes of anyone.

 

You're working from the misguided notion that your claims about the KJM, Textus Receptus are as equally valid as what is being said about the other manuscripts.  The difference is that they can give evidence for their claims and you can't and haven't offered anything for your position.  You have no offered one shred of bonafide evidence up to this point. 

 

As to the doctrine of inerrancy, I am very much aware of what it means by definition.

 

Evidently, you are not aware of what it means.  Inerrancy only applies to the historical claims the Bible makes.  It doesn't extend to manuscript evidence, copies, translations.

 

I am speaking in practical terms.

 

You are trying to redefine inerrancy and are trying to apply it on your terms.

 

It is really worthless to claim to believe in the inerrancy of scripture when you don't believe you Bible is 100 percent accurate.  If you can't find this inerrant Bible you can have full trust in, who cares if you believe in inerrancy?  You still don't believe your Bible is fully accurate.

 

Again, you are misapplying the term.  No one here said that the Bible is inaccurate.  We are saying that the KJV isn't inspired and like every other translations, it has strengths and weaknesses.   You are misrepresenting our position when you accuse us  of saying the Bible isn't accurate.

 

The KJV has imperfections.  it is a human revision of already existing English translations.  If God were going actually provide an inspired biblical text in English,  He would not have allowed six corrupt English translations before inspiring the KJV to be written.

 

You can even claim the original were one time in the great by and by 100 percent perfect, but you can't trace things back to perfect manuscripts.

 

You can't do that either.  There is no way to trace the KJV back to the originals or the apostles.

 

Down the road, someone could find more manuscripts in caves, fully preserved, and they will of course be older than what was found so far, and this will give people excuse to pick and choose which of those manuscripts, full or fragment are the most reliable ones.

 

You clearly don't understand how manuscript evidence and manuscript criticism works.

[another_poster]

I have one more thing I want to add before I sign out this morning.  There was a day when people said they believe the Bible was God's Word and it meant something.  They weren't talking about manuscripts that no longer exist when they said the Bible is God's Word.  They meant the Bible in their hand was God's Word.  There was a day, before we were flooded with new translations, that we had the KJV Bible, and people believed all the verses were the Word of God.  Then came the new translations, and with the stroke of a pen telling us that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..." we began to doubt if some of what we accepted as truth was truth.  That includes the entire last part of the book of Mark.  Why in the world should a sinner believe anything you people say is true from scripture, when you cast doubt on it being 100 percent accurate?  You present them with "the Romans road."  How do they know those scriptures are fully accurate?  You can't even point them to fully accurate manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek anymore.  I would laugh at a minister presenting the Bible that way.  I would question whether or not anything they said was true.  Thank God that when I was persuaded to believe in Christ, the minister actually believed the entire Bible was the Word of God, and didn't question it. 

and there was a day before we were flooded with new translations that we had the KJV and we treated people with legitimate medical conditions as if they were demon possessed and we locked them up. Back in those days it was also sinful to wear a hat in church even though that could not be scripturally supported. I could go on about all these various views that were once firmly believed but no longer are but I hope you get the point. Just because something was seen one way in the past does not mean it was right.

[gdemoss]

There was a person in here Gdemoss that claims the Holy Spirit showed him there are numerous errors in the KJV Bible. I believe God has shown me that he is against the new translations as they are intentionally perverting his Word. In that sense, you may be on to something. I have given you my main objection, so rather than continue in circles with the other things, I will stick to that. I believe Satan is using new translations to pervert the Word to such a degree, nobody is sure what truth is. They will always be able to find a translation that lets them justify anything, and if it doesn't exist already, they will create one.

Butero, I believe you are correct in that Satan is using the variety of translations to pervert the word of God but surely you agree that he need not leave the KJV to do just that. There is overwhelming evidence that shows many who follow KJV only doctrine can be just as corrupt by perverting the KJV. As Fez pointed out clearly we listen for the Holy Spirit within the person leading and guiding us into all truth regardless of what translation they are teaching from. I believe that people who have never read or known the KJV are led to God and taught perfectly the word of God without it.

Of course people can get saved and stay saved never having owned a Bible. What do I have a Bible for? I am trying to learn truth from God, so I want a complete Bible. I want a reliable Bible. I am not satisfied with this idea that all translations have flaws, but are perhaps 95 percent right. I might be holding to the 5 percent that is in error. I either trust the Bible to be the Word of God in it's entirety, or not at all.

I get that and honor your present faith that is validated by your works. I am not under the same conviction you are. God, as I understand Him, works all things to the counsel of his own will. I believe Jah has a perfect plan in place that permits the translations just as they are and that it is my perception of what is going on that is flawed instead of the translations.