King james bible only

[OneLight]

Well if your that against paraphrases shouldn't you have warned the OP about the poaraphrases on bible gateway when you suggested the site? If we leave out the message then we see that other paraphrases are accepted as valid bible versions by the majority of christians. Guess it just doesn't make sense to me to just write it off. It always takes time for translations/paraphrases to be accepted much like anything. Even dictionaries and encyclopedias with excellent reputations took time to be accepted as authoritive. The Guiness book of records was first released by an alcholic beverage company but became accepted over time but still had to change after that to be what it is today.

I wasn't the one to offered the site. You get your facts straight before posting a rebuttal. I do believe I was clear enough to point out that all paraphrases should not replace a true translation, if you had taken the time to read my post. If the truth was upheld instead of offering a story book version of the truth, there would not be so many fence sitters, claiming to be a Christian but bearing no fruit, accepting what ever tickles their ears and makes them feel good instead of working through sin.

[Macs Son]

Actually in comparing the translations to the Greek, Hebrew, and Armaic the NASB or the ESV are versions that present the better word for word English translations:

Nice diagram Golden Eagle! Very interesting it has the interlinear first, great for students of Greek and Hebrew. I'd agree since the text of the New Testament was in Koine Greek and is the foundational language of the New Testament. Translators certainly do the best they can with translations and I'd be the first one to admit they are much more well versed in Greek than I'll probably ever be. An important aspect of the KJV is it was based on Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus. In my humble opinion they did a great job translating it into the King's English of the day but the problem is we no longer speak the King's English anymore. Now we do have earlier manuscripts that the TR, which are closer to the original autographs and they have been used to translate NASB and ESV. In addition it is a better rendering of the English we speak today and therefore probably better understood. I do however like the majesty of the King James, especially when it comes to the Psalms. So in my book they're all helpful but I do like to use the NASB, ESV and NKJV translations the most.

May the Lord Bless, Pat

[John Robinson]

My wife and were saved back in the old Jesus Movement of the early seventies, and our ususal go-to Bible for study is the Amplified. For pleasure it's the KJV. We have many others at our house, and back when my wife was leading praise and worship at our church (before her health kept her from it) it wasn't unusal to find her at the kitchen table with six or seven translations open at once as she tried to glean different takes on the same passage.

 

We find no fault with KJV-only folks; sadly, many times we're not afforded the same courtesy.

[Trinitron]

For the New Testament, if you would like a better representation of the Majority Text(now called the Byzantine Text) you should use the Robinson & Pierpont Text second edition represented in English by the Analytical Literal Translation(I recommend the devotional version) or the Farstad & Hodges Text represented in English by the World English Bible.  The legendary Textus Receptus or TR derives from the Majority Text family but they only had six Greek Manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 14th century.  The KJV beat out it's competition because it was a government bible.  It's over 80% word for word to the Tyndale bible.  So is the Geneva for that matter.

 

Also something to keep in mind, the term Majority Text has been changed to the Byzantine text for a good reason.  Majority Text is misleading as they are only the Majority Text from the 9th Century to the time of the printing press.  The Critical Text that is now called the Alexandrian Text is the Majority Text from the beginning to the 9th Century.

[FreeinChrist]

i have run accross many ppl who say the king james bible is the true word of God, Why exactly is that?

 

Being a KJVP (King James Version Prefer) not a KJVO (King James Version Only), I believe why many Believers who are KJVO just believe that God wrote only the KJV in English is more to do with the modern versions.  I think many KJVO, would accept Webster Bible Translation but that would be about it.  I agree with Butero, more of TRO, so that as long as the Version is related to the Textus Receptus I have no problem with it.

 

Most modern Translation come from the point of Westcott and Hort, who seems to want to question the Word of God instead of translate it.  And many Christian see in this questioning the same deception that satan used on Eve.   When we see the serpent first address Eve in the Garden of Eden his first statement was, Yea, hath God said?  Genesis 3:1   Many in the KJVO movement see all these newer translations as the devil's way of casting doubt on the Word of God.   For if one pick up just about any newer translation and even certain KJV Bible you will see Matthew 17:21; 18:11; Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; most of I John 5:7 (Just to name a few) being questioned as to whether or not they are original scripture.  For me I can certainly understand where the KJVO are coming from in this respect.  And I greatly admire all Believers who believe that God has preserve His Word in its entirely for the Believers of today.

 

 

i have run accross many ppl who say the king james bible is the true word of God, Why exactly is that?

Because Holy Spirit insight holds the key to understanding text not easily understood __ and some presumed understood by simplicity of certain sentence structure.. It is a dead translation to those who make the attempt without such insight.

 

Okay but the bible is written in many laguages and if say the KJV is the only true inspired word of God then ppl who cannot speak or read english well but were Christians would be out of luck wouldnt they?

Then you me- I use the Niv version, Now something happened when i first began reading the bible.As I read every word I could feel my soul devouring it- I know sounds strange right? But it was as if my soul was being feed good things as I read and i could read God or Jesus speaking and it was like they were speaking directly to me no different than one speaks to another.

 

If your KJV is the only true word of God then What am I to make of this?

 

 

Each must make up their own mind on which version they use, in all honestly I would never recommend the NIV to anyone, but if God's Spirit is speaking to you thru it, by all means listen to the Comforter. 

 

[enoob57]

I also have a problem with comments like, "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  What is that based on?  Why are they more reliable?  Do they show up on time?  Are they hard workers?  What is the basis for those decisions?  I haven't come across one person who could give a satisfactory reason for those comments or a decent response for where they feel they have the authority to leave out portions of God's Word or discredit portions of God's Word.  Assuming they have done that in Revelation, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes on the judgment day.

My understanding of their logic of reason that they use is older texts have went through less copy of copy of copy

and therefore have a more reliable probability of less error... it is with fact that the TR of the King James

has copiest error within themselves so it seems that the argument is mute. The leaving out part is to be regarded

with the warning in Revelation and all that being weighed out I would much rather go through the plagues written

in the book by addition than to be taken out of life with God forever! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

Actually in comparing the translations to the Greek, Hebrew, and Armaic the NASB or the ESV are versions that present the better word for word English translations:

Nice diagram Golden Eagle! Very interesting it has the interlinear first, great for students of Greek and Hebrew. I'd agree since the text of the New Testament was in Koine Greek and is the foundational language of the New Testament. Translators certainly do the best they can with translations and I'd be the first one to admit they are much more well versed in Greek than I'll probably ever be. An important aspect of the KJV is it was based on Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus. In my humble opinion they did a great job translating it into the King's English of the day but the problem is we no longer speak the King's English anymore. Now we do have earlier manuscripts that the TR, which are closer to the original autographs and they have been used to translate NASB and ESV. In addition it is a better rendering of the English we speak today and therefore probably better understood. I do however like the majesty of the King James, especially when it comes to the Psalms. So in my book they're all helpful but I do like to use the NASB, ESV and NKJV translations the most.

May the Lord Bless, Pat

You row on the right side and I'll row on the left

[GoldenEagle]

 

Actually in comparing the translations to the Greek, Hebrew, and Armaic the NASB or the ESV are versions that present the better word for word English translations:

But not from the Textus Receptus.  That is the problem. 

 

 

Please explain what you believe about the KJV and the Textus Receptus?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

Actually in comparing the translations to the Greek, Hebrew, and Armaic the NASB or the ESV are versions that present the better word for word English translations:

 

That 'dream' chart sure is in error and completely misleading.

 

Some of those Bible versions were not even translated from the same set of Bible manuscripts!

 

So any kind of side-by-side comparison would be moot!

 

 

Please explain how this is a dream chart? Please explain how a comparison between the versions would be moot?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

Actually in comparing the translations to the Greek, Hebrew, and Armaic the NASB or the ESV are versions that present the better word for word English translations:

Nice diagram Golden Eagle! Very interesting it has the interlinear first, great for students of Greek and Hebrew. I'd agree since the text of the New Testament was in Koine Greek and is the foundational language of the New Testament. Translators certainly do the best they can with translations and I'd be the first one to admit they are much more well versed in Greek than I'll probably ever be. An important aspect of the KJV is it was based on Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus. In my humble opinion they did a great job translating it into the King's English of the day but the problem is we no longer speak the King's English anymore. Now we do have earlier manuscripts that the TR, which are closer to the original autographs and they have been used to translate NASB and ESV. In addition it is a better rendering of the English we speak today and therefore probably better understood. I do however like the majesty of the King James, especially when it comes to the Psalms. So in my book they're all helpful but I do like to use the NASB, ESV and NKJV translations the most.

May the Lord Bless, Pat

 

Sure I'd agree with you Pat that the translators of the KJV did a good job based on the language of the day. They did the best they could with the resources available.

Personally, I've never been attracted to old English so I was never drawn to the KJV version. However, I can see the appeal it makes to some people.

I personally have enjoyed the NKJV and NASB. More recently in the last few years I've transitioned to reading the ESV. And for simpler language I like the NLT and the NIRV.

God bless,

GE