SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Why KJV?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Why KJV?

After reading several discussion on this board, I have seen a trend. There seems to be a deep reliance on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God", and any other version is being dismissed as inaccurate or insufficient. (Which, this seems to me as being a dangerous position to occupy as such would give the bible more authority than the Spirit and thus deny the power of the Spirit.)

And so, I would like to know why this is? Why do you (if this is you), rely on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God"? Why do you only trust the KJV of the bible?


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/8/22 15:15Profile









 Re: Why KJV?

Nothing "dangerous" about it at all.

So much research has been done on all versions and which Manuscripts and Translators were used for each and the main thing is the "Comparative Charts" found on the web, that makes some of us side with the KJV.

No transliteration (not interpretation) is 100 % perfect, and in my e-sword, I compare all verses to the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic first, and then all the Versions, and see which comes closest to the original language and it's Grammar.

Sometimes the Analytical-Literal Translation comes closest to the grammar, (done by some nice young Baptist boy up in PA.), sometimes the Young's comes closest, etc. etc.

But for regular reading of a version in Book form, I prefer the KJV because it is closest and because it is one that Most Study Aids are numbered to with the Strongs numbering and if I need to find a verse in the Strongs Concordance or Englishman's Concordance, because I've memorized or read the KJV ... I have no problem finding the verses I'm looking for.

When I read the NIV for 5 yr.s, from about '79 to about '84, I had to relearn the KJV to do Word Studies and found that the meanings of the verses in the NIV were so off, that I had to relearn the 'spirit' of the verse too, besides just the wording.

Look for some comparison charts, especially those that show what other versions do to the Deity of Christ, etc. etc.



God Bless.

Annie

 2005/8/22 15:30









 Re: Why KJV?

Blake.. it's a good question, and within a day or so this thread will be 15 pages long. I think just about everything that can be written by everyone on site concerning Bible versions has already been written... and if you have read several threads, then you have already read the answers. It's my experience here that nothing new will be added to this thread that hasnt already been written.

Having said that... I will refer you to the threads you've read. I'll only respond as I feel led to.

But I am glad you're asking questions. Have a teachable spirit and you will learn much. I pray we all come to this site with a teachable spirit. The wisdom of many here runs pretty deep. I've learned a lot from people on this site.

Krispy

 2005/8/22 16:41
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re: I'm not a KJV follower

I have to admit that I'm NOT one of the many KJV fans because I find myself having to guess at the meaning too many times. I don't speak or understand the old language, even though it may be very accurate. I'm not a very good reader. I have been using the NIV (and sometimes a few others, and Strongs, Vines, etc) - doing word studies with it. I put my studies on my web site, and I sure would like to know if my use of the NIV has caused me to stray or be inaccurate. I invite anyone to check my site and let me know where I am off. I don't mind.

I agree that we need the Spirit to make God's truths understood. They must be SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.

It would be interesting to know if various versions have led people off track more than others. Can anyone ever assess that objectively!!!
If spiritual fruit is an indication of the accuracy of one's Bible, then maybe the Chinese bible is one of the most accurate. Yet in their persecution, many would only have a few pages at a time.

James 1:13 "...by his own evil desires he is dragged away and enticed".
Also, sripture says that people are led away when they follow after a man - false prophet etc, or by sticking to one truth while omitting others. (straining the gnat)
Just my own opinions.......
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2005/8/22 18:58Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re: Why KJV?

Hi Blake,

Quote:
After reading several discussion on this board, I have seen a trend. There seems to be a deep reliance on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God"



I would have to disagree with you. If the general consensus on SI was that the KJV was the [i]only[/i] authoritative Bible, then the plethora of discussions and debates--and arguments--would not exist on this forum. True there is probably a highly held opinion among many of the members here of the KJV translation, even among those who would debate with our KJV only brothers on SI.

Quote:
And so, I would like to know why this is? Why do you (if this is you), rely on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God"? Why do you only trust the KJV of the bible?



Once again I would GREATLY encourage you to search the forum and re-read the threads pertaining to this subject and this question will be more than answered without having to start a whole new thread on this subject.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey

edit: I guess I should have read Krispy's post first...lol. It would have made my post a lot simpler. I would only have had to type, "Yeah, what Krispy said." 8-)


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2005/8/23 0:11Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re: Why KJV?

Who is the morning star according to the NIV?

In Isaiah, it is Lucifer. In Revelation it is Christ.

What is Christ referred to in the NKJV?

The Coming One. All the new-agers are looking for the Coming One. Just do the web search.

Just compare and see for yourself. Don't rely on anyone's opinion. Honestly compare verse for verse for a few weeks. Study what happened in history as a result of what version. Study what Greek text was under attack, and what version is under more heat to be 'phased out.' Don't trust any of us. The Spirit will guide you into all truth. The first thing to understand is that what we call 'Christianity' today doesn't hold a candle to the New Testament. So anyone's take is just another opinion. Do the research yourself.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/8/23 5:19Profile
saved_matt
Member



Joined: 2005/7/3
Posts: 233
Lancashire, England

 Re: KJV only?

I was wondering with all the debate started up about the King James, are there actually [i]any[/i] KJV ONLY people on SI, i would define myself as a KJV preferer, but not a KJV only person, i am quite happy to consider/compare/study other translations, but like i said i prefer the KJV.


_________________
matt

 2005/8/23 6:30Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I have to admit that I'm NOT one of the many KJV fans because I find myself having to guess at the meaning too many times. I don't speak or understand the old language, even though it may be very accurate. I'm not a very good reader.



There are so many resources out there to help us understand the extremely small percentage of archaic words in the KJV... beginning with the dictionary. Many of these resources are available for free online. Some dont want to be bothered with having to look things up... but whats the problem with making oneself a better reader and studier of the Word? It can only make oneself stronger.

The KJV is by far more accurate because it is based upon what many of us here believe is a superior stream of greek text. The KJV and the modern versions are based upon completely different texts. This is something that most people do not understand. They believe the myth propogated by the publi$hing comanpie$ that the only difference is between old English and modern English... and that is a lie.

Krispy

 2005/8/23 8:29









 Re:

Quote:
I was wondering with all the debate started up about the King James, are there actually any KJV ONLY people on SI, i would define myself as a KJV preferer, but not a KJV only person, i am quite happy to consider/compare/study other translations, but like i said i prefer the KJV.



There are different "degrees" of KJV-Only. There are those who prefer the KJV over other versions because of it's poetic beauty.

There are those who prefer the KJV because of it's accuracy and dependence on the Received Text, understanding that the Received Text is far superior to the Alexandrian, and believing that the RT is the preserved Word of God... however, do not believe that the KJV is an inspired translation, and think that a version in modern English would be fine [b]IF[/b] it were actually based on the SAME manuscripts as the KJV, without losing any of the meaning.

Then there are the extremist who believe the KJV was an inspired translation as much as the original autographs were, and that the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God... and even corrects errors in the Greek.

I am in the middle. I DO NOT believe as the extremists do. It wouldn't bother me to see a version in modern English based upon the RT. So far there has only been one: Green's Modern KJV. Personally I do not care for this version myself, but I know some do... and thats ok with me.

Krispy

 2005/8/23 8:37
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi Krispy...!

I think that there may be a miscommunication, misconception or improper generalization of those who are [u]not[/u] [i]KJV-only[/i]. I totally agree that there are several degrees of seperation between those who [i][u]prefer[/u][/i] the common KJV (1769 edition) and those who are [i]quite vocal[/i] concerning their opposition to other translations.

Your assessment of the different beliefs of adherents of [i]KJV-only[/i] is quite fair. However, there are also several degrees of seperation for those who are not [i]KJV-only[/i]. It would only be fair to consider their beliefs as well.

There are those who would receive any translation or version of the Bible without question. Unfortunately, it is dangerous to accept any "translation" or "version" on blind faith. There are "translations" of the Bible that are fundamentally flawed -- like the [i]New World Translation[/i] of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's "translation" was meant to preserve the particular beliefs of that sect (like rejection of the trinity). There are also modern versions of the Bible that are merely paraphrased editions of earlier translations. An example would be [i]The Living Bible[/i], which was a paraphrase of the [i]American Standard Version[/i] by Kenneth Taylor. Of course, it is the interpretation of a single man, and contains controversial usage (like the infamous "[i]Barney the Preacher[/i]" term in Acts 4:36).

There are groups who accept a version of the Bible based upon the good faith placed in it by another person or spiritual leader. Their pastor may preach that the [i]NIV[/i], [i]NKJV[/i], [i]ASV[/i], or even the [i]KJV[/i] is a good translation, and that is good enough for them. Again, this is dangerous because the pastor or leader (despite their seemingly good intentions) is still a flawed human being. They may just be stating second-hand or third-hand knowledge that they were taught (by their pastor or in Bible School). Pardon the old anecdote, but this is like tuning a piano with another piano. You may end up with two out-of-tune pianos.

There is another group of individuals who have received serious instruction and read books about the reliability of certain [i]non-KJV[/i] (or even [i]KJV[/i]) translations. Thus, they accept certain other versions that they deem to be acceptable. The danger in this is that such instruction or books also contain [i][u]secondhand[/u][/i] knowledge. Regardless of how spiritual or academically sounding their argument may be (or how sincere the giver of such knowledge is), the fact remains that the information given is still coming from a secondhand source. There is alot of "authoritative-sounding" but prejudiced material readily available concerning Bible translations (especially online). Because of such pre-existing prejudices [i]for or against[/i] certain translations, the judgment can be tainted. Such sources should be used carefully, and not for the purpose of using as "[i]proof[/i]" to reinforce a pre-existing argument.

There are also those who have sincerely and thoroughly considered the matter. These individuals have heard both sides of the argument, and have searched for the truth. They have researched the arguments presented (without prejudice), and have attempted to find source material concerning the matter. Unfortunately, the greatest "source material" [u]is[/u] the original text from which the translations are taken (such as the "Textus Receptus"). Even if they had access to original manuscripts, few (if any) researchers can read the original ancient Hebrew or Greek text. Thus, they are confined to study the history of, intent of, methods for, and instructions given to the translators. With such stringent instruction given to the Catholic translators of the KJV by the Roman Catholic clergy and Catholic King James, some debate remains concerning the "infallibility" of this translation.

Just like there are [i]extremist KJV-only[/i] groups, it is possible that there are also [i]extremist non-KJV[/i] groups. But it seems that most of the non [i]KJV-only[/i] groups recognize the validity of the KJV (both the original and the subsequent translations). Its just that they also accept other translations as well. Sometimes, they view the KJV as a good translation, but they view it's old-English grammar, terminology and usage as just slightly dated -- and thus it is difficult to understand or comprehend by current day English-speakers (especially non-believers).

Quote:
"There are so many resources out there to help us understand the extremely small percentage of archaic words in the KJV... beginning with the dictionary. Many of these resources are available for free online. Some dont want to be bothered with having to look things up... but whats the problem with making oneself a better reader and studier of the Word? It can only make oneself stronger."

While this is true, it is completely against the intent of the KJV translators. In their preface to the KJV, the translators stated that they wanted to produce a version of the Bible in the language of the common-man. Most people (outside of serious believers) do not own Bible dictionaries or dictionaries that explain 17th century English grammar usage. I have noticed that when sharing Scripture from the King James Version, I am often asked, "What does that mean?" by both the saved and unsaved. I am thus forced to offer commentary, which again is contrary to the desire and intent of the translators. They hoped for a translation that was commonly understood by all.
Quote:
"The KJV is by far more accurate because it is based upon what many of us here believe is a superior stream of greek text. The KJV and the modern versions are based upon completely different texts. This is something that most people do not understand. They believe the myth propogated by the publi$hing comanpie$ that the only difference is between old English and modern English... and that is a lie."

Perhaps it is not wise to make such an open-ended remark. It may have been better to state, "[i]Some of us[/i] here at SermonIndex are of the persuasion that the KJV is far more accurate..." There are [u]alot[/u] of people here at SermonIndex. And it is unknown just how many hold to the [i]KJV-only[/i] persuasion. Just because others may not be as vocal or post as often, they still are a part of this community of believers. Some may be frightened of conflict, or have been bombarded with contradictory comments after having stated a belief or opinion. And of course, alot of non [i]KJV-only[/i] people (including here at SermonIndex) realize that the KJV is based on some other texts and former translations than some other versions. However, to say that our beliefs rely on the "myths propogated by the publi$hing comanpie$" is simply untrue. There are many of us that have diligently, honestly and sincerely researched this matter and have simply arrived to a different conclusion that the others.

It can be quite dangerous to have a [i]believe-me-or-you-are-believing-a-lie[/i] or [i]I'm-right-and-you're-sadly-misguided[/i] type of attitude in this matter. Such an attitude is often viewed as prideful or arrogant by those who disagree. Instead, people should be encouraged to make up their own mind on the matter through intense study. Perhaps a better thread for such a topic is not "[i]Why KJV?[/i]." Perhaps it would be better to lay the axe to the root about the source texts through which other translations were taken, rather than comparisons between the KJV and other versions.

Perhaps it would be helpful for those who believe one way or the other to offer the source material for which they based their beliefs (such as the source information that they found regarding the "Received Text," "Alexandrian Text," etc...). There is also first-hand material available from the translators themselves (through the instructions, preface, intent, etc...). Such material may be helpful to those who are eagerly and honestly searching for the truth.

We are all on a journey looking toward our same destination (to be closer to the Lord -- and to know the Truth). There are several areas of belief that are debated here at SermonIndex. From discussions about Judgment, Spiritual Gifts and Music -- we do not all believe the same way. I pray that we can humbly encourage one another (including those with whom we disagree) with all sincerity and devoted love that is evident to all.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/8/23 13:40Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy