SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Why KJV Only?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Why KJV Only?

Quote:
could you please explain why?

Jordon, I started out reading the "Living Bible" when I was about 15 years old. When I was 19 the LORD led me to the KJV, when I began to read it, I felt that it had more authority than the one that I was reading, so I discarded the Living Bible.

The Living Bible served it's purpose, it was a starting point, but the wording in the KJV made the text come alive. I can't explain it any other way.

I've tried reading other versions such as the NIV, LAMSA, ASV, but there is such a removal of important data that it literally strips away the dignity and authority of the word of God.

Remember that a great part of the New Testament was translated by a man named William Tyndale, he was martyered for just translating the New Testament into English. The New Testament of the KJV has most of his translations, so when you read it you are reading from a man who gave his life that you and I can have our own bible to read.

Thats what the King James Version means to me.

 2007/4/12 21:01
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
but I think ESV is a valid translation.



Don't let anyone tell you different.

 2007/4/12 21:06Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4526


 Re:

Hi Compliments...

Quote:
...other versions such as the NIV...but there is such a removal of important data that it literally strips away the dignity and authority of the word of God.

I heartily disagree! I prefer to study with the KJV, but it isn't because I believe that it is a "superior" translation from the NIV (1978). I've studied the issue with great diligence and concluded that the KJV is a great translation from the Textus Receptus and the the NIV is a great translation using the other sources. Nothing was "removed" or "stripped away." It was simply translated from a entirely different set of ancient sources.

However, as Krispy suggested, there is another thread (actually, MANY threads) that already delves within this issue!

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/4/12 21:30Profile
Jacob19
Member



Joined: 2006/3/9
Posts: 74


 Re:

I know this has been said a million times but for people that use anything but KJV or NKJV (translations from the TR) where is Matthew 18:11?

 2007/4/13 0:26Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

[20] I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 KJV)

[20] I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 ESV)

Very subtle.

Changing the faith of the Son of God that now lives in me, to my faith in the Son of God by which I live in Him, instead of His Faith in me by which I now have faith in Him. Not my faith, but His Faith making my faith as His.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2007/4/13 2:28Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: King James Only...Only if...

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
I agree with Roniya, I think the thread that is linked to Roniya's post is probably the best thread on here for explaining our position. I'm not just saying that because I started the thread, but because it was actually a very civil discussion about the topic... which is rare.

Krispy



Thank you for finding that article - it is strange to find one's reason's for why one thinks a certain way laid out so clearly.

Keep on crackling,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/4/13 3:06Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: Why KJV Only?

Quote:

HomeFree89 wrote:
I know there are some on here that are KJV only, could you please explain why? I'm not wanting to debate I just want to know your reasons.

Thanks!

Jordan




Jordan,

Many people have great translation issues that tend them to the KJV or NKJV. Since there are deliberate errors in the Hebrew Masoretic text, particularly in the Hebraic rewrite somewhere between 800ad to 1100ad, I can't claim it is the most perfect translation into English.

I would love to read the Old Testament in Greek and Aramaic, to use the Scriptures that Jesus used, but I am not good with languages.

Much of what I love about the King James is that it, when written, was so lovingly and carefully translated from what manuscripts were available. The English used is the English of Shakespeare, adding to the beauty of the verses.

Also, so much care was used by the translators to make the translations accurate, yet poetic.

The men involved in what I call the King James Project date back to England breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, yet clinging to the Latin and Greek texts they had by the Catholics that very little was changed, or misinterpreted.

Indeed, the first inclination of the translators of the KJV was to adhere to what they knew so clearly in the languages they had through the Catholic Church. They were throwing out the Pope, not the literature.

Most of all, I love the KJV for the men who died to get it written, and into the hands of the 'little people', who read good, old fashioned English, and wanted, with a depth of desire lost to us in our generation, to simply be able to read the Bible.

God knows how to look after His own Word, so that the errors that are in the KJV are honestly done, and in no way compromises the Word in the translation from the original languages. The gospel is plainly set out, yet in beautiful language.

I have over 20 different versions of the Bible, and yet always I come back to the KJV, for the loving care and reverance that permeates the translation of the KJV must be returned with equal love and reverance.

Blessings,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/4/13 3:28Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: KJV

Quote:

JaySaved wrote:
Krispy,

I have read the other posts but I am still confused on some terminology. Are you KJV-only or KJV preferred?



Jaysaved,

Read the article Krispy found for us by clicking on the link in Roniya's post.

It's neither KJV only nor KJV preferred...It's a variable option under the right conditions.

Blessings,

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/4/13 3:33Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: Translation KJV

Quote:

Christinyou wrote:

[color=993300][20] I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.(Gal 2:20 KJV)

[20] I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 ESV)[/color]

Very subtle.

Changing the faith of the Son of God that now lives in me, to my faith in the Son of God by which I live in Him, instead of His Faith in me by which I now have faith in Him. Not my faith, but His Faith making my faith as His.

In Christ: Phillip




Wow!

Very subtle indeed.

If it were my faith, instead of His, I wouldn't be headed for heaven, for I cannot rely on myself. I know me too well.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Forrest


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/4/13 3:46Profile









 Re:

Someone commented that it sounds as tho I am more TR-Only than KJV-Only. I suppose that would be correct. I am KJV-Only in the sense that I believe the KJV is the superior translation of the preserved Word of God. I do not believe that the text that the modern versions is based on is God's preserved Word of God.

However, I am in favor of a possible update of the KJV, updating words that we simply don't use anymore. I am [b]not[/b] in favor of removing the "Thee's" and "Thou's" and "Ye's" because they mean something grammatically. They are [b]not[/b] simply there because that's how they talked in the 1600's.

I have a William Tyndale Bible that actually is the foundation of the KJV NT ...up almost 80% of the KJV. I love it, and at times refer to it.

There are many who believe the KJV is Holy Spirit inspired, and actually corrects the Greek. I don't believe that. What I believe is laid out clearly in the other thread that was linked in this one.

Krispy

 2007/4/13 9:01





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy