How important is the KJB?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by stilllearning, Dec 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are three answers to this question....
    (1) It’s not important at all.
    (2) It is somewhat important.
    (3) It is vitally important!

    To the unsaved individual, it is not important at all, because all they need is the Gospel.
    To the lukewarm and indifferent Christian, it is also not important, because they don’t study the Bible anyway.

    Now to the growing Christian, it is somewhat important, because they should to have a Bible that is nailed down as being “God’s Word”, in order to study and grow.

    But to the mature, committed Christian, it is vitally important; Because they understand how important every single word in the Bible is and they live by every single word.
    ------------------------
    This is why we can take an unyielding stand for it in one breath, while not even bringing it up in another.
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    128
    Welcome back stillearning, been awhile.

    Always a twist in your posts here, but I agree that God's word is vital to all individuals.

    The bible provides instruction, rebuke, correction and training to those who read it (2 Timothy 3:16).

    Rob
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Agreed - can't say it any better.
     
  4. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,162
    Likes Received:
    368
    It's not the "KJ" that is vitally important but the "B". It can be the NASB, ESVB, NIVB, etc. - but the Bible is the most important resource that we have today.
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good morning Ann

    I agree that it is the Bible(God’s Word), that is important; But as I said in the OP, the KJB, is the only English version, that is considered.... “God’s Word”; or at least, that how it was the last time I was here.

    That is to say(according to most of the people here), none of the NASB, ESVB, NIVB, etc. are looked upon, as being God’s Word; But simply “the latest and most accurate version” of the Bible(containing God’s Word).

    This is what makes the KJB “vital”, because it doesn’t get updated every few years(since 1769).
    (Because God’s Word doesn’t change.)
    ------------------------
    Please don’t misunderstand; I am not looking for a fight.
    The OP, was simply an explanation as to why I sometimes don’t make Bible versions an issue.

    And thanks for the warm welcome back.
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gods Word were the originals documents though, and ALL English translations have updated thru the years, even the ole KJV!

    Should be updayed when new discoveries are made, understanding increased, shouldn't they?
     
  7. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    Agreed.
    There is no reason to single out the KJ as being the only one called "God's Word".
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    And as we can see you are still learning. This post makes it obvious.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV is not the only English version that is considered God's Word in the proper sense and way that translations should be considered the word of God. Are you forgetting that the KJV translators themselves asserted that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were the word of God?

    The NKJV is the word of God in the same way and sense that the KJV is the word of God.

    The Scriptures do not support the KJV-only implications in your statement.

    You are actually misrepresenting the views of some posters at this forum in your statement.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    today's KJV is not the 1769

    Actually the KJV was updated after 1769, and it was updated several times, usually inconsistently updated.

    The KJV was updated around 1810 with editors or printers having to determine and decide whether a character that looked like "f" in print was used as an actual "f" or for a long "s." That change was made in hundred and thousands of words in the KJV.

    An Oxford KJV edition in 1829 introduced over 70 changes to the 1769 edition.

    Changes were made around 1840 and even up to the 1880's in Oxford KJV editions and up to 1900 in Cambridge KJV editions, not even counting the 2005 Cambridge KJV edition by David Norton.

    There is no present edition of the KJV in print today of which I am aware that is 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

    The American Bible Society updated their edition of the KJV around 1932 and again around 1963.

    Your post indicates that you are uninformed and misinformed about KJV editions.
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    changes made to KJV after 1769

    Here would be over 200 changes that have been made to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

    Here is one example that is usually considered to have been first made by Scrivener in the 1873 Cambridge edition, but I have found one edition that had it earlier [a KJV edition printed in Boston in 1835 with the notes of Thomas Scott].

    1 Samuel 2:13
    priest's custom (1768, 1769, 1772, 1777, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1853, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885, 1890 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1772, 1795, 1813, 1814, 1817, 1824, 1825, 1838, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1808, 1828 MH) (1809, 1810, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1853 Butler) (1859 RTS) (1895, 1958 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1942 UBBH) (1948 WSE) (1976 BH) (1975, 1978 GID) (1940, 1979, 1996 Holman) (WMCRB) (KJRLB) (VB) (EB) (JVIPB) (TCRB) (Nave’s) (Dake’s) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1985 Open) (1987 Dugan) (1972, 1989, 1991, 2003 TN) (MSB) (KJVCB) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (2011 Barbour) (APB) (2011 PJB) (HMSB) (2012 F-S) (HKJVSB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

    priests' custom (1928, 1977 Oxford, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CCR, CSTE, DKJB, 2011 PMR] {1976 London} (1835 Scott) (1911 TCE) (1923 NIB) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1973 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (CB) (CHSB) (1991, 2012 FWP) (RSB) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1999 Collins) (TLPSB) (ROASB) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2002 ZOND) (Life) (1997 NPC) (DSB) (TPB) (HPB) (SFCB) (2008, 2010, 2011, 2011p HEND) (NHPB) (2011 WB) (NCE) [NKJV]
     
  12. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,162
    Likes Received:
    368
    I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The ESVB, NIVB, NASB, NKJB and KJB are all God's Word.
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a false trilemma; there are other possible answers including "It is very important, but not vital."
     
  14. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    For whatever reason, people just don't get the "version" in the KJV. It's a version that translators translated from the Greek/Hebrew.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Yeshua1

    You asked a good question.......
    That is, should new discoveries be used to “change” the Bible?

    Well if we were talking about something like a “history book”, that men had written; the answer would be yes. (Because man’s understanding always comes short!)
    But we are talking about “God’s Word” that He gave us and His understanding never increases.

    God’s Word has already been delivered to us and nothing should ever be allowed to change “it” in any way.

    As for an increase in our understanding; That’s great.
    But our puny understanding of God’s Word, should never effect “it”.
    ------------------------
    Just as our relationship with Jesus, is the foundation of our Spiritual life.
    The Bible(God’s Word), is “the foundation” that our understanding about Spiritual things should be built upon. And that foundation will never change.
     
  16. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Feelin' the love!

    This is such a warm, friendly, engaging kinda place!! I think I'll pull up a chair next to the fireplace and warm my feet. Bro.learning....surely you must be a glutton for punishment (and I do know the feeling) coming in here with with these kind-of-stealth KJVO posts. I am one too but I don't post as much in this part of the forum anymore because it is mostly a waste of time and effort. This is the home of the MV crowd and there ain't no convertin' them. This argument is almost as polarized as the pro-life/abortion argument or the Calvinist/Arminian argument. I have concluded that it IS appropriate to occasionally DECLARE who I am and what I believe so folks will know....but I didn't arrive at my convictions by the force of argument but rather by the leadership of God's Spirit so....take a stand...YES....waste a lot of time arguing...NO. We need to get serious and busy about winning lost folks to the Lord in the time remaining (and discipling them with the right Book...amen?). I do thank God for brothers like yourself though who ARE willing to stand. I,like yourself, am thankful that we have the Word of God in our hands today (KJV) and that we are not left to try to gather it or discern it from a variety of manuscript fragments or a plethora of different "translations". I'm thankful God didn't leave us in the hands of or at the mercy of fallible men (be they self-proclaimed "scholars" or not). I'm equally thankful that we can have in our hands a Book that is the Word of God. The "original" manuscripts that everyone boasts about no longer exist. Thank God that His Word does exist for us today in English...and other languages as well. God Bless you brother. Part of being a good soldier is knowing when to shoot....and when to DUCK. Time for me to duck.:thumbs:

    Bro.Greg:saint:
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you contradicting the KJV translators who asserted; "If any thing be halting, or superflous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place"?

    Are you forgetting that the English text of the KJV has been changed many times with many corrections being made? Are you suggesting that all those changes were wrong?

    No one suggested that God's understanding increases, but men's understanding of the original language words of Scriptures can increase so that they see what a more accurate rendering of those words would be.

    God's words were delivered to us through the original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The Scriptures do not state or teach that God directly gave or would give the words of later translations made after the completion of the New Testament.

    Are you failing to understand that there is a difference between the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and the later translating of the Scriptures?
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    the bible since early on was "translated" into the language of those intended to receive it, so would we not have modern versions updating the modern use of the English vocabulary?
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    God's Word in English was delivered to you by men and was confirmed by other men.

    There is no biblical support for anything similar to the God-inspiration of His writers in the translation process of translators or revisers; these good men could have been mistaken and imperfect in their efforts. You would raise those men to a God-inspired level without any Scriptural support. So, you do trust men.

    You might attempt to validate the translators work by claiming that Godly preachers, commentators, and readers have found no fault in their translation. But readers, commentators, and preachers are also mere human beings and certainly capable of having problems of translation escape their attention, especially those errors that are beyond their own competency of detection. Indeed, you do trust men.
     
    #19 franklinmonroe, Dec 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2012
  20. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Yeshua1

    You asked......
    I am not sure exactly what you are asking, but you are talking about Bibles being updated to reflect the changes a language goes through over the years.

    Sure enough, we don’t speak in “old English” any more and it really is a shame that the KJB can’t be updated to more reflect the way we speak today.
    ------------------------
    Oh, by the way the reason it can’t be updated, is because myself and millions of other English speaking Christians would not accept an updated version of the KJB, because we could not trust anyone, to simply update the old English words that have changed meaning.

    There would be way too much pressure put on the scholars used to make this updated version, to go ahead and “correct it’s errors”!
    (The KJB, has no errors, to be corrected.)

    And this “pressure” I am talking about is about to seen in all it’s splendor, when people respond to the last statement I just made..... “The KJB, has no errors”.
    ------------------------
    Therefore, we will just have to continue to muddle through(until the Lord returns), learning to better understand the old English words and teaching others what they really mean.

    This is the price that has to be paid, because of the work of W&H!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...