KJV ONLY

In the book Bible Word List published by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England, they list all of the words in the KJV that have changed meanings since 1611. There are only 618 of these words out of 791,328.

Examples would be: "draught," "fan," "Press vat," "Ossiphrage" etc...

In most study Bibles, the simple explanation of these unfamiliar words is right in the margin.

It is a fact that the KJV is not the only version with hard to understand words. Consider the following examples:

Matt 1:11 NASV - deportation KJV - carried away
Matt 2:1 NASV - magi KJV - wise men
Mark 2:21 NASV - unshrunk KJV - new
Matt 2:16 NASV - winnowing fork KJV - fan
Matt 9:18 NASV - synagogue official KJV - certain ruler
Matt 14:24 NASV - stadia KJV - midst
Matt 17:24 NASV - two-drachma tax KJV - tribute money
Matt 20:2 NASV - denarious KJV - penny
John 18:28 NASV - Praetorium KJV - hall of judgement
Acts 1:7 NASV - epochs KJV - seasons
Acts 3:11 NASV - portico KJV - porch
Acts 12:21 NASV - rostrum KJV - throne
2 Cor 11:32 NASV - the ethnarch KJV - the governor

Of course, the list goes on and on. I still hold to the fact that the KJV is not as difficult to understand as some would express.

 

It's not what they don't understand, but what they do understand that makes people wnat to use the modern translations of the bible. No matter what you or I may think or say. God's word is forever settled in heaven.

You can have your living bible, I want the living word.

You can have your new version, I want the true version.

Old time King James Bible Preacher
Jim Norman
Eden NC

[editors note: please don't type in all caps. In this forum it is consider shouting and is thought to be rude. Thank you.]

[ August 23, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

JIM NORMAN said:

It's not what they don't understand, but what they do understand that makes people wnat to use the modern translations of the bible.

This makes no sense.

You can have your new version, I want the true version.

I'm sure this is pretty rhetoric that goes down well with your congregation, but it is meaningless fluff.

 

Very well said

 

What is the difference then, if we read the meaning in a Study Bible (extra-biblical) and read synonyms of the word (or updated word) in a Modern Version? Or the difference of reading another possible translation in a footnote?

IMHO I believe it is so much more fruitful, enjoyable, and more accurate to have a translation that can translate a word into our modern language.

The following examples are from James Whites book The King James Only Controversy page 236-237. What do these words mean in the KJV?

chambering (Rom 13:13)
champaign (Deut 11:30)]
charger ( Matt. 14:8)
churl (Isa 32:7)
cieled (Hag 1:4)
circumspect (Ex 23:13)
clouted upon their feet (Josh 9:5)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8)
collops (Job 15:27)
confection (Ex 30:35)
cotes (2 Chron 32:28)
convert (2 Kings 16:18)
hoised (Acts 27:40)
wimples (Isa 3:22)
stomacher (Isa 3:24)
wot (Rom 11:2)
wist (Acts 12:9)
withs (Judg 16:7)
wont (Dan 3:19)
suretiship (Prov 11:15)
sackbut (Dan. 3:5)
the scall (Lev 13:30)
scrabbled (1 Sam 21:13)
roller (Ezek 30:21
muffler ( Isa 3:19)
froward (1 Peter 2:18)
brigadine (Jer 46:4)
amerce (Deut 22:19)
blains (Ex. 9:9)
crookbact (Lev 21:20)
descry (Judg 1:23)
fanners (Jer 51:2)
felloes (1 Kings 7:33)
glede (Deut 14:13)
glistering (Luke 9:29)
habergeon (Job 41:26)
implead (Acts 19:38)
neesing (Job 41:18)
nitre (Prov 25:20)
tabret (Gen 31:27)
wen (Lev 22:22)

Interestingly my word processor did not even recognize most of these words. Yes, we could get a dictionary out to understand the meaning (extra biblical), but why is it wrong for a MV to update these words for better understanding? (I do not think it is wrong to do some homework and learn more about a word, I do it often with my Greek/Hebrew dictionaries. Just trying to make a point)

Also Pastor Bob, why do you refer to the NASB as the NASV? Is this to show that the NASB is just a version to you, and you don't like calling it a "B" (Bible) or is it something you do without thinking about it, or something else? I do ask for a good reason.
God Bless.

[ August 23, 2002, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

Let me ask you KJV people something, and remember, I was one of you until just recently! If someone came in and took your KJV's away from you by force, and the only options available were the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, CEV...would you use them to get the Word of God and to continue learning of the Lord? I want you to seriously think about it and let me know, either here or by email to [email protected]
(NOTE: Don't be sending me your KJV Materials, just answer the question please. All who send the KJV stuff will automatically be deleted.)

Thanks,

B.T.

 

I can only add to what has already been said (and the debate will no doubt continue even if some of us feel it contributes little that is good) by suggesting that it is extremely unlikely that anyone would ever come to the conclusion that the KJV (or any other translation) is the "only, real, inspired" version by rational processes alone. It is legitimate for us to discuss which versions are more accurate, or which text-types are closer to the original MSS. But it has been my experience that KJV-only followers usually come to their belief based on emotion, not calm reasoning. They have strong feelings about the KJV, and those feelings (they believe) are an affirmation from God. That's why the debate will never cease, or ever be won by either side. And that's why the arguments, while entertaining, offer almost nothing useful to Christian fellowship, practice, and belief. It divides needlessly, and obscures the fact that all of us hold to the same inerrant and infallible Word of God.

 

Chet,
I refer to the NASV as such because my Bible software (Power Bible) lists it as such. Please notice that I refer to the King James as KJV.

In my opinion, the NASV is a version. The KJV is a version. The NIV is a version. I just believe that the KJV is the right version.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the MV's simply replace a difficult KJV word with an easier to understand synonym. There is a far greater separation between the KJV and the MV's than just that.

 

Thanks for the reply Pastor Bob. Would you mind answering the other question I had for you?

I can understand if your Bible software list it as NASV, but it is NASB. The reason for my concern was due to G.A. Riplinger using some funny math to say that the NASB spells out sin. But to do so she changes NASB to NASV.

 

What is the difference then, if we read the meaning in a Study Bible (extra-biblical) and read synonyms of the word (or updated word) in a Modern Version? Or the difference of reading another possible translation in a footnote?

Yes, we could get a dictionary out to understand the meaning (extra biblical), but why is it wrong for a MV to update these words for better understanding? (I do not think it is wrong to do some homework and learn more about a word, I do it often with my Greek/Hebrew dictionaries. Just trying to make a point) </font>[/QUOTE]Chet,
I apologize for leaving a question unanswered. The questions above are the only two remaining from your post.

To answer your first question, there would be no difference in reading the meaning of a difficult word in the margin of a Study Bible as opposed to reading a synonym or an updated word in a MV "if" that was the only difference in the KJV and a MV. I believe there is a major difference regarding the textual premise for the two.

The second question is like unto the first (sorry, I couldn't help myself.) It wouldn't be wrong if that's all it did. For example, the KJV has been revised to do just that several times since 1611. The archaic words were replaced with words of modern use and spelling. The major differences were differences of sound and not content. Some old English words did not look or sound like they do today. Some have even changed meaning.

Consider the statement, "Boy, it is a grand morning! I'm feeling quite gay today." I wouldn't dream of using that phrase today whereas 50 - 75 years ago it would have been perfectly acceptable in any group. As words, or our understanding of words change, the archaic becomes less usable. I believe that the current KJV is an adequate version of God's Word that you and I can easily understand. As I said earlier, only 618 words out of the whole Bible may require additional study.

Concerning the NASV, I had no hidden agenda. I knew nothing of the G.A. Riplinger situation.

God Bless,
Pastor Bob

 

I checked my Power Bible software and it has NASB, NAS, AND NAS95. I didn't see NASV.

 

Amen! but don't tell our KJVO friends...they aren't ready for the facts yet!

B.T.

 

If you look carefully, the one in Isaiah is NOT capitalized...therefore not implying LORDSHIP or DIETY...whereas the one in Revelation is. Why is it that you people keep looking for a smoking gun when there isn't one to be found?

B.T.

 

Read your KJV at Revelation 5:5 where Jesus is called a "Lion."

Now read in your KJV where the devil is said to be a lion in 1 Peter 5:8.

Is the KJV saying that Jesus is the devil? Of course not! No more than the NIV is saying whoever is being refered to in Isaiah is Christ!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Can we have just a little intelligence in this discussion, please?

 

Hi DocCas:

If you get a chance perhaps you should start a thread on why you like/use the KJV and/or why you think it is the best translation. Perhaps we could have some meaningful discussion.

Alot of the recent threads seem to degenerate into the realm of Bizarro.

peace,
kman

 

i like the kjv and the underlying greek/hebrew it is based on... but i'm certainly no expert, or in any position to say that the new versions are "perversions"... but it does seem to me that we have been entering an era of unbelief for the last 100-200 years... so i tend to have a natural trust for the kjv scholars and translation and i worry that the newer ones may have been affected somehow by the times we live in.

that being said, and although the kjv is my main bible, somtimes in paul's letters it's a little hard to know what he's saying since some sentences seem to just go on, and on, and on in that case i'll look at my niv to try to get an approximate idea of what he's saying, and then go back to my kjv.

finally, maybe i'm just seeing pastor bob in a good light because of my love of the kjv, but reading his posts and his replies to some of the ruder things said to him makes my heart swell with admiration for him. it makes me think he can't be a total wack-job, as KJV-only proponents are often painted to be. and for me it ultimately lends credence to his position.

[ August 28, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]

 

By our standards the KJV translators would not have been considered sound in their doctrine nor morality. Also, the critics of the KJV in its early years charged that it obscured good doctrines in favor of those held by the church of England to include prelacy and other church government issues.

 

Well said Scott. History tends to repeat itself.
The translators of the KJV themselves even admitted it wasn't a perfect work.

They have. The bible is now in the language of our day!

 

They have. The bible is now in the language of our day!

lol

i appreciate the humor, we certainly can use more of that!

but seriously, that's part of the problem. one annoying example is when some modern translations substitute plural pronouns for singular masculine ones. so the meaning is subtly changed merely to not offend modern feminist sensibilites.

one nice thing about the antiquated english of the kjv is knowing when "you" is singular or plural - that can make a huge difference in meaning sometimes.

[ August 29, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]