KJV Preference

I do.

 

The longer I am exposed to KJVO's, the less of a preference the KJV becomes.

It has been my primary version my whole life but other versions have been very edifying as well.

 

I started reading the KJB as a teenager. I tried just about every new translation that came out over the following 25 years. I kept going back to the KJB to compare, and continually preferred it above all the rest. (You can guess my age is above 40, if you do simple math. But I won't tell how much !! )
It's not because I was in a KJBO church (never have been, though it is our personal preference). Most of the churches we were in were ardently "other".
The problem with the other versions is they often "soften" the meaning; or leave out words that have importance to the text.
It's also that the other versions create doubt in the minds of believers as to the authenticity of the Scriptures in their hands (all those "*" saying "this does not appear in the earliest manuscriptrs", etc.).
We have people in our church who use other versions, but we've had more than 1 person say of their own accord, "Pastor" (that's my husband) "I like your version best. I want one like that."
There are many who claim the KJB is too difficult to understand, or full of archaic words. A dear lady I knew had only a 3rd grade education and read only the KJB; knew it so well it was on her lips constantly. She loved that Word, she lived and spoke and understood that Word. I've met many other saints like her; who were nourished by the Word through the KJB tho' they didn't have an extensive education.
I recognize that the Geneva Bible preceded the KJB, and I'd love to see a "real" one. (The current one is just the NKJV with notes by popular reformed writers.) The fact that many strong godly men of the past were either TR (KJB) or GB makes a strong statement to me.
Anyway, that is my input!

 

The KJV is the best for sermon outlines by far. I grew up with it and did all my memorization in it. For that reason, and that reason only, I use it exclusively in the pulpit.

At home, I have about 17 translations and refer to all of them to get the different approach to the same thing.

I also use commentaries from all brands of writers, including the very liberal Interpreters Bible. I will use anything that gives me a greater insight into what God's word is saying.

My association has maintained all along that God's word is inspired, but only in the originals. We don't have those, so we must rely on the best copies we can get our hands on.

I don't worship any bible, but only the Christ of the word of God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Can you cite examples? If you cite an MV that "soften" a meaning and I use the same MV to show you a meaning that has been "hardened" when compared to the KJV, will that be meaningful to you?

How do you know that words have been left out?

If that creates significant doubt then it is the pastor's obligation to explain how the Bible came to us.

It is a matter of honesty to put marginal notes like the one you cite above. The original KJV had them because they recognized God's sovereignty and providence over the textual variants. It is in no way noble or healthy to hide the truth from people.

I have read and used the KJV for over 30 years. I am a degreed (magna cum laude) business professional (I say this not to boast but only to complete the contrast with your example) and there are parts of the KJV that still give me difficulty because of the words it employs and the grammar. I don't speak nor write in Jacobean English and neither does this dear lady you mentioned.

I have likewise known folks like the one you mentioned. Some of them have known alot because of their use of the KJV. Some of them also learned some things that were in error because they thought they knew what a word or phrase meant and didn't. My point is that being able to read something is not equivalent to being able to understand it.

Who were these men? Doubts about the TR and the KJV extend back to their very beginning. Wesley produced a translation partly because of his doubts about both. The Baptist of the 1600's rejected the KJV because of its association with their persecutors (the king and Church of England)and the idea that it was skewed to support their beliefs.

I know many people who continue to use the KJV and grow spiritually. At the same time, some of your assertions are questionable and by no means universally true. Based on the beliefs you've expressed, many people go on to assert that those who don't use or can't understand the KJV are spiritually inferior. I don't mean to condemn you but just to note that the ideas you express aren't completely benign.

 

I am 27 and prefer the KJV. I use it to preach and in my family and personal devotions.

Jason

 

I'm 51 and I prefer the KJV!

 

I'll be 53 on Dec. 29th and I prefer the New King James Version.

Diane

 

RevGood,

I am 35, and I love the KJV, using it quite extensively, but I do not use it exclusively. I prefer the NKJV, and am growing quite fond of the NASB do to its clarity (I dispise DE's and paraphrases, though). I will say, however, that when I do get to preach (times seem too few and far between), I normally used the KJV for the basic fact that the vast majority of the people in our church have the KJV and grew up using it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

39 years old and only use the KJV.

 

Originally posted by Scott J:
Can you cite examples? If you cite an MV that "soften" a meaning and I use the same MV to show you a meaning that has been "hardened" when compared to the KJV, will that be meaningful to you?
How do you know that words have been left out
My reply:
Comparing the NKJV and the KJB, my husband & I noticed that the NKJV numerous times used words that lessened the emphasis of what was being said. In Old and New Testaments both. We've noticed that of other versions too.
Words left out are noticed by my husband as he studies Hebrew & Greek. In my post about Galatians 3:1, that came about as he studied the text in a Greek Testament,not TR, and noticed it did not flow as it ought. Upon checking other versions, he found the TR had the entire verse, and the meaning made sense & flowed; whereas the others were choppy.
I don't have a long time to be on the BB, so I generally do not try to get involved deeply in "arguments"; though I will list my preferences & observations. If someone really wants to do a comparison, it can be a simple matter of using software that has various versions, as they study along.

Scott:It's also that the other versions create doubt in the minds of believers as to the authenticity of the Scriptures in their hands all those "*" saying "this does not appear in the earliest manuscriptrs", etc. If that creates significant doubt then it is the pastor's obligation to explain how the Bible came to us.
My reply:
Unfortunately, most pastors do not explain how the Bible came to us. My husband cannot be undershepherd to every believer we come across. In over 30 years of knowing Christ, we've met a lot of people who profess Christ, and have been disturbed because of what is in their Bibles. So many pastors do not even teach essential doctrine; let alone try to wade across the deep waters of Bible translations.

Scott:It is a matter of honesty to put marginal notes like the one you cite above. The original KJV had them because they recognized God's sovereignty and providence over the textual variants. It is in no way noble or healthy to hide the truth from people.
My reply:
If it is simply a note that gives a deeper understanding of a word, fine. But when an entire passage is denied or redefined because the wording is completely different--because "ancient mss do not include this"; well, that's a horse of a different color. As I stated elsewhere, the TR has a good lot of reliable manuscripts; the Sinaticus & Vaticanus do not even agree with each other. To rely on them is a grave mistake.

Scott: Some of them also learned some things that were in error because they thought they knew what a word or phrase meant and didn't. My point is that being able to read something is not equivalent to being able to understand it.
My reply:
There have always been heresies, because of people simply not studying well. There have also been misunderstandings, because we are human; or we have not been in churches where the truth is taught clearly.
If a translation is the most reliable, the words, while challenging, can be taught to the reader; even if the language is more formal than the one spoken by the reader.
Shaekspeare, John Milton and Jane Austen fans know that you can love & understand their works, without speaking the exact form of their English.

Scott:Who were these men? Doubts about the TR and the KJV extend back to their very beginning. Wesley produced a translation partly because of his doubts about both. The Baptist of the 1600's rejected the KJV because of its association with their persecutors the king and Church of England and the idea that it was skewed to support their beliefs.
My reply:
John Calvin & Martin Luther used the manuscripts we know as Textus Receptus; as did many other reformers. Tyndale--the great English martyr--translated much of it to English, which was the essence of what the KJB is based on.
I recognize early Anabaptists rejected the KJB. I stated I'd love to see the Geneva Bible they embraced; because if it was better than the KJB it must have been something!! If they'll get it on the press & going again, I'll read it! Until then, we trust the KJB above the more modern versions.

Scott: Based on the beliefs you've expressed, many people go on to assert that those who don't use or can't understand the KJV are spiritually inferior. I don't mean to condemn you but just to note that the ideas you express aren't completely benign.
My reply:
Did I say that people who don't use the KJB are spiritually inferior? No, I did not. I am not a flaming "KJBO", as so many paint the strawman. I only say I prefer the KJB because I believe it's the best there is, unless you can find an old Geneva--then let's look at it together!
There are manygodly men we look up to that don't use the KJB. We note their solid Christian faith & learn from them. However, just as we don't buy into the areas they are "off" doctrinally, we don't buy into their Bible preference.
Why should you be offended? The original question regarded age & Bible preference. I was stating mine; and I did not insult anyone when I did so.
Please do not wear your heart on your sleeve.

 

Age 50 and have used the KJB as primary source from my coming to Christ at age 23.


A servant of Christ,
Drew

 

I preferred the KJV when I was 30. I haven't changed my mind but that doesn't change the fact that I preferred it then. Actually it is the NEW Socfield Reference Bible

 

Hello, and welcome to the party.

My answer: that depends upon your definition of "KJV."

I use the Authorised Version that is the true King James Version. It is my favorite Version of God's Holy Word, with the Geneva Bible a very close second. I was the equivalent of an English minor in college, and I love the Early Modern English in which it is written.

Many on the list subscribing to KJV-Onlyism don't even know which version of God's Holy Word they are using. Most, if not all, are using the 1769 Revision, which cannot be considered the true KJV. IMHO, the 1769 Revision is inferior to the NKJV as the latter compares the texts and notes the differences. Yet I still see the KJVO's stating in their profiles that they are using "the 1611 King James Version." Some are even brazen in their nescience.

I am 35, by the way.

 

I would be curious as to your Scriptural Basis for your decision whether or not to "buy into their Bible preference." How does one justify that approval/rejection using God's Holy Word?