Prefer the KJV?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by neal4christ, Jan 2, 2003.

  1. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a question for those who PREFER the KJV. I am one who does, but I am by no means a KJVO. However, I do feel the KJV is one of the most accurate and trustworthy tranlations. It has stood the test of time. Many resources are available for it. It has been picked apart and examined. Yet it still stands. I would like to know why you prefer the KJV. If you are KJVO, please post in a respectful way and not start slinging accusations. And if you do not prefer the KJV, please post in an appropriate manner as well. IMHO, the KJVO stand has undermined those of us that prefer the KJV and has caused people to look with disdain on the KJV, which is unfortunate.

    Yes, I see the need for modern language, and I have and do use many modern versions. I am a youth minister and see that kids do have a hard time using the KJV. But at the same time I do not see abandoning it as a good idea either. There are many times it is more accurate than MV's, yet this is ignored by those who argue for it. Let me know why you prefer (or don't) the KJV.

    God bless,
    Neal

    [ January 02, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think we can nuance this a teeny bit with "for what"--i.e. prefer the KJB in what context n for what audience.

    i certainly prefer it for nostalgic seasons like Christmas, esp. in passages i've memorised fr childhood or which r immortalised in Handel's The Messiah.

    but i have to do a little editing upstairs, too, like putting Wonderful-Counsellor together n on Earth, Peace on whom God shows His favour/goodwill.

    ;)
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I pretty much agree with you on the reasons to use the KJV... and your reasoning in general. Maybe adding familiarity- as someone here put it, I think in KJV. When looking for a relevant text, I find it easiest by doing a word search in the KJV.

    Things that bother me about the KJV include a few mistranslations, a few places where modern definitions have shifted word meanings, and some places where phrasing is difficult. One of my most unfavored things about it is the inconsistency in translating the word "pneuma" in relation to the Holy Spirit. It translates the same word as "ghost" and "spirit" introducing unnecessary confusion about His name.

    Additionally, the instances where the KJV calls the Holy Spirit an "it". If a preacher called the Holy Spirit an "it" from the pulpit, I'd probably walk out.
     
  4. MissAbbyIFBaptist

    MissAbbyIFBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/3374.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am KJBO. I just think it's God's inspired, infallable, innerrent Word of God. I take it by faith that it is. I don't question it. If it makes literal sense seek no other sense, I guess is what you can say I believe. I stand firm on this conviction. I am uncomfortable with any other "version" and find them hard to understand. I'm 14 years old, and I am in NO WISE a theologin, and I may not no much, that's true, and I sure don't have any degrees or anything like that, but I can discern truth from untruth.
    To me the KJB is very easy to understand. Now don't get me wrong, I don't claim to understand every passage of scripture, but if anyone does, I want to meet em. The only One who understands everything is the One who lives within me!
    I will stand for the KJB, by God's grace till the day I die, or the rapture takes place.
    ~Abby [​IMG]
     
  5. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surprisingly I also did agree with the KJV Only View for a while. I came to realise that other translations were quite good and in some cases brought things out more clearly. I have used my NKJV until it has almost worn out, but I will be getting a NASB on the basis that I feel it is an excellent translation of Gods word.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    For my personal memorization, et al, the KJV1769 revision is the only English translation I use.

    For detailed study, I use the Greek/Hebrew texts.

    For preaching, I use the NKJV with updated words and grammar while retaining the flow of the beloved KJV.

    For personal reading and just relishing God's revelation, I use the Complete Jewish Version, the NIV and sometimes the NASB (my least favorite).

    As hard as I take shots at the KJVO, I still cannot shoot at the KJV itself. Especially its latest revisions in the NKJV.

    [ January 02, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  7. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Dr. Gene Scott.

    Oh? Wait, that is not Gene Scott.

    Hello Dr. Bob Griffin.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

    Emphasis on “all things which are written” for you see, I know where they are written. They are in the authoritative King James Version Bible.

    Have you figured out for sure where they are at? Have you seen them and read them?
     
  9. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a few have stated, I believe it to be by faith the inspired, infallible, inerrant and all around perfect word of God.

    [ January 02, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: HomeBound ]
     
  10. Steve K.

    Steve K.
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    AAAAAAMMMMMMEEEEEENNNNNN!!!!! BOB!!!!!
    Don't expect to prove anything to those who question God's word the KING JAMES BIBLE or try to belittle it by saying it resembles modern perversions.The issue is a heart issue not manuscript or translator and some will not get it just so the scriptures may be fulfilled.The time will come when they will not endure SOUND DOCTRINE but will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears. Ever learning and yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Hey do what I did and go to the KING JAMES site that pioneer listed.
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying that someone's heart can't be right if they don't believe something unbiblical and contradictory to both historic orthodox doctrine and known fact? Are you saying that the hearts of men like Spurgeon, Torrey, Bruce, Scofield, Moody, Rice, etc weren't right because they weren't KJVO?
    That's an interesting quote from someone who clings to a false doctrine not more than 100 years old. As far as Bible doctrine is concerned, that time has come... embodied by KJVOnlyism. It was not a doctrine held when this scripture was written therefore it is the KJVO's ears that are at issue. Embracing the likes of Riplinger, Gipp, Marrs, and Ruckman is certainly heaping false teachers to one's self.

    The doctrine we believe is the one that has been formal and orthodox since at lease Augustine. The one you ascribe to originates with a 7th Day Adventists cult member. The one we hold to agrees with both scripture and the evidence. The one you hold to is unscriptural and is in contradiction to fact and reason.
     
  12. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    227
    I am also KJV... That is the one I read and study from and what others read is their choice. I see no reason to change as my KJV is still in English which is my language. If I need to look up a word there is always a concordance... And my KJV with my Strongs Concordance go hand in hand.

    I think if you check with the brethren of the Primitive Baptist which I also am you will find that is also their preference. I really don't see the need to change translations but I also do not see the reason to make it a bone of contention... I am KJV for a reason and a purpose... According to the PBs that I have known thoughout the years the church accepts the KJV as orthodox and accepts no other!... Brother Glen [​IMG]

    [ January 03, 2003, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  13. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't use the KJV, because I don't like using 17th century language in the 21st century, and neither would the KJV translating team.
    How long are people going to pay homage at the alter of the the KJV? I use other translations BUT the KJV is still the best..... Please, no it's not!! That is why you are using other translations.
     
  14. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are you so animated about this? I honestly, 100% want to see why others like the KJV. I am not KJVO, so no need to rail on me about heresy. I use other translations to get the sense of Scripture and mainly to help other people. If it was up to me, I would rarely use others as I do LIKE and think that the KJV is truer to the original languages the more I study it. Yes, it is in 17th (actually 18th) century English but that does not bother me personally. Actually, I like the thou's and ye's because they let me know singular or plural references very easily. There are many times modern translations change singular pronouns (such as he) to plural ones (such as they). Try studying to see the coming Christ in the book of Genesis in MVs. It is much easier in the KJV because starting with Gen. 3:15 it translates the Hebrew word zerah as seed, rightfully so (singular), and throughout the book of Genesis. Yes, many of the prophecies throughout the book refers to descendants, but they are ultimately fulfilled in THE seed, Christ. It is easy to trace in the KJV because you can look for seed, but harder in the MVs. And it was important to Paul how the word was used, as you can see by looking at Galatians 3:16. But in many MVs this reference is lost because they choose to translate zerah as descendants, plural.

    Just little nuances like that I like. No, I don't claim that the KJV does not have some translation problems and is difficult for today's readers. But, in my opinion, I trust it more than many MVs. Yes, I prefer the KJV over all other translations. I am sorry you have a problem with that, but please don't jump all over me about it. I believe it is my choice, not yours. I would not jump all over you about your choice, so please don't do that to me. I have no problems with others using MVs, but the more I thoroughly study them, the more I come to appreciate the KJV. No, I am not bowing to the "altar" of the KJV. I bow to God and God alone. But I do enjoy the KJV. Sorry you have such a problem with that.

    God bless,
    Neal
     
  15. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said this?

    Neal
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again you prove our] point from Scripture itself by showing us that "all things written in the law and in the prophets" are found in something other than the KJV ... or are you suggesting that they had the KJV in Acts? Of course the second is ludicrous as you well know; therefore you are proving that the KJV is not the only word of God but that other versions and translations are the word of God.

    You see, even you give Scriptural proof for our position; you just don't believe it when the Scripture says it.
     
  17. Steve K.

    Steve K.
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Message deleted because of name calling.

    [ January 03, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Kal-El ]
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deceived? How so? Bible correcters, how so? Without these men and other like them there would be NO FUNDAMENTALISTS today. They stood against liberalism when it was crucial and in many cases sacrificed themselves to defend the truth.

    It is the KJVO who is deceived. As an organized, formalized opinion, it can be traced back no further than a SDA named Wilkerson in the 1930's.

    In fact, the label "bible corrector" applies much more to the KJVO than to those who hold the orthodox biblical doctrine. It is they who insist on ideas that cannot be found anywhere in the pages of the KJV or any other version. You all are the ones who are speaking where God's Word is silent. You must feel that God didn't complete the job when He gave His Word and needs you to fix it for Him.

    Either show one verse of scripture that says that the KJV is the only Word of God in English or acknowledge the title you use to impugn others- Bible corrector.

    An opposite of 'orthodox' is 'heretic'. An opposite of 'formal' is 'confused'/'contorted'. You make my point very well by your gracious refusal.
     
  19. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, I see. So why do you accept a Bible from "Bible correctors" such as the KJV translators, who didn't simply accept the "final authority" they already had? How did a group of men, so corrupt as your logic requires, produce that which is perfect? Can good fruit come from a bad tree?
     
  20. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    So according to your standards anything from 1611 on is the result of "bible correctors"; of course this would include the Alexandrian "bibles" from "older & better" texts that everybody champions on here also,hmmmm..
    Just like (according to your logic) everything after 1611 including modern versions too.
    Absolutly not; just look at the Deity attacking,blood omiting bibles that are the result of Gnostic & philosophers from Alexandria,Egypt & Rome..
     

Share This Page

Loading...