Best Book to Defend the KJV

Larry, I don't have any book suggestions for KJV defense. But I do hope you find some that are interesting to you.

 

Blammo,

I like the KJV. It is beautiful and poetic. I like some of the other versions too and am particularly partial to the NASB.

What I don't like is when someone throws around terms like those that WinDork tossed out. They were hateful. At the very least anyone reading them would find them condescending and short.

I want to discuss the issues surrounding versions. If I tell you that I use other versions, that's certainly not a criticism of you choosing to use the KJV exclusively.

 

Disagreeing with the KJV-only view is not being "anti-KJV" and is not being "intensely against the KJV."

After reading over 100 KJV-only books and pamphlets, I think that
a couple of the better books that defend the KJV are:

Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. Fourth Edition.
Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984.

Holland, Thomas. Crowned with Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to
Authorized Version. Lincoln: Writers Club Press, 2000.

Based on my examination of the overall evidence, I do not think that they prove a case for a KJV-only view.

 

But it's far from the ONLY VALID VERSION of God's word.

Like it, deal with it, get used to it, or keep typing in bold caps outta frustration...and try providing some EVIDENCE supporting your position.

 

As was said earlier, Logos, the AV/KJV is its own best defense bookwise, but when the AV translators weren't themselves KJVO, how could anyone else be?

 

Who was against the KJV?

But mosta us here are against the false KJVO MYTH.

You oughtta be happy He continues to present/provide His word to us in our language, same as He did in times past, as perfectly as He has chosen.

Can you prove one is right & the other wrong? I doubt it.

Why attack YOU? It's much simpler and more Christ-like to simply state your belief about God's word is wrong...and I so state. I don't know what kinda person you are, so I'd be very wrong to attack YOU, but your stated belief is clearly wrong, and I won't hesitate to so state.

 

Thank you, mcdirector and Logos1560, for your responses.

Obviously, I was not directing my comments at people such as yourselves. I find your attitudes very refreshing compared to what I have encountered from others. Also, not that I speak for him, TheWinDork was not directing his comments at people such as you either, I would guess. The problem I have is with people who, not so subtilly, attack us, who believe the KJV to be the God given English bible; and not us only, but also they attack the word of God itself. That it what causes us to get defensive, and I would consider what TheWinDork said as a retaliation, not an attack.

 

The thread's OP is about books defending the KJV, and not defense of the KJVO MYTH. Now, I hope you didn't take what I said as any kinda attack on you, but very simply you stated a belief and I stated I deny that belief due to lack of evidence, especially SCRIPTURAL evidence.

I believe everyone here recognizes the KJV as a fine valid English Bible version. However, we generally do NOT recognize the KJV as the ONLY such valid English BV. And there's simply NO SCRIPTURE supporting such a view. And as such, I don't recognize any book that tries to defend the KJVO MYTH as being valid to defend the KJV itself.

 

Which Greek Text? by Dr. Charles Surret is perhaps the fairest treatment of the TR postion, but it is not very detailed. I appreciate the spirit in which it is written, though, I personally do not hold to a TR textual position.

 

Larry-

I was wrong. I apologize.

But, I do stand by the general content of my post.


Bob-

People don't have to be KJV only to be saved. I absolutely DO NOT believe that. I realize some KJVO's believe that, but I think it is ridiculous. I also don't consider non-KJVO's to be apostate or hereticks. I just happen to believe the KJV is the best and only perfect English translation.


Roby-

You are correct sir. This is not a KJVO thread. Sorry, my mistake.

 

Defending the KJV? Really?

I have yet to seen an assault on the KJV.


I have yet to see anyone attack the KJV like some people attack the NIV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB, ASV, ESV, etc...


The KJV stands on it's own merit just like any other faithful translation of the Holy Scriptures. Personal preference and myths are no reason to defend the KJV. Yes the KJV has some weak rendered verses as compared to the Geneva Bible for example BUT this does not mean the KJV needs defending when the KJV is weak and/or in error.


Since when is pointing out translation problems in any bible version attacking the Word of God?


The KJV is a fine translation. My only complaint is it is dated and needs to be updated to reflect modern English. Outside of that and a few verses here and there I like the KJV. True that I am a CT preferred but that does not mean down play bibles like the KJV, Geneva, and NKJV.


D.A. Waite is not a source that I would recommend. Go to James Whites web site and listen to his debate with D.A. Waite. After you listen to that debate James Whites has audio of D.A. Waite on another show bearing false witness about his debate with James White. Don't take my word for it...go and hear it for yourselves!


I'm scratching my balding head wondering why the KJV needs defending!



In Christ,

 

David J-

Well, I am sitting here scratching the hat on top of my bald head, wondering how someone can mention "errors, weak rendered verses, outdated english" and wonder who is attacking the KJV.

 

Sounds like a very noteable goal. I commend you for leading your students to think for themselves :thumbs:

 

I wholeheartedly agree raise:

 

I apologise for this post - I did not take time to read the thread and misunderstood what was going on. Please forgive me.