Why defend the KJV?

There are still some minor issues to be dealt with in the NKJV, but as the winnowing process corrects those short-comings, the NKJV may well become the standard English version.

 

Amen, Skan.

 

Why defend the KJV?

Becasue of all the folishness being flung about by the KJVO crowd, that's why. If they were left alone, the KJV would soon become Nehushtan.

The KJV is but a translation, one of many. Not an idol to bow down before.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Sure it will be around. It was around in since 1611, has been revised many times, including the current revision that we have right now. I would guess that when the Oxford was presented to the public, the die-hards would not accept it. The next generation probably did and now we have the next version the NKJV, some die-hards are having trouble accepting it, many are not.

Our next generation is more likely to accept it even more. It will also be revised, corrected and made better. (See Skan's post above)

Then those revisions will have their own growing pains and then they will be accepted. On-and-on the cycle goes as the Bible continues to change and evolve as English itself evolves.

If we could look into the future and the Lord does not come before then, my guess is that the KJVo's will be arguing that their 2079 version is word-for-word inspired. .. and they will be arguing that theory in the year 3004.

 

Phillip, could you tell me the last revision done to my KJV ? Is my guess of 250 years innaccurate ?

 

The last major revision was done by Frederick Scrivener in 1873. 131 years ago.

There are some American editions which later changed the spelling (again) most notably the Thomas Nelson edition of 1975 (29 years ago). It changes some odd spellings such as "heretick" to "heretic," "knop" to "knob," "musick" to "music," "neesing" to "sneezing," as well as changing OT names quoted in the NT to the OT form such as "Osee" to "Hosea," "Noe" to "Noah, "Jonas" to "Jonah," and "Isaias" to "Isaiah."

 

Yes, God preserved His word. We know that for we still have it today.

I agree. Many English versions are not only poorly executed, but, in my opinion, a waste of time, money, and otherwise good paper.

None. Versions are given to us by translation, not by preservation. Look at it this way.

Inspiration - the original autographs.

Preservation - the words of the original autographs were preserved in the Hebrew and Greek copies.

Translation - the English versions were translated from the preserved Hebrew and Greek copies of the inspired original autographs. </font>[/QUOTE]So you have in your hands the correct and ‘preserved by God’ Hebrew copy and Greek copy that are true and faithful in all matters of faith and practice? Note you have made this point not me; I in no way have attacked your tradition I am trying to see if you know what you have said to this topic (Why defend the KJV?). Also I use the Bible and not some popish chain of ‘talking heads’ or long quotes from books of other humans struggling with this same problem. Please keep this in mind in your reply.

 

What was Scrivener's major revision ? Serious question.

 

Yes. Those texts are available to us today.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

He believed many of the changes in the editions after 1611 should not have been made and he returned many of the readings to the readings of 1611. He also clarified some words that, if misunderstood, could cause some confusion to the reader. I believe the 1873 Scrivener KJV is the most accurate KJV ever printer.

 

None. They are all translations of God's word. Translations, revisions, and versions by definition, are not "God's preserved word".

Note, however, that God promised to preserve his Word. God NEVER promised to preserve a text, translation, or revision. God's word is not a written document. God's Word is the message contained within the written text.

 

Skan,
I must be under the wrong impression. It was and has been the impression of myself and maybe others on this board that the KJV sold today is the Oxford 1769 edition.

I knew there was a version in 1800's but I didn't think it was incorporated into the KJV now sold.

Is this incorrect and the standard off-the-shelf KJV at your local Wal-Mart is actually the Scrivener--1873 edition and not the 1769 version?

 

There are currently three editions of the KJV in print in the US.

The Cambridge edition of 1762. It can be identified by the "ye had set at liberty" in Jeremiah 34:16.

The Oxford edition of 1769. It can be identified by the "he had set at liberty" in Jeremiah 34:16.

The Scrivener's edition of 1873 is presently published by Zondervan as the "KJV Study Bible." It can be identified by the return to the word "fet" which occurred in the 1611 edition but was changed to "fetched" in the later editions in Acts 28:13.

By the way, I believe the "KJV Study Bible" is, without exception, the best study bible based on the KJV available today.

I am not certain, but the "Nelson KJV Study Bible" may be the 1975 updated text first published as the "Open Bible" by Nelson in 1975. If so the 1975 updated text is also currently in print bringing the total number of different KJVs in print to 4.

 

Thank you Skan, this is the first time I have seen this compiled in one place where I could actually get a handle on the versions being sold today. I do appreciate it.

 

As do I. Huge help.

 

Bro Ken4JC,

First I would like to say AMEN, you are absolutely right. You know that I asked the same question in another forum and I was threatened by the moderator to be banned from posting for a while. Like the saying goes Truth hurts. Kinda funny too, they can't come up with an answer, so they start trying to change the subject. Keep the faith.

 

The only problem with your thesis is that I did answer the question!

 

Typical KJVo statements:

"You didn't answer any of my questions with scripture.

I did answer your questions with scripture, God's words are Silver and purified 7 times and He preserved them forever; so the King James is it and I believe that by faith, so you will just not accept the truth when I tell it to you!"

"Oh yeah, I don't care if the original autographs were in greek (sic) or not, because we don't have them so I don't care if you can read greek (sic) or not because I can understand my KJV and that is what YOU need to be studying instead of those old Greek manuscripts. I don't CARE if you can read geek, I mean greek."

"Uh, and I forgot that all those verses are left out of the Bible (Old Testament included) because it came from those nasty Alexadrian manuscripts."