Why is it so important to use the KJV only?

Don't know how spiritual the following error is, but it is there.
Song of Songs 1:5
I am black, BUT comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. KJV

Dark am I, AND comely, daughters of Jerusalem, As tents of Kedar, as curtains of Solomon. YLT

After all those tents and curtains aren't lovely despite being black either.:tongue3:

 

The KJV more spiritually correct than legitimate MVs? With the exceptions of the CWT, the JST and the NWT mentioned before I have yet to see a MV that is spiritually corrupt. The MVs all teach the truths taught by the KJV and its predecessors. The blood scarifice of Jesus Christ, His sinless and perfect life, the plan of salvation are all there in the MVs just as in the KJV. How is it that the MVs are spiritually inferior to the KJV?

 

The KJB does not tell us Jesus was a created god,as the NWT and it's twin the NASb does.

 

Where does the NASB tell us this? It's not John 1:18 because anyone who can read basic English or basic Greek can see very plainly that it doesn't call Jesus a created God there.

AA, as you too often do, just make stuff up in attacks on the word of God. Fortunately God's promises are true, and his word is not affected by your misguided statements and what seems to be rebellion against truth. It is time for this to stop. You are revealing wjat must be a very hard heart against Scripture. Seriously, how hard of heart must you be to make up this kind of stuff? How desperate must you be to attack the word of God in the manner in which you are doing?

Every single objection you put forth has been answered multiple times. You have not put forth anything that has not been answered conclusively from Scripture.

Were this a matter of opinion, I could grant you some leeway to hold position different than mine. If you simply preferred a translation over another that would be fine. If you preferred a Greek text over another, that would be fine. But you have gone past that to outright vicious and untrue attacks on God's word. And that should not stand, nor be tolerated by those who love God and his word more than life itself.

 

I read the NASb once and must have missed that part.
Can you share it with us.

Recall that are expectations are that you will find a copy
(it can be an e-copy) and actually quote directly from the NASb
instead of from some secondary source. Of course, you can
use the secondary source to find the address of the scripture
you intend to quote.

-Alexandrian Ed

P.S. I just did a search of

The word 'in' and 'Egypt' appear in the KJV1769 in
267 verses; in the KJV1611 Edtion 269 times;
In the Geneva Bible 256 times.

Going from the Geneva to the KJVs there
have been 11 additions of 'in' & 'Egypt'.
Isn't it fun to know the KJV is adding more and
more stuff about 'in Egypt'??

 

A_A, you've told us before you're not KJVO. Therefore, please tell us what other version(s) you recommend. Please give the ACTUAL NAME(S) of the version(s) & not the general statement "Any version not using the Alex texts".

 

I use the NASB for my bible study, from the Greek and Hebrew text. Why are people so hung up on a translation nobody speaks anyway?

 

Thou hast a pointe!

 

I think KJVO spread for two reasons. First, there was a series of error-filled books written by several authors, who, while working independently of each other, copied heavily from a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official's error-filled book. Those authors used the power of modern media to hawk their wares, and more than one person simply accepted their work without bothering to VERIFY its points.

Second, Christians DID recognize that there are some groddy versions out there, and so leaned toward the KJV, which is older and proven valid...and somewhere along the way, started believing that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there.

In all my campaign against KJVO, I don't lose sight of the fact that READING whatever version(s) one has available is the paramount thing.

 

Chapter and verse, please, Anti-Alexandrian. If you have actually read this in the NASB then you surely can provide us information as to where in the NASB this errant teaching is found. Otherwise, please stop placing the legitimate NASB in the same class as the errant and heretical NWT. The two are as far apart as East is from West. With wild claims like this it is no wonder you're on my ignore list. I only occasionally bother to view one of your posts because normally you have nothing of value to contribute in any discussions here on the board.

 

I find no problem with the translation of KJV there.
Shehora means black, which is used for balck hair ( Lev 13:31) and for black horses(Zech 6:2).
Solomon's curtain could have been black and beutiful as well.
Ki-Oholah ( like tents) was also correct. Ki-Iriot ( Like Curtains)
You may have preconception that Black color means ugly or not comely.
I saw many beautiful things and beautiful ladies while they are black.
There is no error in the translation.

At the end, if you read thru Song of Songs( Song of Solomon) you will realize that this woman was quite unusual which may symbolize the truly bornagain believers chosen out of the average believers which is mentioned as Daughter of Jerusalem.

She was the fairest among women! In the beginning the usual people may not be able to notice her beauty but at the end, he confess he has 3 score queens,..., but my dove, my undefiled is one ( 6:7-9).
She is beloved by her lover who is White and Ruddy ( He is righteous but shed the blood at the Cross!), His head is the most fine gold ( 5:10-11) because He is divine!

In order to understand SOS, one must realize that the subject of the sentences are changing so quickly in the dialogue and the key personnels are Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ and the most beloved believers ( or the core, chosen people of the church). I don't see any problem with KJV, but the beautiful statements remain attractive to me:

Love is strong as Death! and Jealousy is cruel as the grave! ( 8:6)

What kind of Love is strong as Death? Only Jesus showed such love for us by dying at the cross, the cruel death! Jealousy was a part of God's justice ( Ex 34:14) Lord Jesus was punished in our stead!
Even in the extreme moment He prayed for us, Father forgive them for they know not what they do ( Luke 23:34)
Got it?

 

Yes, even reading NWT helps people to live godly life too!
I didn't know anything about Bible, but JW emphasized the importance of Bible, then I read their Bible, and I tried to live godly life even though I couldn't reach it until I was truly born again.

Therefore, if KJVO means there is no truth in other Bible than in KJV, I would oppose to it.

However, if KJVO means that KJV is the best and the more accurate than any other versions, and therefore one thinks that it is stupid if he or she waste much time by reading any other versions as main text, then the word KJV Only may be OK. For the academic studies, one may study various versions and refer to many translations. But for normal Christian life, why should anyone spend much time for reading Bible other than the best and the most accurate one, KJV?
I said my own comparison between KJV and MV's, may be 995:1 or 2 out of 1,000 controversial verses. Even in case KJV seems to be wrong, it was not MV that was correct, but JN Darby's which is rather in the same group as KJV belongs to, which is based on Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus or Majority Texts, not on the Alexandrian Texts or minority texts.

Let me show you one example.

Luke 6:1 says Sabbatow Deutroprototow.
Jesus went on Sabbath day and the disciples plucked off the ears of the corns.
As far as I know, only 3 texts- Aleph, B, A, or a few more omit this DeutroPrototow, while more than 500 manuscripts have it!
But the modern versions are based on these minority texts, based on the Principle of " The Older The Better".
In this case, it seems that the minority texts omitted it because the scribes could not understand the meaning of it! ( they may have omitted many verses if they could not understand them or if they felt it is too difficult to keep the commandments!)

How is KJV in this verse? I would give only 50% mark to KJV on this verse. KJV says the second sabbath after the first, which doesn't give much lesson there.
The key to understand the meaning of Sabbath Deutro-protowtow is to know when was the First-First Sabbath.
The First-First Sabbath was right after the Passover, and after this sabbath, next day was called " Day of Firstfruits" Read Lev 23:17.
Until the Day of First Fruit, no one could eat the fruits of grains of the field, and the priests should wave it in front of God first which symbolize the Resurrection of Jesus, from the next day, people could start their harvesting. Luke 6:1 happened on the Second-First Sabbath, which means the next Sabbath after Day of Firstfruits. On this day, people could enjoy the fruits even on Sabbath, as long as they are with Jesus Christ, in Jesus Christ.
Therefore there was nothing wrong with plucking off the ears on Sabbath.

Can the modern versions give this much spiritual lessons?
They couldn't understand the meaning of Second First Sabbath, and therefore omitted it!

Is really the Older the Better?

Do you have any further profound lessons based on Modern versions ?
Tell me and show me!

JN Darby's translation in this regard is the best.

 

I don't think NASB portrayed Jesus as a created god. That type of accusation is too much and helps no one, without leading the people to the correct understanding. However many versions like NASB omits many of the precious Words of God, either by mistake or by wrong bases of texts.
Underlying Text is so important matter.
NWT portrays Jesus as a created god.

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

I daily use two different KJVs:

the KJV1611 Edition

the KJV1769 edition with Strong's numbers.

This is one more KJVs than most one book onlyists uses :wavey:

 

Fundamental error here. We don't do textual criticism by "what preaches best." The spiritual lessons of Scripture are not found in this way.

That's not why they omitted it. Darrell Bock, in his commentary on Luke, gives a good summation. Read it; it will be helpful. It is most likely that the word is not even a word.

Not always, but in most cases, all things being equal, the older is more likely to be accurate than the newer.

No, the profound lessons are based on Scripture, not on a translation.

 

No, sorry to disagree to all of your arguments.
2 points are to be refuted.

1) If we compare Minority Texts ( א=ALEPH, B, A) to Majority Texts ( 500-1000 manuscripts for each gospel), it is obvious that the ancestors of the majority texts are NOT Minority Texts! This is important point.
If the majority texts are the copies of the older manuscripts like B, Aleph, A, then your claim is correct. Indeed your argument makes sense in such case.
But if the ancestor copies of majority texts were quite different from Minority Texts, then such ancestor copies may be directly copied from AUTOGRAPH. We can see what they manipulated in the page of B about the longer ending of Mark.

You say the older is the better. Then have a look at this:

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html
and Read Gospel John 7:39

The oldest text for this verse may be p66( which dates back to 125-200 AD), older than Vatican Text (330-350AD), older than Aleph (350AD). Then why NIV and modern versions omit " Holy" there?
Even Vatican Text has "Hagion" dedomenon there!
Only p75 and Aleph has no word " Hagion"
Why do these modern versions follow the Aleph and p75?
IN my survey, NIV, NASB, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, Holman Christian Standard, ESV, all the modern versions omit Holy and state " the Spirit" instead of Holy Spirit.
Why don't they follow p66 which is the oldest manuscript for this verse?
Why do they desert more than 900 manuscripts then follow only 2 manuscripts which are Aleph and p75? I wonder why so many MV translators were bewitched to delete the word Hagion ( Holy) in John 8:39.
Please explain to me in your logic!

What about Pericope Adulturae ( John 8:1-11) ?
Do you believe that the story about the woman caught in adultery was not the part of genuine Bible? If it is true, why don't the modern versions omit the story from the Bible? Why don't they behave as they believe?
Is it because they worry that their Bible may not be sold if they delete the story?
You may excuse that 900 mss having the story versus 20 mss without the story is not a problem as the Bible is not democracy or republic. But can you explain why you claim that those majority mss are believed to have added the story? Do you have any proof? If so, why don't the MV's behave as per what they believe? Do you trust such people and their Bible? I DON'T trust such people!
If you look at Jn 8:12, Jesus declares I am the Light of the World, which coincides with early in the morning ( dawn) in 8:2, and the style of the story is very much Johanine as we notice verse 6 "they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him" This is typical Johanine style "writer's explanation" as we notice in Jn 6:6, 7:39, 11:51, 12:6, 12:33, 21:19.
There is quite a serious explanation in the preface of Majority Text Greek NT by Zane Hodgen and A FArstad.

2. As for Luke 6:1, you can get a good explanation by JN Darby in the preface of his translation of Bible.

3. Translations can omit the Words of God in many cases. They do more than what they are supposed to do.
Profound lessons can be lost in the process of translation.

 

Depends on what you mean. It is more likely that words were added (majority text) from shorter texts (minority texts). As you say, This is important point. You simply missed it.

That's not what I said. Go back and read it more carefully.

If you understood this issue, you wouldn't need me to explain it to you. The fact that you don't understand this means you should probably not be speaking quite as dogmatically on something you don't understand.

Textual criticism is not done simply by counting heads or age. There are a number of factors. As for the verse in question, check out Metzger's Textual Commentary. Surely you have that right? Because no one would be dogmatic on this issue without actually being equipped to discuss both sides.

I have never studied this in depth, so I can't give a firm answer on it. I am slightly inclined to include it. But given my penchant for studying the facts before drawing a dogmatic position, I will refrain from taking a dogmatic position.

I just gave the proper explanation above. What do I need with Darby?

Yes on occasion they can. The KJV is guilty of this as well. No translation is perfect. But the job of a translation is to translate the words. It is not to give people "profound lessons."

Most of what you present here is just rehashed stuff that has been brought up before and answered. So it really doesn't deserve much time.

 

You are the one who didn't get it. :sleep:
The KJV-translators were the ones who decided that black normally means ugly so they used: "I am black, BUT comely,", instead of: "I am black, AND comely,".
Me. I go with the modern version I'm black and comely translation instead of the I am comely despite being black p.o.v. pushed by 17th century Anglican clergymen.

 

Is there proof that there is not a single passage in the KJV where words found in earlier versions were not "omitted?" If this happened one time in the KJV then it is just as guilty of "omission" as the MVs. Far too many people accuse the MVs of "adding to" or "omitting from" the Scrptures before they check to see whether the KJV ever did any such thing. There can be no double standard - if something is done in the KJV then it is just as right or wrong as when the same thing is done in MVs.

 

The rules of the Sabbath applied both to the regular weekly Sabbath and the High Sabbaths, which was what the Jews of that time/place called any special observance days. For example, there were at two High Sabbaths during Passover Week. If the High Sabbath fell on the regular Sabbath day, it made no difference.

Reading the accounts of Jesus' passion, we see He ate the paschal lamb meal aster sunset according to the law. (Keep in mind that the Jews' new day begins at sunset.) During that same 24 hours, all His passion occurred, ending with His death shortly before the next sunset.

Ordinarily, the Jews ate the paschal meal, slept, and the resta that day was called Preparation Day, as they performed as much mundane work as possible, as the next day was a High Sabbath, one of the two Holy Convocations to be held that week, and only essential work was to be performed.

BTW, I believe that a misunderstanding about High Sabbaths led to the "Good Friday" observance, as people supposed Jesus was crucified on a Friday, as the next day was a Sabbath.

The events of Luke 6:1 coulda occurred in any week where there was an observance, a High Sabbath, thereby making two Sabbaths in one week.