Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!

Dear LadyEagle, I love and use the King James Bible, teach and preach from it, memorize it and I do care. IMO it is not trivial.

The KJVO have done their fair share of bashing as well as breaking the BB rules by insulting members publicly with whom they disagree. I am one of them who has been insulted and unfortunately I have returned in like kind.

This "versions" controversy is an important issue for the modern Church. For people to give way to their passion and condemn one another will not resolve this issue which is seriously dividing the Church. Not everywhere, but in some places it is all out war.

To be sure some of the Modern Versions go too far taking liberties with God's Word, but others are excellent.

My opinion(s) of course.

HankD

 

Bro.HankD~How do you decide which of the MVs go "too far" taking liberties of God's Word? Which ones are "excellent"?

In my mind's eye, I see everyone scurrying back & forth thru' pages, pickin'n'choosin' which is right, which is wrong, which they like, which they don't, etc...

I'm NOT trying to be smart-alecky, just trying to understand why I don't sense the "need" to do this too.

 

Study the original text and see how well a translation tranlsates the text. You can also read the front of your Bible and see the paramaters they use in translation. Also look at who was on the transaltion committee.

 

Are there no KJVO's who have studied the languages and know the answer?

 

I'm going to add to Romans 10:9
If it is alright to add to clarify
the Doctrine of the Trinity, then it
aught also to be alright to clarify
the Doctrine of the Blessed KJHB.

Romans 10:9 (Ed'sKJV):

If thou shalt confess with thy
moth the Lord Jesus, and shall
believe in thay heart that
God hath raised him from the dead
AND USE THE KING JAMES HOLY BIBLE ONLY,
thou shalt be saved.

(note how cleverly an acronym:
King James Holy Bible Only (KJ-HBO) )

 

Because you have simply resigned yourself to let a bunch of Puritan-persecuting high-Anglican clergy do it for you. If that's good enough for you, great. Personally, I find that I've learned *so much more* about God's word by "scurring back & forth" than if I would have if I just accepted a particular arbitrary preference and used it exclusively - but that's just me.

 

KJ-HBO: " ... we've got it all right there in the KJB.
Even more than anyone will ever be able to
explain in man's terms".

This reminds me of another KJ-HBO double standard:

If i don't understand a scripture in the KJHB,
it is cause people are unable "to explain in man's
terms".
If there is something in another Bible that I cannot
explain, the devil put it there.

 

Scott said there were three errors in a KJ-HBO's
sentence. I found them! (w/h stands for
Westcott and Hort)

1. w/h were NOT translators
but were Greek Text collectors
and compare persons

2. the energies of w/h were NOT
"ill-directed". They seem to me to have
been focused. In fact, their indirect gifts
to Bible accuracy and precission exceeds
the sum total of all the contributions
of all the KJ-HBOs ever.

3. w/h did not re-9invent their critical text
method. They just used what others had invented.

4. w/h did not "dispute that which is
already proven and tried and true".
In fact, there are over 2,000 variant verses
in the Textus Receptus (TR) documents.

 

Well, HankD, I'm sorry you have been insulted over the versions issue. I, too, have been insulted over the versions issue.

In fact, this was just an insult to me:

Instead of just stating an opinion, it was turned around into an inuendo insinuating that I worship the KJV.

This is not an issue for me. For those of you where it seems to be such an issue, why don't you pray about it and get over it?

Okay, I'm leaving now. It's been such sweet fellowship.

 

“So, you are Okay w/ the KJV1982? (aka NKJV)”

No! NO!! NO!!! - most definitely not. The NKJV replaces the text of the KJV in hundreds of places with NASV type readings.

The NKJV refuses to translate hades and instead transliterates it in many verses.

The NKJV dumps ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘ye’, etc., and replaces them with ‘you’ which certainly does not convey with the precision of the old KJV, the exact persons being addressed.

“...the MV's do not omit "blood" at Eph 1:7; you are probably thinking of Col 1:14...”

You’re right on that brother - thanks for correcting me on that reference.

As for the long list of differences between the KJV editions over the years, it seems self-evident that a typesetter, working from hand-written manuscripts, setting Gothic typeface, could make some errors and would even forget or overlook to put in some words here and there.

Over the intervening years, as these errors were caught, they were corrected.

Correcting printer's errors, even if several hundred years after the error was made, is certainly not the same as using defiled, corrupt manuscripts to correct the Majority of extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, which seems to be the argument some of the posters are making, without stating that upfront.

Since we don't have the original hand-written manuscript which the KJV translators delivered to the King's printers, we can only use the KJVs we have.

If you folks want to use any 'new' version, with the thousands of excisions based on the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus manuscripts, please feel free to do so...

I believe the KJV in ANY edition except the NKJV is far superior to ANY 'new' version with its allegedly 'better renderings' which somehow, always end up being an attack on doctrine.

 

Since we don't have the original hand-written manuscript of the KJV translators, how do we know all the errors are caught? Who got to decide what was an error anyway? By what authority?

 

BrianT wrote:

Interesting question Brian.

(1) I take the evidence of God's blessing on the KJV for almost 400 years as proof of its authenticity.

(2) Plus the fact that the KJV in almost every 'contested' reading, is based on the Majority Text, while its competitors are based on mss other than the Majority Text.

If we accept your implied premise - that we can't be sure what the KJV should say since we don't have the handwritten original which was delivered to the King's printers -

Then we must be consistent and take the same position about ANY OTHER Version since we don't have the handwritten original manuscripts of any of the 66 canonical books.

So the Question for BrianT is:

Since we don't have the original hand-written Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, how do we know we can trust ANY Bible we read today?
Who gets to decide which versions are trustworthy anyway? By what authority?

 

Are you against transliteration per se? The KJV transliterates "baptize"; "Amen";"Deacon", etc. Although the case can be made these words became English before 1611. (Skan would know this better than me).
Sometimes transliteration may be better, as in the book of Jonah, where he was near death's door, and said, "out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice." 2:2b (KJV) and I think the NKJV is better because it says, "Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and You heard my voice." I realize many read this and do not know what "Sheol" is (or it's Greek counterpart, "Hades"), but if they wanna know any of the Hebrew or Greek they can look this up and see it means "the abode of the dead", that's why it isn't entirely adequate to translate this as "hell." However, I'm willing to hear a reasoned reply, as long as it doesn't defend the English, for the sake of apparent English ambiguity.

 

Grannygumbo, I agree with you. When I was growing up, i never had this problem of different versions. I grew up IFB and we used different versions. I started having the problem when the KJVO sect started influencing IFB churches into believing that the KJVO doctrine was biblical.
I truly believe the KJV, along with all the other faithful versions are preserved. There is not enough differences between them to say they are not inspired. What is truly remarkable is the way that God chose to preserve them. The doctrines are repeated over and over again in His word so that even if we loose a scripture, we still have what God wants us to know.

Lady eagle, you said,
"With all respect, Craigbythesea, those of us who love and use the KJV, don't care . It doesn't matter - it's trivial. It's God's Word. The only people who seem to think it's some big issue are those who want to bash the KJV."
and "This is not an issue for me. For those of you where it seems to be such an issue, why don't you pray about it and get over it ?"

Before you go off and make fun of us that is having problems with this issue, may i remind you that if something is hurting one brother or sister in Christ, The Bible says it hurts us all!!

I have seen one church have a bunch of KJVO separitists come in with their ungodly doctrine and Split the church.
Because of this other churches in our association are now looking at what they believe.
i know of another pastor that told a new convert that he was not welcomed at their "baptist" church because he used an NIV. A new convert!! Even if you're church is KJVO, you should at least teach them why.
Who would throw a baby away just because you had to give it a bottle instead of it eating steak?

Last August I was involved in a big debate with about 20 other churches and the usual ruckman type lies were being spouted off to defend KJVO. It is destroying our good churches. And you say you don't care!!!!

It's time the TRUE fundamentalists stand up and take back the churches that has fallen into this teaching.
I care because I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and him only. I care for what he cares for, and when I see a sect start teaching this unbiblical doctrine, even adding it to the plan of salvation, I get righteously indignant!

Yes I care, I care about God's people knowing and understanding their bibles. I care that most people that use the KJV don't read the hard passages because they don't understand them.
I have prayed about it and you know what? God has given me the answer that we need to care about what he cares about.

How can we not care about new converts getting hurt? How can we not care about churches spliting? How can you not care about the lost that can't read and understand 17th century english. How can you not care about preachers adding KJVO to the plan of salvation.
When they do this they are trampling the blood of my savior under their feet.
This I care about!!!!!!!

 

Allow me to attempt an answer;
to # 1- Basically the KJV was used by default, it had very little competition. And kindly I say, some could say that about the Latin, used for 1000 years!
to # 2- The KJV is not based on the Majority Text, but the Textus Receptus, although it wasn't called such until 1633, and the KJV was not based on any single edition of what became known as the T.R. Perhaps you mean the majority of MSS instead of the Majority Text? From what I know, the T.R. is based on what became to be called the Majority Text, although it differs from it in many places.

 

Hello Pastor Kevin-

I’m not against transliteration per se. I’m against changing the scriptures because its ‘pc’ to do that now and has been for about 100 years.

The argument that the KJV translators were baby sprinklers and therefore refused to translate baptize as dip, plunge or immerse and so instead, they simply transliterated it, reminds me of an incident while I was in Bible school...

While I was a student at Baptist Bible College in Springfield, MO, Dr. Noel Smith used to make that same argument - about the KJV translators ‘transliterating’ baptizo - in class week after week, using it to attack the honesty of the KJV translators.

I set up an appointment to meet him in his office and pointed out to him that the Oxford English Dictionary in our college library listed baptize as an English word in common usage hundreds of years before the King James Version was translated.

I further pointed out that its English meaning is dip, plunge, immerse for hundreds of years before 1611, not sprinkle or pour.

Dr. Smith admitted that the OED was correct and that he was wrong in ascribing dishonesty to the King James translators, and that baptize was a correct translation.

But for the rest of his life, he continued to make the same tired, false allegation against the KJV translators, which he had admitted to me, was wrong.

I see no compelling argument to forsake ‘hell’ in the KJV and use the more vague ‘sheol’ or ‘hades’.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. This was not meant at you directly. This was a general statement. If you took it to mean you personally, please accept my apology. I assure you it was not meant towards you directly.

 

Lots of study Granny. I realize that most people cannot devote the time and energy to pursue the formal education necessary to understand the details of the present issue concerning the preservation of the Word.

As has been previously commented, one needs to study the history of the preservation of the Word. I prefer the “Received Text” sometimes known as the “Traditional Text” although there are those who make a distinction between these two.

So, keep on in the KJV, it’s the one you grew up with, trust and love as I do also.

HankD

 

Lady Eagle:" those of us who love and use the KJV, don't care. It doesn't matter - it's trivial. It's God's Word. The only people who seem to think it's some big issue are those who want to bash the KJV."

Actually, the issue arose, and the "KJVO" myth was born when some people began questioning the authenticity of the newer Bible versions. They took up some of the stuff written in 1930 by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST big shot & added their own little embellishments over time. The KJV is sometimes assailed because of the KJVO claims that it's "perfect, inerrant, inspired", etc. We therefore have presented proof that the KJV is NOT perfect, and we ASK for proof that it's inspired to the exclusion of every other English version. Our dissection of the KJV is not to attack its validity, but to show the world that KJVOism is wrong.

I love & use the KJV also, as well as a replica of the AV 1611, but I'm NOT limited to just this one version and its child. I study the Geneva Bible, as well as teach from several modern versions. And I HAVE prayed about it, beginning in 1982 when some idiot saw me reading the NASB and said, "You don't got no Bible."

If you wish to use only the KJV, fine, but please don't heap aspersions upon anyone else's choice of BV(s) because it could be GOD'S choice of versions for that person, same as His choice for you is the KJV. And if God has given you the ability to read & understand the languages of the Scriptural mss, then by all means USE it.

 

Ed Edwards:"Which of the following is the AV 1611 KJB of which
you speak?

1. KJV1611
2. KJV1769
3. KJV1873"

Ed, for years I've asked the KJVOs."Where was God's word in English in 1610?" and have NEVER received a direct answer. Don't be surprised if they won't answer your question directly either. But then I doubt if you're surprised at anything a KJVO does except admit that KJVO is false and a man-made myth.