I have questions about the King James Version of the Bible

[Katrina Mattingly]

I have questions about the KJV only. Please can you tell me why is this the only inspired version. Does that mean its without error? I need more information or know if this is just a personal belief or what is it based on. I use multiple versions of the Bible and have found error in all of them except what is original Hebrew etc that we can get hold of and translate to check which I thought was the Inspired Word because it was original. Please will someone give me more info??? Dont be afraid to give me all you know. I dedicated to study it out either way and am looking to do that. If I have help, even better! Thank You :-)

[No Nicolaitans]

Hi Katrina, welcome to the forum! Excuse me, but I have trouble posting, so I'll have to do so in several posts...

There are two main philosophies of translation...Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. Basically, Formal Equivalence (as used by the King James translators) is to translate "word-for-word" from one language to another language. However, Dynamic Equivalence (as used by modern version translators) is to translate what the translators believe the "thoughts" of the writers of the original manuscripts were. Granted, some of the translators of modern versions incorporate both philosophies into their translations; however, to use Dynamic Equivalence in any part of the translation process allows for personal bias and isn't true to the text.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the King James' underlying Greek text is the Textus Receptus. This was the accepted Greek text, and was used in translating earlier English versions (pre-King James) and other ancient versions. It is also referred to as the "Received Text", because the church accepted and received it as THE authoratative Greek text. It is also referred to as the "Majority Text" because of the overwhelming majority of available copies.

There was another Greek text available (at the time in which the King James was being translated) called the "Codex Vaticanus"; however, the King James translators refused to use it. The Codex Vaticanus was "found" in the Vatican library in Rome in the year 1481. It had numerous revisions, write-overs, and cross-outs...to the point that the original writings were so faded and written over, it was impossible to read most of what was originally written.

Another Greek manuscript was found in the year 1844 called the "Codex Sinaiticus". Again, this manuscript was found in another Roman Catholic building...Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai. This manuscript was found in a trash basket, mixed in with other papers that were waiting to be burned. Part two of the Codex Sinaiticus was found in the year 1859. Like the Codex Vaticanus, these manuscripts were marked over, through, etc., to the point that they appeared more like scratch papers than an important manuscript.

...to be continued...

Edited December 7, 2011 by No Nicolaitans

[No Nicolaitans]

Here's an important question. IF those texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are "older and therefore, more reliable", why did God entrust their care to a false religious system...the Roman Catholic church?

These Roman Catholic Greek manuscripts leave out thousands of words, MANY verses, and some chapters when compared to the Textus Receptus.

Which brings us to two men...Westcott and Hort. They wrote a completely new Greek New Testament based on those corrupt manuscripts, and it is their Greek New Testament that ALL new versions are translated from.

Though both men were "religious" (Westcott was an Anglican bishop; Hort was an ordained priest), both men were also heretics.

Here's a small sample of what these men "believed"...

All protestants should convert to Catholicism (which includes the worship of Mary)...Jesus never claimed to be God...hell isn't a real place...the creation account in Genesis isn't literal (Hort, an avid evolutionist, held Darwin's "Origin of the Species" in higher regard than the Bible)...Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as the ONLY atonement for man's sins is heresy...man is "divine"...

...to be continued...

[No Nicolaitans]

Something else to consider...

Can sincere Christians "believe" that they have the word of God; when actually, what they have is not the word of God?

I'll let the apostle Paul answer this...

II Thessalonians 2:1-2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

We know that much of the New Testament is the "letters" that Paul wrote. Though the Bible (as we know it today) wasn't compiled then as it is now, the people understood and accepted Paul's letters as authoritative.

Obviously, someone sent the Thessalonians a "false letter" which claimed Pauline authorship. This letter was promoting false doctrine, and the Christians at Thessalonica were deceived by it..."believing" that Paul had written it.

The point being...just as the Christians at Thessalonica were deceived by a false letter, Christians today can believe they have the word of God; when actually, it's a false letter.

Newer versions may contain parts of the actual word of God, but they're intermingled with falsities. They are translated from corrupt manuscripts and texts...they add to and take away from the word of God.

...to be continued...

[No Nicolaitans]

God's word should be of utmost importance to Christians. It should be our guide and final authority. Even more important, God's word is of utmost importance...to God himself!

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

If God's word is more important to him than his name, I want to make sure that I have his word! Remember, one of the ten commandments is...

Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

And yet, his word is magnified above his name! Oh, how we must tread carefully when handling the word of Almighty God!

Since God told us to study his word, I want to make sure that I have his word! However, if large parts of his word are missing, added to, and changed, I will fall short! If I'm aware that there is a faithful copy of his word, yet I neglect it, I will have to answer to him one day...and I have enough to answer for without adding that!

...to be continued...

[No Nicolaitans]

I love God's word...as should all Christians.

Psalm 119:111
Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
_____________________________________________________________

Now, if God doesn't change...

Malachi 3:6a
For I am the LORD, I change not;

...and Jesus Christ is God...

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

...and Jesus doesn't change...

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.

...and Jesus is the Word...

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

...then I sincerely and honestly ask, then how can the Bible change?

God promised to PRESERVE his word...

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

...yet different versions change and say different things...from and unchanging God, then, either God has lied, or something is wrong with the translations.

That, (in as small of a nutshell as I can put it) is why the King James is superior and the only Bible to be trusted. Newer versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and texts...given by men who didn't even believe the Bible.

One last thought...All Versionists like to throw out this argument..."Show me from the Bible that the King James is the only word of God!" To which I reply, "Show me from the Bible that it isn't the only word of God!" :)

[No Nicolaitans]

If you want to investigate further, try this link. It was written and investigated by someone who once didn't hold to the KJ only stance...

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/

[JerryNumbers]

I have questions about the KJV only. Please can you tell me why is this the only inspired version. Does that mean its without error? I need more information or know if this is just a personal belief or what is it based on. I use multiple versions of the Bible and have found error in all of them except what is original Hebrew etc that we can get hold of and translate to check which I thought was the Inspired Word because it was original. Please will someone give me more info??? Dont be afraid to give me all you know. I dedicated to study it out either way and am looking to do that. If I have help, even better! Thank You :-)

How do you determine what is error, & what is correct?

Most likely if you agree with something, you say its correct, if you disagree, you call it an error. Doing this you become your own god, deciding what your going to believe.

Using all the modern versions, you surely can decided what to believe, for they are all different. & things that are not the same, they are different.

.

[Eric Stahl]

I am a Sunday school teacher. My love is Bible prophecy. About twenty years ago I bought a new King James Bible because our new pastor used one.

One day i was studying Isaiah 24 and as I was reading it I discovered it was different than what I knew it should be. The change was so great that the reader

could not understand the prophecy correctly. The more I checked it the more differences I found. In the King James all the prophets describe the sixth

seal judgment in a way you can see they are seeing the same event. The King James is translated word for word even if the translator didn't understand

the prophecy. The prophets still agree. In the new Bibles many try to translate the thought instead of the word. If the translator dose not understand the

prophecy he can not translate the thought.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Eric Stahl

[makahiya]

The KJV Holy Bibles are not the only inspired scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


what I post I wrote
----------------------
I'm 17 yrs postdoctoral Ed.D. in higher education
----------------------------------------------------------

While the entire line of scripture are records, the outstanding record of scripture on earth and the scripture of final authority is the published text and form of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bibles. All KJV Holy Bibles are editions of the AV 1611 KJV first edition, reprinted billions times. KJV Holy Bibles are the most published and read books of all time.

When Webster collated the English language, 1828, his dictionary matched the KJV Bibles exactly. Language is word definition. The earlier bibles, Wycliffe Bible 1362, Tyndale Bible 1522, Coverdale Bible 1535, Great Bible 1539, Geneva Bible 1560, Bishops Bible 1568, were not completed English. KJV 2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

[makahiya]

There are two opposite explanations regarding hermeneutics. (hermeneutics: the science of the interpretation of scripture)


#1. plenary verbal inspiration - every word is given by inspiration of God (example: 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:) This theory is supported by the record theory and the purified text theory, the manuscript evidence, bible doctrine, bible canonization and the computational linguistics. Therefore God said what he meant and meant what he said.



#2. allegorical sitzinleben - texts are fictional and the statements do not apply today (example: Adam wasn’t an actual man, the garden was not an actual garden) (example: the O.T. is simply a collection of Jewish fables and the N.T. is simply a collection of limited knowledge from an primitive undeveloped church.) This theory is supported by the redaction theory, accommodation theory, higher criticism, j.e.d.p. documentary hypothesis, N.T. literary form criticism, two sources q-documentary theory and liable theory. Therefore that while the texts (Holy Bible, Islamic Quran, etc.) have some value, the statements are not given by inspiration of God and are not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.