Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Spoken like a normal 'make the nonKJB guy look stupid without  really  saying it' kinda response, considering you know I would get in trouble defending against that statement.

 

1 hour ago, MatthewDiscipleOfGod said:

I certainly don't want to make you or anyone else look stupid. The King James doesn't have errors but the Geneva does.

GP does have a legitimate hesitation when it comes to being perceived as "promoting" the Geneva Bible in seeking to "defend" it on this site.My suggestion is to drop any questions that directly require a defense of his Bible and send him a PM or email. If it is agreeable to both parties, continue the discussion via PM or email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As for the Geneva being available - the original 1560 edition is.

Hendrickson Publishers has been printing it since 2007 and sales are doing very well according to an email discussion I had with them.

And it's more affordable than most KJB Bibles with a leather cover.

So not being available is a weak reason to not use one.

As for the text having errors? I have been using my 1560 edition since 2007 and have found none.

And using it, one will see the 'error' of the KJB text. Since the translators changed the text when they published the KJB.

We could argue - I could be kicked off OB - but it would be an opinion battle and not one cohesive to either of our views.

Experience is the best defense.

And my experience of reading and studying the text of the Geneva, 1599 and 1560 editions, compared to my studies on the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJB, have proven out my own 'opinion' on which text is most trustworthy.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/9/2016 at 10:39 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Removing the usage of "ye," "thou," "thy," and "thine" from the King James translation would make it LESS accurate; for the usage of those 2nd person personal pronouns are in the King James translation for very specific grammatical reasons.  I myself certainly would be AGAINST a less accurate translation. 

King James Lite. 

21 hours ago, John81 said:

While most of us here get this, most readers don't. For most readers they know little or nothing of modern grammar and not a bit about any form of older English grammar. I even know several KJB preachers who don't even read the "ye, thou, thy, thine" as in the text of the KJB but insert "you, yours" and other modern words.

I don't recall his name but I read an article a KJB pastor wrote on this subject either earlier this year or late last year where he pointed out how updated wording could be used while still including a proper understanding. It was an interesting read but the only thing I really recall about it was his use of "y'all" in his presentation.

With the dismal education system in America a large percentage of the population has very low reading skills with some being barely literate at all. I've encountered many people over the years who have a difficult time reading the more simplistic MVs and an even more difficult time when it comes to comprehension. These people are near totally lost trying to read anything of a higher level.

Sad that so many children in America once learned to read using the KJB but today millions of adults, even college graduate adults, either can't read, can't comprehend (or both) the writing in the KJB.

(Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against what you said, just pointing these factors out)

I often forget rejecting God in our school system closes the door to knowledge and understanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/10/2016 at 10:06 PM, OLD fashioned preacher said:

 

GP does have a legitimate hesitation when it comes to being perceived as "promoting" the Geneva Bible in seeking to "defend" it on this site.My suggestion is to drop any questions that directly require a defense of his Bible and send him a PM or email. If it is agreeable to both parties, continue the discussion via PM or email.

Thank you OFP. I didn't notice this while responding since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 11/3/2014 at 11:22 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Why are you King James only?..............What is your position and why do you hold to it?

Most here know that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text are not from just one Greek Bible manuscript but rather composed of many different ones and then compared with each other in order to come up with one Greek text (along with minor variations and notes sometimes placed in the margins).

The problem with N-A is in it's composition Philosophy. This philosophy believes older, shorter, readings are better regardless of the origin of the script. It also teaches that what has been historically handed down to us has been manipulated and changed and added to from its original form. As a result their composition is ever changing to fit with "new manuscript discoveries" and the latest "modern research practices". It also ignores older Latin, and other languages script when considering how authoritative a Greek reading is. Additionally N-A holds several corrupt text in high regard such as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrea manuscripts. Non of these have ever been historically used yet for the N-A they are considered the "best" manuscripts. All modern bibles, regardless quality use the N-A in translation.

The TR on the other hand is pretty much the opposite in collection philosophy and has been the standar for all English bibles up to the King James. It also derives its collection philosophy from scripture rather then "modern research practices". It believes what has been handed down by and used faithfully in the church community is better. (2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) It also believes that origins of the manuscript matters, that text cannot contradict itself and has to be verifiable across many scripts to be considered authoritative. It also considers all manuscript languages to determine the correct Greek text.

The KJV translators also used the same philosophy in considering the word that would go into their English bible. They not only checked the TR but also conferred with Latin, French, German and other English bibles. The KJV was the perfection of all the bible that came before it and today is the final English product of the TR bible translating Philosophy.

No other bible in common use today other then the KJV uses the biblical translation method. Today they all use secular research methods which tend to ignore what the Bible itself has to say about transmitting the Word of God. That is the main reason I cannot accept the N-A and the modern English bible which use it.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

To me, seeking for a better bible then the KJV is a waste of my time. It is already considered one of the best and accurate English bibles even by the modern bible crowd. It is much more profitable to the believer if they stick to the best and then learn it.

Modern bibles main goal is a bible that conforms to the reader's level but the KJV seeks to conform the reader to God. So while many new bibles claim to be easier and simpler to read then the ones which came before it, the KJV will challenge, expand and grown the reader, not only in bible knowledge but also in their reading, writing, comprehension and composition skills. It not only is the best Bible in English but it also is considered the best literature in English that any one can read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/5/2016 at 11:13 AM, Ukulelemike said:

Perhaps, but we also spend a good deal of time teaching that conversation means manner of life, not just talking, that 'to let' means 'to restrain', that ye and you are plural and thee and thy are singular-but it is the job of a pastor to do such things. And it isn't difficult, either. Besides, today you'll have to explain that 'assembly' does not mean what you do with an IKEA bookshelf. The language changes so rapidly anymore that even 'modern' words keep changing. In my own church, even the most mentally challenged person in the 'assembly' has fine understanding that the church is the people, not the building. 

This is all true and you have a good point, but, there is a small difference between your examples and the translation of "Ecclessia".

"Thee" and "Ye" were wisely used by KJV translators because it actually reflects better the meaning of the original text.....Greek and Hebrew both have singular and plural forms of the word "you" and English no longer does (it should...that's why us Southerners still say "ya'll" and Pittsburgh types still say "Yinze" and some say "yous-guys" and about a million other local forms.   But....

"Church" even back then...wasn't the best or most accurate way to translate ecclessia.

"To let".....did mean prevent, the KJV is right here, and that reflected the original perfectly.

"Church" however, didn't reflect the intent of the originals here.....the Geneva was simply better in it's choice of translation here.  

It is true as you point out that it is our job to clear up some archaicisms (and I don't mind making sense of some phrases like) "considered it not robbery to be counted equal with God"....or "we do you to wit".....or "gaddest thou not".

But those are all accurate and faithful translations of and transmissions of the Original author's intent.

Translating ecclessia with the loaded (especially to an Anglican) and essentially inaccurate word "Church" is not.  The Geneva was superior here and the KJV was not.  

I'm KJV, I don't want anyone giving up their KJV as it's doubtless the best translation of the Scriptures in English there is, and I maintain there will ever be, but I can't deny the facts of the case here, even though I wish I could.  

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I looked in my 1604 dictionary, but "church" wasn't listed. So, I looked in the 1650s dictionary, and it is listed. According to the definition of church then, it fits well with the context in which it's used in the King James. It still describes an assembly; albeit, for a particular purpose...but still an assembly of people...

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8jYP-B1Q9a0C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PT94

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

Brother John why did they not use the TR for the NKJV? 

The NKJV was sort of a hybrid bible. The original intent was to update the KJV and to show the N-A variations but several areas they directly changed the reading to reflect the N-A preferred reading rater then sticking with just updating the passage. Also the biggest issue with the NKJV is not the text but rather the N-A marginal notes. Everywhere the KJV differs from the preferred N-A reading they placed a note indicating what the the "better translation" was or where they think a scribe added a verse they would say "this verse does not appear in the best manuscripts", or etc. The manuscripts they claim are better are ones ignored by the TR composers and the KJV Translators because those manuscripts were of questionable origin and authenticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am of the opinion that, although the Sin. and Alex. manuscripts may be pretty old (which is very questionable), I think the reason they were not used by the 'right' translators is - they didn't know about them.

Those manuscripts were never used by any group claiming to be Christians, so what would make us think Christians would use them?

There were plenty of 'alternate translations' amongst the good manuscripts for the translators to deal with.

Just leaf through a 1611 printing and you will see well over a 1000 alternate translations in the gloss.

These guys had quite the job in ascertaining which 'wording' to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now with the NKJV - there are plenty of textual differences. But it has been years since I  studied that out and I currently don't have the documentation handy, just my memory right now, but one verse problem was with them calling Jesus Christ a servant in Acts 4:27 & 30.

Geneva - Son

King James - child

NKJV - servant

Interesting changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The  Nestle Aland or whatever it's called today is based on the fraudulent Textus Sinaiticus.  This was created by Tischendorf in the 1840s.  The ink it was written on has been dated to that timeframe even.  The LXX Septuagint was also created out of thin air and is a fraud.  It's only proof for existence is a letter and that too is bogus.

 

So, I use the King James Bible today because it is God's preserved Word in the English language and is inerrant and perfect in every way.  Everything else is is either based on the lies of the Sinaiticus/Latin Vulgate or was lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/15/2016 at 3:33 PM, swathdiver said:

 or was lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

Reading the Chick Publications 'false' story on the reason for the KJB in English speaking nations is quite the eye opener.

Did you know there were NO English Bibles before the KJB that were available to the common person? Even though England and Scotland were already christian nations because the Geneva Bible, the word of God, was preached and taught, not only in the pulpits but in the home - and people and families already knew the word of God because they owned copies of the Geneva Bible.

Pointing out the translators deaths were if 'suspicious' events because they were chosen of God to do the translation has no evidence at all.

He says as much.

He is very 'off kilter' when it comes to accuracy. 

Did you know there was a Catholic conspiracy to get the Apocryphal books in the hands of the people?

He says as much.

The most widely used and read Bible before the KJB was the Geneva Bible. And every version before the KJB had the apocryphal books. No big conspiracy.

It took almost 70 years for the KJB to overtake the Geneva Bible. It was not an immediate acceptance like some will teach. 

So on that thoughtline, just because you have an opinion that the Geneva Bible is "imperfect" - that has zero evidence also.

Just like Jack Chicks little booklet - statements made without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...