Why King James Only?

[Ukulelemike]

21 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).

 

Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.

I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  

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. 

[John81]

While I have no problem with the Geneva Bible and understand it well, the Lord directed me to use the KJB a quarter century or so ago. I've not read a 1560 Geneva Bible, but do have a 1599 Geneva Bible but the print is so small it would now be difficult for me to read from.

I keep a KJB next to my chair in the front room, one on the stand next to my computer (which is also now my church Bible...had to retire the other one as the print got smaller :-) , and another next to my bed; as well as a New Testament with Psalms KJB in my car door pocket. On my Kindle Paperwhite I have downloaded a KJB specifically formatted for use on the Kindle. Those are the Bibles I read from and study daily.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 5/4/2016 at 7:47 PM, swathdiver said:

It is indeed from good stock but it wasn't the finished work, the final preservation of God' perfect Word in the English.  The Authorized Version is God's preserved Word and since the two are not in complete agreement, the Geneva bible must be rejected for that which has been purified and made perfect.

For a short time I was a Geneva bible man, but the Holy Ghost was patient with me and showed me that the King James Bible is God's perfect and preserved Word.    

I appreciate your opinion, especially about the Holy Ghost being patient and showed you that "the KJB is God's perfect and preserved Word".

How he showed you is interesting though.

Did he use it by 'convicting you'?

Or did he use the text of the KJB to 'show you'?

The reason I ask - I used the KJB for about 12 years in my preaching and teaching.  I was my Pastors right hand man, who was the one who taught our congregation the 'strength' of the KJB

But that was against the MV's.

I felt led of the Holy Ghost for all those years to be KJVO.

I was led by the accuracy of the text against all the MV's.

Then I met the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. 

Led by the Holy Ghost by the accuracy of the text. Comparing to the KJB.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

The Geneva Bible contains errors while the King James does not.

[MountainChristian]

This is why I think the "ye" and "thou" plus lots of other old English words should be updated to modern English. A 1769 change, in 2016. I've read the "thou shalt not" until reading "you shall not" would be difficult for my brain. 

[John81]

1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

This is why I think the "ye" and "thou" plus lots of other old English words should be updated to modern English. A 1769 change, in 2016. I've read the "thou shalt not" until reading "you shall not" would be difficult for my brain. 

Done properly that could be of benefit. The problem is, most who have claimed to want to do this or actually set out to do this, have done so with profit in mind. Once they found out simply updating a few words wasn't enough to earn them a patent, thus meaning they couldn't have a monopoly on the product, they made many other changes until their version was different enough from the KJB to qualify for a patent.

I never checked out the entire work, but years ago Ray Comfort came out with his "Comforted Bible" which was supposed to the KJB with "thee and thou" type words updated. However, the portions I did read were accurate to our KJB with only the old words updated. Maybe someone else knows if the entire work is accurate to our KJB.

Myself, I am so used to the "thou shalt not", reading the updated version didn't suit me so I gave that Bible away.

[No Nicolaitans]

The Bible software that I use (theWord) has a Bible module that can be installed for free, and it is supposedly an updated King James version as you're talking about; however, I just don't have the time to thoroughly check it out....that would be a massive undertaking! 

Edited May 9, 2016 by No Nicolaitans

[Genevanpreacher]

19 hours ago, MatthewDiscipleOfGod said:

The Geneva Bible contains errors while the King James does not.

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. Slandering the Geneva is accepted while slandering the KJB is not.

Thanks anyway. There are great multitudes of people in heaven because of the word of God before the KJB. Just saying there are errors changes nothing. Have you not read Psalm 12 in the KJB says the word was preserved from this generation (David's) forever?

[John81]

3 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. Slandering the Geneva is accepted while slandering the KJB is not.

Thanks anyway. There are great multitudes of people in heaven because of the word of God before the KJB. Just saying there are errors changes nothing. Have you not read Psalm 12 in the KJB says the word was preserved from this generation (David's) forever?

God is amazing and the fact folks can be saved from reading such a wide variety of Bible versions proves how much directly involved God is in our salvation. I have a friend who was saved reading "The Living Bible". I know more men than I can count who were saved reading the NIV and have grown in Christ still using the NIV. As watery and weak as I find those Bibles to be it's beyond me how this could be, other than the direct working of God in their lives to bring this about.

(Just a note for those who may be quick to take some offense, I'm in no way endorsing The Living Bible or the NIV in any of its versions)

The Bible a person carries doesn't necessarily indicate they are more or less in Christ, growing in Christ, mature in Christ.

[wretched]

25 minutes ago, John81 said:

God is amazing and the fact folks can be saved from reading such a wide variety of Bible versions proves how much directly involved God is in our salvation. I have a friend who was saved reading "The Living Bible". I know more men than I can count who were saved reading the NIV and have grown in Christ still using the NIV. As watery and weak as I find those Bibles to be it's beyond me how this could be, other than the direct working of God in their lives to bring this about.

(Just a note for those who may be quick to take some offense, I'm in no way endorsing The Living Bible or the NIV in any of its versions)

The Bible a person carries doesn't necessarily indicate they are more or less in Christ, growing in Christ, mature in Christ.

I would have to contend with you on this John. But only from the standpoint of MVs, I am not referencing the Geneva in this.

Having known, known of and witnessed to many members of "other Christian" denominational churches (several 100s or more) in multiple states, all who use MVs of one perversion or another, I conclude the polar opposite of what you are saying here. Not disputing your experience but I have to qualify your experience as incredibly rare. Matter of fact, you may know the only examples of this.

All without exception that I have known or known of in witnessing and acquaintance are what we as fundamentalists would call babes, watered down and lacking any heart change, demonstrating no separation from the world and have little interest and nearly no urgency in trying to spare their own family circle or friends from hell. I believe the reason why they don't have concern or urgency in this is simply because they themselves have no idea what they were "saved" from.

I know many of the modern popular "Christian" authors make claims like yours but that does not match my personal experience over 32 years in multiple areas.

If folks can't seem to grasp anything beyond the free gift of God in salvation (post salvation is what the majority of the NT is all about) then why do we assume they have the Gospel right? If a clergy or minister will not teach Biblical discipleship to their people, why would we assume they are born again themselves?

Seems fishy to me. Just saying....

[Pastor Scott Markle]

16 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

This is why I think the "ye" and "thou" plus lots of other old English words should be updated to modern English.

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. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Genevanpreacher]

Just a little 'opinion' to insert here.

By the foolishness of preaching?

I think a real convert to the Lord, when witnessing or preaching, does not necessarily use a 'direct' quoting system when doing such, and many have been won to the Lord by other's own testimonies.

How could it be termed 'foolishness' if it is direct quoting?

Just a thought.

[John81]

6 hours ago, wretched said:

I would have to contend with you on this John. But only from the standpoint of MVs, I am not referencing the Geneva in this.

Having known, known of and witnessed to many members of "other Christian" denominational churches (several 100s or more) in multiple states, all who use MVs of one perversion or another, I conclude the polar opposite of what you are saying here. Not disputing your experience but I have to qualify your experience as incredibly rare. Matter of fact, you may know the only examples of this.

All without exception that I have known or known of in witnessing and acquaintance are what we as fundamentalists would call babes, watered down and lacking any heart change, demonstrating no separation from the world and have little interest and nearly no urgency in trying to spare their own family circle or friends from hell. I believe the reason why they don't have concern or urgency in this is simply because they themselves have no idea what they were "saved" from.

I know many of the modern popular "Christian" authors make claims like yours but that does not match my personal experience over 32 years in multiple areas.

If folks can't seem to grasp anything beyond the free gift of God in salvation (post salvation is what the majority of the NT is all about) then why do we assume they have the Gospel right? If a clergy or minister will not teach Biblical discipleship to their people, why would we assume they are born again themselves?

Seems fishy to me. Just saying....

Indeed, the vast majority of professing Christians are weak, watery, or even only cultural Christians. Most churches use MVs. Many churches have pastors that are unsaved, most (if not all) their congregation is unsaved.

Most MV users I know are not strong Christians, but there are a few who are. Similarly, many I know who use the KJB are strong Christians, but there are those who are not. Then there are also those Christians who are near or outright cultish who use the KJB but are off in understanding and practice.

At the time I was saved I wasn't reading from the Bible, I had just watch the movie A Thief In The Night and heard the pastors presentation of the Gospel. However, prior to that the only Bible I had read seriously from was an RSV I received in Methodist Sunday school as a child.

So, I'm certainly not saying everyone, not even most, but a small percentage of men have managed to grow into strong men of God while using an MV. In my case, I grew to a point mostly using the RSV, then switching to the NASB (trying many other MVs in between) until around 1990 I heard the Lord direct me (not an audible directing) to the KJB and that's when real growth and maturity took off in my case.

[John81]

5 hours ago, 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. 

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)

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

15 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. Slandering the Geneva is accepted while slandering the KJB is not.

Thanks anyway. There are great multitudes of people in heaven because of the word of God before the KJB. Just saying there are errors changes nothing. Have you not read Psalm 12 in the KJB says the word was preserved from this generation (David's) forever?

I certainly don't want to make you or anyone else look stupid. The King James doesn't have errors but the Geneva does. Why would I want to settle for second best? My first Bible was the NIV and I believe people can be saved using almost any translation. The Geneva isn't even easy to come by since most publishers don't print it. I have pretty much every edition in electronic format but I wouldn't bother to get it in a printed version.

I'm just glad we won't have these kinds of debates in Heaven.