Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jordan Kurecki

Why King James Only?

Recommended Posts

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

Another book that will explain all of your manuscript/text questions as well as the faith in God's preserved Word perspective and likely cement your stance on it is Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. You can buy the print copy or you can read the PDF version for free at buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf (or google "forever settled pdf").

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the 'archaic' words that make the KJV the most important aspect, it is that many of those words have been kept because they more completely translate what was said in the Greek and Hebrew. Like the 'ye' and 'thee', showing plural and singular, respectively: replacing them with the generic 'you' or "your' will in many cases completely change the context, or at least can hurt the understanding. One of the best examples of this I have seen is when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemas in John 3, and He says to him,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ye must be born again."  Now,  understanding the plural/singular issue in the 'archaic' words, we know that Jesus is saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto THEE, (Nicodemas), YE, (everyone) must be born again.  If it was changed, all you would have is, Verily verily I say unto you, you must be born again. Okay, so WHO must be born again? Nicodemas? Just him? Or is someone else involved in this? The context would fall into question if the archaic terms were removed, unless it was written 'Verily verily I say unto you, Nicodemas, that all men must be born again. Now this would make for an acceptable translation, but its also clumsier. Wordier. And unnecessary.

Now, there are some words that are archaic that I don't see there would be a problem with changing, words that have changed in meaning, like 'conversation', which in 1611 could mean a speaking back and forth between people, OR  a term referring to one's manner of life and activities. Current language has basically removed on of them. So, when the context is conversation was we understand today, it could be left, and when referring to the other, perhaps a more fitting term could be applied, like, well, "manner of life", or something.   The danger, however, in the minds of many, myself included, is when there is a dispute of words. Like, the gap folks who believe that the PROPER translation of  gen 1:1&2 is "IN the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void"  The insistence that it SHOULD say this, even though no other translation has ever read this way, could cause an important change into the text.

See, and its not just that-any number of accidental or intentional minor changes might be made, according to pre-conceived ideas, that could change doctrines, and that's dangerous. I would not even trust myself. Who could we trust? It was such an important thing that King James had it worked on by 50 men, all of whom would put our best scholars to shame today, and they had thousands of manuscripts, earlier translations and other writings at their disposal.  As opposed to the new versions that had TWO men, and both apostates by their own mouths, using only TWO primary texts, one questionable due to its origin, (Vaticanus) and the other questionable as to its authenticity AS an ancient text.

No, all things considered, we have an excellent translation, which has overseen many revivals and countless souls saved-better to STUDY to shew ourselves approved unto God, rather than to dumb it down and take a chance of doing great damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the KJV. You have but to compare the others in English to see that other versions are detracting from basic doctrine in subtle ways. If we don't understand something we should wait on the Lord (through the Holy Spirit)  to come to a proper understanding. By looking to something besides the source we open the door to changing the basic text to fit what we can accept in our human minds or being drawn to what some one else thinks (not to say someone else does not have the right answer sometimes). We can consider what light someone else can shed on a subject but need to be convinced in our own hearts and minds to form a solid conviction about any given subject based on God's word.

If I was charged with a serious crime I would want a lawyer who knows what the law says as opposed to a para legal who just knows parts of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the King James Version but I don't know what edition it is. I do know its not 1611 after seeing what they look like. I had no idea the 1611 had went through so many changes over the years. I wish Cambridge or Oxford would update it again with a version for those of us in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences are not what they seem.  Most were to correct printing errors and spelling changes and textual changes.  As Sam Gipp says, it's been purified.

Most KJV bible's today are based on the 1769 Oxford edition.  Mine own happens to be a 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Scrivener.

A little over two years ago there was a fella here whose name escapes me now that was doing a comparison of changes between the two above and modern publishers reprints.  Several of us here at OB noticed that the publishers were changing some words to conform with the MVs.

I have since been watching David W. Daniels of Chick Publications excellent research regarding the Critical Text and Septuagint.  In short, they are frauds which never existed until the 1840s.  There is ZERO evidence of the Septuagint during bible times and we know that Jesus and Paul quoted from the Masoretic Text.

I am King James Only because the Holy Spirit burdened my heart relentlessly to put God's preserved Word in my hands.  Anything else will be found wanting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

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.  

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.

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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By paid4
      Found this website today. Thought some of you might like it.
      Good fundamental preachers on here.
      I've listened to Danny Castle several times and everytime it was good.
       
      http://www.goodpreachin.com/
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 58 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...