Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jordan Kurecki

Why King James Only?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the nearest book store to us a person has to look real carefully to even find the KJB section. There are lots of NIV, NLT, ESV and other MVs but only a small section of KJB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Young said:

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.

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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. 

I believe you're quite correct.  I have in my possession and like my Geneva Bible.  However, the Holy Spirit continued to direct me to God's PERFECT and preserved Word in the English, the King James Bible.  

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I believe you're quite correct.  I have in my possession and like my Geneva Bible.  However, the Holy Spirit continued to direct me to God's PERFECT and preserved Word in the English...

Ditto.

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

lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

You could also p.m. me some "lacking perfection" information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 3:34 PM, Genevanpreacher said:

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.

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

I can't find any source material online about Tyndale knowing about Vaticanus. Do you have a source I can look into?

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

Yes, Big T didn't 'discover' it.

This link says as much -

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/

Big difference in time there - 1481 to Big T's time of 1844.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_sinaiticus.html/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

Our pastor has got into some of the false garbage which began to be taught even during the time of the Apostles. Over the course of history these false teachings keep coming back up again and again. The devil attacked quickly and hasn't relented.

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   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 749 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...