Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

Sign in to follow this  
Guest Guest

Why is the KJV superior to modern Bibles?

Recommended Posts

Thanks Kubel for comparing KJVonlyism to a cult. WHY do you even visit this message board if you think we are all a bunch of wackos. Personally I am highly offended by your statements and believe you owe us an apology.

I did not blindly become KJVonly. I compared Bibles, studied out the history of the underlying manuscripts and the KJV, studied out those involved in translating or producing modern versions - then my conclusions led me to become KJVonly. Sure, there may be some that became KJVonly out of blind allegiance to a church or their parents, pastor, etc. - but many, if not most, here have actually taken the time to study out this issue for themselves. So take your insults elsewhere - they are not welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kubel for comparing KJVonlyism to a cult. WHY do you even visit this message board if you think we are all a bunch of wackos. Personally I am highly offended by your statements and believe you owe us an apology.


Jerry, don't take this the wrong way, but should I really care that you were offended because you misrepresented my post? Me offer an apology? That doesn't make sense, does it? Don't attack me with logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

1) KJVO is a doctrine.
2) KJVO is not found in scripture.
3) KJVO is taken by faith.
4) Faith is very strong.

Arguments against KJVO will not be considered by one who accepts KJVO by faith, because KJVO is part of their faith. That's what I was trying to tell John and Kevin. Their efforts would be fruitless.

I know this all by experience. In my case, I took KJVO by faith, supported by what I thought were many good arguments. But this doctrine was not from the word of God. It was from the mouth of man. I had to let go of KJVO from my faith in order to honestly consider the truths against it. I would have a hard time believing anyone that said they accept the KJVO doctrine without faith. I know of no 'religious' doctrine that is not accepted by faith.

Anyway, my post was directed towards those attempting to argue with KJVO's, not toward you. So with all that said, I will apologize: I'm sorry that you have to resort to straw man attacks and misrepresent another's view in order to somehow try to win an argument that I never even started with you. :frog

But like I said, people who want to believe in KJVO- that's fine with me. It's not like its unscriptural. It's just like the Assumption of Mary. It's something that some people choose to believe in, but something that I reject, because there's no reason to believe it when it's not in the Bible. I've learned it's hardly an issue to get all hot headed over.

EDIT: Jerry gave me an official board warning for this post because I "continue to deliberately misrepresent the positions of this board" and "buck our rules". Just wanted to edit my post to mention this. I replied to Jerry with, "Just for the record: I think you issued this warning as a result of personal feelings (particularly a reaction to how I responded to your demand for an apology, and how I exposed your straw man argument of my previous post). Perhaps later you will review the post in question and see for yourself that this may have been the case."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Kubel for comparing KJVonlyism to a cult. WHY do you even visit this message board if you think we are all a bunch of wackos. Personally I am highly offended by your statements and believe you owe us an apology.

I did not blindly become KJVonly. I compared Bibles, studied out the history of the underlying manuscripts and the KJV, studied out those involved in translating or producing modern versions - then my conclusions led me to become KJVonly. Sure, there may be some that became KJVonly out of blind allegiance to a church or their parents, pastor, etc. - but many, if not most, here have actually taken the time to study out this issue for themselves. So take your insults elsewhere - they are not welcome here.


Sorry I lost my sanctification or got mad, you have a perfect right to believe as you do, but because I hold a different view and do not agree does not mean I am a non-Christian or a heretic. There is nothing wrong with the KJV and I preach from it most of the time. Becasue my people .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorry I lost my sanctification or got mad, you have a perfect right to believe as you do, but because I hold a different view and do not agree does not mean I am a non-Christian or a heretic. There is nothing wrong with the KJV and I preach from it most of the time. Becasue my people .

:goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, no one here is saying that you are lost - though some may be saying you are a heretic (in comparison with the official stand of these boards).

What we have a problem with is you coming here, supposedly FOR the King James Bible. You say you have no problem with it - but you take every opportunity to undermine it on these these boards - AND I DON'T SEE YOU POSTING REGULARLY ON ANY OTHER TOPIC (not saying you haven't posted on other topics - but when your anti-KJV and anti-TR posts are what you typically post, that makes me wonder), so that tells me you are just coming here to stir up trouble and sow discord among believers. Prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, no one here is saying that you are lost - though some may be saying you are a heretic (in comparison with the official stand of these boards).

What we have a problem with is you coming here, supposedly FOR the King James Bible. You say you have no problem with it - but you take every opportunity to undermine it on these these boards - AND I DON'T SEE YOU POSTING REGULARLY ON ANY OTHER TOPIC (not saying you haven't posted on other topics - but when your anti-KJV and anti-TR posts are what you typically post, that makes me wonder), so that tells me you are just coming here to stir up trouble and sow discord among believers. Prove me wrong.


Jerry I do not post on this website to stir up trouble. Maybe it has appeared that way. I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't agree with the KJV Only view, but you have a right to believe as you will. When I say nothing is wrong with the KJV I do not mean it is inerrant, but it is trustworthy. I do not believe that any translation is perfect. Every translation has minute weaknesses. I believe inerrancy was in the original writings. I believe that God has preserved His word thorugh the manuscript copies we have.

I know you don't agree with my view point. I know that this is a KJV Only Website and you have a right to that view. If I have stirred up trouble I apologize.

God Bless
John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who left KJV' date=' what bible are you using now? Just curious if you still using KJV or you are using another bible for your bible study.[/quote']

I'm probably disqualified from answering, but when I left KJVO, I didn't leave my KJV. Most people who read other translations choose to avoid the KJV because it is not natural to read. But since I grew up as a KJVO, the only translation I read was the KJV. So it's quite a natural read for me. There's a few places where archaic words pop up, but looking up their definition (for me at least) is a lot easier than learning to read a different style translation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kubel wrote

I'm probably disqualified from answering, but when I left KJVO, I didn't leave my KJV. Most people who read other translations choose to avoid the KJV because it is not natural to read. But since I grew up as a KJVO, the only translation I read was the KJV. So it's quite a natural read for me. There's a few places where archaic words pop up, but looking up their definition (for me at least) is a lot easier than learning to read a different style translation.


I used the same excuse about as you put it "not natural to read". Sorry bro but that is a cop out. I am severly dyslexic (can tell by my spelling sometimes). I was saved using a NKJV. I intended to use the NKJV the rest of my life. When challenged, I studied and still study the issue. It did not take long for me to become only KJV. If another person whats to use a corrupted version, that is thier choice. Most use it because that is what they were told to use. (That is why I used the NKJV.) Interesting that the Holy SPirit made the KJV as clear to me as anything else. (Thats my testamony, not an attack). Therefore, I dont the buy the "not natural to read" or "to hard to read" issue. Poetry must be terrible to read then.

As far as the "archaic words" issue I can find you a pile of archaic words in the new versions. One off the top of my head in the NKJV is the word "lest". I dont hear people walking around using that word. Therefore that agruement is put to rest. Like I said, I used all these same arguments before I studied the issue. Im not trying to pick at you, I think I understand what your trying to say and that is your decision as to what you believe. I just wanted to share some points ive learned in my studies.

The more I study (and yes I look at both sides) the more convinced God preserved is Word in the english in the KJV.

As for what a person chooses to use, that is thier decsion. Most dont understand the issue. I just share my testamony, the research I have and the most important part, where God said he perserved his word.

God Bless you Brother :smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest


Jerry I do not post on this website to stir up trouble. Maybe it has appeared that way. I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't agree with the KJV Only view, but you have a right to believe as you will. When I say nothing is wrong with the KJV I do not mean it is inerrant, but it is trustworthy. I do not believe that any translation is perfect. Every translation has minute weaknesses. I believe inerrancy was in the original writings. I believe that God has preserved His word thorugh the manuscript copies we have.

I know you don't agree with my view point. I know that this is a KJV Only Website and you have a right to that view. If I have stirred up trouble I apologize.

God Bless
John


So in other words you don't believe that God has kept His promise to preserve His perfect word for today?

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

Don't tell me that God has only preserved His word in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts because that is simply not true. Why would God only preserve His word for the select few who can read those languages? That makes no sense to me. God has preserved His perfect word for us in English and that perfect word for us is in the KJV!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So in other words you don't believe that God has kept His promise to preserve His perfect word for today?

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

Don't tell me that God has only preserved His word in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts because that is simply not true. Why would God only preserve His word for the select few who can read those languages? That makes no sense to me. God has preserved His perfect word for us in English and that perfect word for us is in the KJV!


You may believe as you will. I do not want to stir up more trouble. Yes, I believe that inerrancy was in the orginal manuscripts, do not believe that copies of the manuscripts we have are perfect. As any one who has some knowledge of the manuscripts know. This is documented fact. There are even variations with the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from. So if the copies of the manuscripts we have are not perfect then how can the translation be perfect? They are not inerrant. But still God has preserved His word. There is such a high degree of accuracy in the copies we have that the translations are totally trustworthy. The variation in the manuscripts are minute most are minor scribal errors. Like mistaking a similar word for another. Yes their are some variations in the ending of Mark and other Scripture. But no change of truth. You will have to believe as you are led ofthe Lord.
Sorry that I stirred up trouble, but I am not KJV Only.
God Bless
John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BaptistGirl.

I came in on this subject a little late so forgive me if I'm repeating what has already been said. I'll sum up for you why I choose to read the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is the only Bible that does not include specific manuscripts which were discovered in Egypt during the translation process. These manuscripts water down scripture and change small phrases which give a completely different meaning than the original.

Just a brief outline, the NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times and the word "blood" 23 times.

As for the meaning being changed...

Hebrews 10:4 is changed from "are sanctified" to "are being sanctified."

1st Corinthians 1:18 is changed from "are saved" to "are being saved."

I used to be a huge fan of the NIV, until I bought a NIV / KJV parallel Bible. I noticed that the NIV leaned way toward doing things ourselves and the KJV leaned more toward depending on God.

For example...

2nd Timothy 2:15 (NIV) - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

2nd Timothy 2:15 (KJV) - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

At first glance those two do not seem much different. Think about it though.

Do your best to handle the word of truth. Well that could just mean giving the Gospel couldn't it?

"Rightly dividing the word of truth" leads me to believe I must be on my feet, testing what I hear against the Word of God.

Satan uses scripture, and he waters it down and misuses it. That's what he did with Jesus. He simply left some of it out. Satan quoted Psalm 91:11-12, only he left out the phrase "to keep thee in all thy ways." That's basically what these new translations do. They leave out subtle words which change the meaning just by a hair, but just enough to throw off somebodies theology. Subtlety is a characteristic of Satan (Genesis 3:1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we all have our favorite "differences" between the translations. This one goes along the same lines as what Kenny5682 just posted. One I like to use is 1 Cor. 27:

(KJV) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
(NIV) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

The word "unworthily" refers to a person, whereas "in a unworthy manner" refers to an act. For example, an unworthy person shouldn't partake of the Lord's Supper, according to the KJV. However, the NIV says the supper should be conducted properly, which is true, but concentrates on the act of the supper, rather than the people partaking. Maybe that's nitpicking, but that's what the grammar says.

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean here, Chevy. :puzzled:

In English Grammar, "unworthily" is an adverb describing the compound verb "shall eat/drink". If the person is himself unworthy, wouldn't it say something like "If an unworthy person..."? (Unworthy being an adjective there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bakers - the context is HOW a person is partaking of the Lord's Supper: unworthily because of undealt with sin in their lives while partaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unworthily (Webster's 1828): "Not according to desert; without due regard to merit; as, to treat a man unworthily."
unworthy (Webster's 1828): "Not suitable; inadequate."

The way the verse is written in the KJV, "unworthily" does modify the action, but it still focuses on the actor. "If I drink this cup unworthily ..." Is the drinking unworthy or is the person unworthy? Is the manner with which I drink this cup unworthy?

In the NIV, "unworthy" is placed as an adjective modifying "manner." For example, "If I drink this cup in an unworthy manner ..." That changes the focus more toward the procedure rather than the person performing the action. I could be a "worthy" person, yet still take the Lord's Supper "in an unworthy manner," i.e., eating banana bread instead of unleaven, or drinking Diet Coke instead of grape juice.

Now, if the NIV had written the verse as such: "If I, as an unworthy person, drink this cup ..." then it would have the same meaning as the KJV verse. But as it's written in today's translation, the verse -- to me, anyway -- changes the meaning of what the KJV says.

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, your post agrees more with mine than Bakers. "Unworthily" focuses on the person -- the "undealt sin" as you call it. After dealing with how the Corinthians were physically conducting the supper earlier in the chapter, he changes the focus to their spiritual worth in partaking of the supper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes sense in what I said: without due regard to merit. If someone partakes of the Lord's supper without due regard to merit of what it signifies and has unrepentant sin in their life (when they are observing something that is about being forgiven and cleansed of their sin), then they are taking of the Lord's Supper unworthily. The passage is regarding Christians - there is no unworthy Christian partaking of the Lord's Supper - but many believers partaking of it in a wrong manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no unworthy Christian partaking of the Lord's Supper
Maybe I'm straining at gnats, but wouldn't a Christian with unresolved sin in their lives be an unworthy Christian? Webster's 1828 defines "manner" as "Form; method; way of performing or executing. Custom; habitual practice." That defines the procedure of the Lord's Supper. Therefore, partaking in the Lord's Supper "in an unworthy manner" is what Paul discussed earlier in the chapter. In verse 27, he's talking about the partakers' spiritual condition with regard to the supper.

I think we agree on the meaning of the verse. I'm simply arguing that the NIV changes the focus from the Christian to the act itself. Preach it sometime, and you'll see the difference.

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note to those who believe the Dead Sea Scrolls support the TR.

The Dead Sea Scrolls support the Masoretic text, the TR is used to refer to the Greek New Testament.

The DSS can be used to defend our modern KJV's Old Testament, but shouldn't be used in argument for the TR/NT.

Here are the corresponding books found in the DSS.

Books ? No. found ?
Psalms 39
Deuteronomy 33
1 Enoch 25
Genesis 24
Isaiah 22
Jubilees 21
Exodus 18
Leviticus 17
Numbers 11
Minor Prophets 10
Daniel 8
Jeremiah 6
Ezekiel 6
Job 6
1 & 2 Samuel 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a note to those who believe the Dead Sea Scrolls support the TR.

The Dead Sea Scrolls support the Masoretic text, the TR is used to refer to the Greek New Testament.

The DSS can be used to defend our modern KJV's Old Testament, but shouldn't be used in argument for the TR/NT.

Here are the corresponding books found in the DSS.


Good to see you - been missing your posts. Hope the church planting is going well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I'm straining at gnats, but wouldn't a Christian with unresolved sin in their lives be an unworthy Christian?

The Bible teaches only those who are not in Christ, not saved, are unworthy.



I'm sure studying the passage out will give me the meaning, more than preaching it out would. Need to have it studied before you can preach it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi BaptistGirl.

I came in on this subject a little late so forgive me if I'm repeating what has already been said. I'll sum up for you why I choose to read the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is the only Bible that does not include specific manuscripts which were discovered in Egypt during the translation process. These manuscripts water down scripture and change small phrases which give a completely different meaning than the original.

Just a brief outline, the NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times and the word "blood" 23 times.

As for the meaning being changed...

Hebrews 10:4 is changed from "are sanctified" to "are being sanctified."

1st Corinthians 1:18 is changed from "are saved" to "are being saved."

I used to be a huge fan of the NIV, until I bought a NIV / KJV parallel Bible. I noticed that the NIV leaned way toward doing things ourselves and the KJV leaned more toward depending on God.

For example...

2nd Timothy 2:15 (NIV) - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

2nd Timothy 2:15 (KJV) - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

At first glance those two do not seem much different. Think about it though.

Do your best to handle the word of truth. Well that could just mean giving the Gospel couldn't it?

"Rightly dividing the word of truth" leads me to believe I must be on my feet, testing what I hear against the Word of God.

Satan uses scripture, and he waters it down and misuses it. That's what he did with Jesus. He simply left some of it out. Satan quoted Psalm 91:11-12, only he left out the phrase "to keep thee in all thy ways." That's basically what these new translations do. They leave out subtle words which change the meaning just by a hair, but just enough to throw off somebodies theology. Subtlety is a characteristic of Satan (Genesis 3:1)


Hebrews 10:4 is changed from "are sanctified" to "are being sanctified."

I think you mean Hebtews 10:14, For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The phrase "are sanctified" is the present tense in the Greek which more clearly means "are being sanctified." It is linear or continuing action. It refers to the continuing process of santification.


1st Corinthians 1:18 is changed from "are saved" to "are being saved."

The verb "are Saved" is again in the Present tense and means "are being saved. It refers to the process of Salvation or santification.

God Bless
John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I get where you coming from John. I dont agree with you but I think i get it. let me know if im wrong.

You hold to Conservative theology under the direction of Dynamic Inspiration. In other words, the Originals were inspired perhaps along the mechanical dictation lines. I come to this conclusion because you dont believe in the inerrant preservation of the Word of God.

Inspiration is basicaly defined as the Holy SPirit moved the human writers of the bible so that they recorded the very words and sense of God, but stayed in thier own literary style.

You do not accept Confluent Inspiration (which means the scriptures are a product of human and divine work). 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So, the bible teaches this inspiration clearly.

So It would seem to me you must believe in Dynamic Inspiration (mechanical dictation) as you do not believe God could Preserve his Word though the generations.

I only post this trying to understand where those who do not believe in the preservation of the Word of God come from.

P.S. No, I was not taught to believe in preservation of the scriptures. I came to it on my own study. I say this because some folks here (not nessecarily you) claim "you follow only what you were taught by your pastor".

If im of or you hold to another type of inspration such as "thought inspiration" let me know.

God Bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The phrase "are sanctified" is the present tense in the Greek which more clearly means "are being sanctified." It is linear or continuing action. It refers to the continuing process of santification.

The verb "are Saved" is again in the Present tense and means "are being saved. It refers to the process of Salvation or santification.


1) Which Greek text are you referring to?

2) I can't remember the specific grammatical term for this, but basically it is a past action that effects the present: ie. are saved (we still are saved, not being saved), are sanctified (we were set apart by God, and still are set apart). We can see these same usages in other terms, such as "are baptized." We are not being saved, being baptized - we are saved, are baptized with Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×