Help Me Understand Why The King James Version Is The Best

[kevinmiller]

I agree that God preserved His Word. I agree that He did it in the KJV. But I think the important issue should be the Bible itself and not so much focus on the name. I stand by the KJV, but I don't agree with those who make the KJV more important than what is in it.

[Jerry]

I am not 100% certain what you mean. I agree, it is not the name on the cover, but the contents that is important; however, what other Bible in English - besides the KJV - is God's inerrant, infallible Word? So, in this sense, the name is important by way of identification.

I don't read the KJV because of its name, but because of its history and what it is - at the same time, I won't read any other English version (except some of the precursors, by way of comparison), because they are corrupted.

[IM4given]

:java: Yeah - what Jerry said! :goodpost:

[chev1958]

The Jewish people loved their tablets so much that they built a special container for it called the Ark of the Covenant and carried it with them from place to place while the wandered through the desert.

Not trying to be nitpicky, but the Israelites did not build the ark because of their love for God's word. If my memory serves me right, God commanded the ark be built to house the holy writings in the Tabernacle, and to serve as the base of His "throne" (Mercy Seat) in the Holy of Holies.

Mitch

[Psalms18_28]

Not trying to be nitpicky, but the Israelites did not build the ark because of their love for God's word. If my memory serves me right, God commanded the ark be built to house the holy writings in the Tabernacle, and to serve as the base of His "throne" (Mercy Seat) in the Holy of Holies.

Mitch

agree, The way it should go is that the Jewish people loved God so much that they obeyed him.

[IM4given]

agree, The way it should go is that the Jewish people loved God so much that they obeyed him.

and should we not also love God so much that we obey him, too???

[tmrltree]

I just spent the past few days reading through this thread in hopes of an answer, and although this thread provides countless hours of information in regards to the KJV, I am still left with one question:

Would you prefer someone to not read the bible at all if they are uncomfortable reading the KJV?

What I mean by this is: someone is interested in reading the Bible, yet they become frustrated when attempting to read the KJV so they stop. However when this individual picks up a NIV they can not put the Bible down.

So would it be better for this individual to read the NIV because that person WILL continue their studies, as compared to the KJV when that individual gives up entirely.

I ask this with all honest opinons, I see the truth of what this 11 page thread is getting at. However I am not the most intellectual person around, and find myself reading the NIV that was given to me by my Chaplain. However I have downloaded the KJV onto my computer, and I cross reference. Basically I force myself to read the KJV (however uncomfortable for me) yet when I become overly confused, I go to my NIV for that chapter/verse. Is this wrong?

If I missed a reference of this type of question in this thread I apologize, and ask that you direct me to that post.

[HappyChristian]

I just spent the past few days reading through this thread in hopes of an answer, and although this thread provides countless hours of information in regards to the KJV, I am still left with one question:

Would you prefer someone to not read the bible at all if they are uncomfortable reading the KJV?

What I mean by this is: someone is interested in reading the Bible, yet they become frustrated when attempting to read the KJV so they stop. However when this individual picks up a NIV they can not put the Bible down.

So would it be better for this individual to read the NIV because that person WILL continue their studies, as compared to the KJV when that individual gives up entirely.

I ask this with all honest opinons, I see the truth of what this 11 page thread is getting at. However I am not the most intellectual person around, and find myself reading the NIV that was given to me by my Chaplain. However I have downloaded the KJV onto my computer, and I cross reference. Basically I force myself to read the KJV (however uncomfortable for me) yet when I become overly confused, I go to my NIV for that chapter/verse. Is this wrong?

If I missed a reference of this type of question in this thread I apologize, and ask that you direct me to that post.

tmr - the NIV does contain God's Word, so you are being fed. Have you ever thought of using a commentary when you can't understand the KJV?

[kevinmiller]

I understand where you're coming from. The KJV could be a particular problem for those who were initially speakers of another language. I would encourage you to continue reading the NIV rather than to not read anything. If you are being fed by the NIV and can't understand the KJV well, by all means continue. I have to use the NIV at church cause my English-Korean Bible is NIV. I still prefer to do all of my studying and reading from the KJV. I haven't found the NIV to be different enough, though, to pose a problem for my occasional usage.

[HappyChristian]

I understand where you're coming from. The KJV could be a particular problem for those who were initially speakers of another language. I would encourage you to continue reading the NIV rather than to not read anything. If you are being fed by the NIV and can't understand the KJV well' date=' by all means continue. I have to use the NIV at church cause my English-Korean Bible is NIV. I still prefer to do all of my studying and reading from the KJV. I haven't found the NIV to be different enough, though, to pose a problem for my occasional usage.[/quote']

My beef with the NIV is John 3:16. They leave out the word begotten. Jesus isn't the only son of God - He is the only begotten one. Mormons use that verse without begotten in it - because they believe Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. I've not delved into it, but since Christ's diety is not shown in that verse, my worries would be that it wouldn't be elsewhere.

[kevinmiller]

I'm not sure how that could be used to excuse that their brothers, since nowhere in Scripture is that ever indicated. In fact, just the opposite. I'm certainly not a fan of the NIV but I don't know that it would necessarily cause me to question the deity of Christ being challenged in other parts of the NIV. I'm not one to believe conspiracy theories that the NIV translators had some kind of agenda to destroy all the major doctrines of the Bible. It is faithfully translated, just from different texts. Though those texts might not be the best texts to use, they are not totally opposed to what's in the Majority Text. Differing in some areas, yes(which I'm not excusing), but not totally opposed to it.

[HappyChristian]

I understand what you're saying. But I still don't trust it. JMO. I think you're right that someone whose native tongue is not english could have trouble with the KJB - but I have a friend who's Korean ( :lol ), who speaks very good English, really. She uses the KJB and her Korean Bible, which, I believe, was translated from the KJB (not 100% sure on that one).

I still think the best thing to do would be to use commentaries - maybe a Greel/Hebrew lexicon that can explain things rather than the NIV.

[no name joe]

I'm curious about this too. I need to go back and read this entire thread. I've never understood why people insist on KJB only.

The KJB was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek and Hebrew. The NIV and NASB were translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew. The NASB is the most literal translation from the Greek, and NIV is actually the best translation of the OT from Hebrew. (I studied both Bibilical Greek and Hebrew in college).

It seems to me that the newer translations are better for a couple of reasons:

1) It is more understandable to most people. KJB, while very poetic, astoundingly so, is just hard to understand much of the time.

2) It came from Latin, whereas the newer translations came directly from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, much closer to the original source.

[David Dow]

Hi everyone. Can you all please help me understand why the King James Version is the perfect Bible version in English? I would really appreciate your help as I don't understand the issue.

The King James Bible Is God's Word for the English speaking people because it best fits the criteria of The Word of God itself.

1. The Word of God tells us in 1 Peter 1:23-25 that God's word is incorruptible, abideth forever, and endureth forever. The King James New Testament is longer than any of the Modern versions because the translators of the King James Version acknowledged those truths while the modern version translators refused to acknowledge them. The Modern version backers say that some words were lost and will never be found while with other words they delete them because they are not in their favorite manuscripts.

2. The Word of God tells us that the original manuscripts were inspired and that God promises to preserve those inspired words 1 Timothy 3:16 Psalm 12:6,7
Those who back the Modern versions say we cannot have a perfectly inspired version because we do not have a perfectly preserved version. But God Promised that preservation and fulfilled that promise historically with the King James Version. The KJV overcame many other English versions to become the historically preserved Word of God for the English speaking people. Why would God perfectly inspire something He did not intend to perfectly preserve.

3. Jeremiah 23:36 Records God's accusation against man for purposely perverting His Word. Those backing the modern translations claim that none of the new translations are purposely perverting God's word. Why then are so many doctrines weakened in the modern versions by deletions and changing of texts that have been accepted as doctrinal proof texts In the KJV down through the years.

4. Psalm 119:9, 11 and Matthew 4:4 indicate that God's word is to sit in judgment on men's lives. The modern version backers think that they can sit in judgment on the Word of God, thus sitting in judgment on God himself . Isaiah 40:13, 14 negates this attitude. An attitude the KJV translators never had.

5. Deuteronomy 4:2 commands God's children not to add to or take away from His Word. The Book of the Revelation renews that command with punishments promised for those who do. God Intends the uniqueness of His Book to remain. The modern version backers say that in trying to determine the true words of God you do not need to use any different rules than if you were trying to determine the original wording of secular works like the works of Homer or Shakespeare. If God's book is unique, and it is, then the rules governing its continued preservation are set by God and are unique also. This the the KJV translators with their very attitudes toward their translation task acknowledged.

The Bible should always be our guide in themes regarding itself. Two themes in the Bible that under gird the KJV and undermine the Modern versions are Certainty and Preservation. Both these themes are sounded through out the Word of God in regard to itself. The Modern versions down play or ignore or lie about both of these themes to promote their bottom line, sales.

[David Dow]

I'm curious about this too. I need to go back and read this entire thread. I've never understood why people insist on KJB only.

The KJB was translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek and Hebrew. The NIV and NASB were translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew.

It seems to me that the newer translations are better for a couple of reasons:

2) It came from Latin, whereas the newer translations came directly from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, much closer to the original source.

Where did you get these statements? They are at the very least misleading. At most they are simply untrue.