Help Me Understand Why The King James Version Is The Best

[kevinmiller]

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

And yours aren't? :lol:

[kevinmiller]

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.

What translator deleted words because they weren't in their favorite manuscripts? Who refused to acknowledge truths from the Bible? Any proof, any whatsoever?

Those who back the Modern versions say we cannot have a perfectly inspired version because we do not have a perfectly preserved version.

You're talking to the wrong people. Give me one quote of someone who believes this. I'm not saying there aren't some people like this out there, but give me some shred of proof that this statement is correct, which it's not. I have friends who believe in a preserved Word of God and don't use the KJV.

The modern version backers think that they can sit in judgment on the Word of God, thus sitting in judgment on God himself .

Don't kid yourself. The KJV translators had to judge what manuscripts and method of translation should be used, as well. The KJV translators also "added" to the Bible in the form of italics.

An attitude the KJV translators never had.

One source. Maybe half a source?

The Modern versions down play or ignore or lie about both of these themes to promote their bottom line, sales.

Proof? As with the rest of your post, there is none. David, you are doing exactly what you accused kindofblue of doing, only on a much larger scale. You are lying about other people and situations to further your own agenda.

[Guest Guest]

It was a good post David Dow. :Green

[kevinmiller]

If it is a good post, it will be able to stand up to scrutiny.

I can make an argument that dresses are evil. I can say that the women who first made dresses hundreds of years ago made them so that they are easy to flip up and flirt with the men. The women who sewed the first dresses were prostitutes who made dresses to use in their job. I could argue that since the Bible mandates modest apparel and these women didn't make dresses for modesty, no women should wear dresses.

I mean, wow, that sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Is there truth in it? Not a shred. But if you don't like dresses, it would certainly be a convenient argument, wouldn't you say?

[Pastor Matt]

Bother David,

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.

Thanks for posting.

[John81]

If it is a good post, it will be able to stand up to scrutiny.

I can make an argument that dresses are evil. I can say that the women who first made dresses hundreds of years ago made them so that they are easy to flip up and flirt with the men. The women who sewed the first dresses were prostitutes who made dresses to use in their job. I could argue that since the Bible mandates modest apparel and these women didn't make dresses for modesty, no women should wear dresses.

I mean, wow, that sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Is there truth in it? Not a shred. But if you don't like dresses, it would certainly be a convenient argument, wouldn't you say?

:goodpost:

[David Dow]

1. What translator deleted words because they weren't in their favorite manuscripts? Who refused to acknowledge truths from the Bible? Any proof, any whatsoever?

2. You're talking to the wrong people. Give me one quote of someone who believes this. I'm not saying there aren't some people like this out there, but give me some shred of proof that this statement is correct, which it's not. I have friends who believe in a preserved Word of God and don't use the KJV.

3. Don't kid yourself. The KJV translators had to judge what manuscripts and method of translation should be used, as well. The KJV translators also "added" to the Bible in the form of italics.

4. One source. Maybe half a source?

5. Proof? As with the rest of your post, there is none. David, you are doing exactly what you accused kindofblue of doing, only on a much larger scale. You are lying about other people and situations to further your own agenda.

Answers to Your Questions
1. It wasn't the translators that deleted words phrases and whole passages of scripture it was the editors of the modern day Greek New Testaments. The translators just chose the wrong Greek N.T. There is plenty of proof that the modern day Greek N.T. are shorter than the TR. Read Burgon or Pickering and they are not strictly speaking King James Only.

2. R. M. Grant wrote in his "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament", 'The primary goal of the New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an impossible possibility'.

3. The added italics are proof that they did not sit in judgment on the word of God. They wanted to be sure that people knew when they were trying to make plain the meaning of the Greek idiom instead of doing word for word translation.

4. For the attitude of the KJV translators you need only read their original preface to the KJV.

5. You can read White?s book on ?The King James Controversy? where he ridicules those who stand for the King James as being to concerned with certainty. You can read Stewart Custer?s, ?The Truth about the King James Version? where he down plays the preservation of individual words but promises no teachings will be lost.

[kevinmiller]

1. It wasn't the translators that deleted words phrases and whole passages of scripture it was the editors of the modern day Greek New Testaments. The translators just chose the wrong Greek N.T. There is plenty of proof that the modern day Greek N.T. are shorter than the TR. Read Burgon or Pickering and they are not strictly speaking King James Only.

You went much farther than this in your claim. You said that they deleted words that weren't in their favorite manuscripts. Even in this post, you're saying two opposing things. You say the editors deleted words and then claim that the texts themselves are shorter. You also said that they rejected Bible truths and never showed me any Bible truth that the editors rejected because they didn't like them. Words weren't deleted unless you are using the KJV as the basis for which every other version should be judged, and they aren't. They are using different manuscripts and many Bible have been accurately translated from those texts.

2. R. M. Grant wrote in his "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament", 'The primary goal of the New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an impossible possibility'.

Am I to understand that you are taking one person and judging all people who use MV's by him?

3. The added italics are proof that they did not sit in judgment on the word of God. They wanted to be sure that people knew when they were trying to make plain the meaning of the Greek idiom instead of doing word for word translation.

I think the italics are great, too. I like that it is such a literal translation. However, the fact is that the KJV translators also had to judge and discern the manuscripts to determine how they should be translated. Making added words italics or not doesn't change the action and both sides added words for clarity and judged the manuscripts for translation purposes.

4. For the attitude of the KJV translators you need only read their original preface to the KJV.

I can't comment on the preface as I haven't read it. I addressed the judgment issue above, anyway.

5. You can read White?s book on ?The King James Controversy? where he ridicules those who stand for the King James as being to concerned with certainty. You can read Stewart Custer?s, ?The Truth about the King James Version? where he down plays the preservation of individual words but promises no teachings will be lost.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my fifth comment. I was asking for proof that they ignored or lied about Scripture in order to sell more Bibles. No one has ever presented any evidence to show that those who translate a version of the Bible are in it just for the sales.

[thewallow]

a few quick questions. i use the KJV, but there are things that i don't understand.

1. which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769? i don't use the 1611 version, and i don't know a single person who does. every FB and IFB i know uses the 1769 one.

2. why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha, as well as references it in the footnotes.

3. why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities?

[Pastor Matt]

All of these issues have been addressed in previous threads. I have no problem discussing these issues again, that is if you really are looking to understand. If not, we both will be wasting our time.

[thewallow]

i am. you don't have to reply to me, maybe just point me in the right direction as to where to find these threads? that way i can read up on them and see if my questions can be resolved that way. thanks :)

[Pastor Matt]

I have no problem discussing these issues. Why don't you start a thread in the Bible forum and we will start with the first question you have. I'm logging off for the night so don't expect a reply from me tonight.

[Calvary]

a few quick questions. i use the KJV, but there are things that i don't understand.

1. which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769? i don't use the 1611 version, and i don't know a single person who does. every FB and IFB i know uses the 1769 one.

Edited and revised are two different things. Edited, yes. revised not once. Oh, by the way. I use the 1621 edition as I have a copy of it. I am very blessed to hold in my hands this great piece of our Biblical heritage.

2. why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha, as well as references it in the footnotes.

The Apocrypha was never included as part of the actual Bible text. It was placed apart from the Bible text, unlike the Catholic Rheims Bible of the time that included the books throughout the Bible. Reference notes to the Apocrypha? Can you show us one?

3. why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities?

To deem another possible translation does nothing to detract from the final product. Fact is, the "alternative reading" didn't make into the text did it? So in reality it is a moot point.

[Guest Guest]

What edition of the KJV do you consider to be the inspired and inerrant version? It seems to me if you are using anything other than an original first edition KJV OR a digital facsimile, then you are using something other than the inspired word of God -- in keeping with the KJV only argument that is. For example, there are 80 books in the first edition. How many books are in your version?

God put a limit on man?s intellect. However, it is abundantly clear that he placed no limit what-so-ever on his stupidity.

Take a look at this...
http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

[Pastor Matt]

Again, I ask that a new topic be started to discuss this. Thank you.