Search the Community

Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the language is basically 400 year-old English. So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified. In Christ, Joseph

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

I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing?

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.

Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not? I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues. I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah). on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position. What is your position and why do you hold to it?

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.

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/

...you read this, and REALLY consider this question? What if Baptists today are using the wrong Bible, the KJV? That Psalm 12:7 thing is interestin'. It never once refers to versions of the scriptures. And I find that fact a curiosity. Yes it refers to his words, I know that. I have heard that for most of my spiritual life as an IFB, and I question 'where' such a thing started. How could Gods words be pure, if he had to 'purify' it. It wasn't the words that needed to be 'purified' but it showed 'how' pure Gods words were. It was the silver that needed to be purified, not Gods word. From Davids time to now it is perfect, not only since 1611. So, if it was 'purified', and according to this belief, David stated that so, would it not have been 'purified' BEFORE David wrote this section of his Psalm 12? If so, where does it make it a future situation? You know, 1526-1611? Just my opinion, sorta. There is zero evidence that this section of a Psalm of David referred to seven versions of the Holy scriptures. Once again, not wanting to be an offense, but there it is. Read the WHOLE Psalm 12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AND, concerning Baptismal Regeneration in the KJV text... the 1560 Geneva Bible states... "Which were in time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the days of Noe, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved in the water. To the which also the figure that now saveth us, even baptism agreeth (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request to God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." In this old English translation the fellas thought the way our Baptist forefathers thought, that our salvation was in the shed blood of Christ AND the fact of the resurrection, of which our testimony of baptism pictures. If Christ didn't arise, our faith is vain, and we are all still in our sins. And, look at the wording, "eight souls were saved IN the water..." not BY the water (as the KJV says). So yes, Uke, the word of the Lord does not actually say "saved BY the water", according to the men of God before us, and previous to the KJV. That bible verse, from the 1560 Geneva Bible. Look also in Acts 22:16, and read the one word missing from the KJV, that is in the Tyndale 1526, as well as the Matthews 1537, and 1560 Geneva Bible - "in". "...in calling on the Name of the Lord." Kinda an important word, that Alexander Campbell just loved not having there. You might remember the 'father of baptismal regeneration' who converted multitudes of 'Baptist' brethren to his way of thinking, using the words of these verses. There are literally hundreds of verse differences, with doctrinal differences, between the 1611 KJV and 1560 Geneva. Even between the 1611 and the 1769 KJV there are differences in the punctuation and some of the wording in the verses. (NOT just the orthography, but real word differences.) It seems we Baptists have been teaching scriptures right without even having the right wording in our Bibles. No controversy. No bashing. Just historic bible publishing history, from bibles that are not discarded as some say, but readily available for free online in our world today. Words to ponder, words to get upset about from a supposed IFB? Not really. I am independent. I am fundamental. I am Baptist to the core. And I follow the ways of God that lead to the discovery of the true Baptist doctrines. I do not preach and teach from the Tyndale. It has a multitude of 'non-biblical', 'non-Baptist' wording of verses. It's not as close to the KJV as some say. I do not preach and teach from the Matthews 1537, for the same issues, as well as it is not always based on the old texts as some teach. But I do preach and teach from the 1560 Geneva Bible, for the accuracy it portrays, in it 'agreeing' with Baptist doctrines. I am not bashing KJV, just pointing out there is a difference with it and the 1560 Geneva Bible, when it comes to 'proving' the doctrines of our faith as Baptists. Every denomination, (outside of Baptists who actually believe God wrote his word down for us to learn how to believe), will hate the Geneva, because it teaches in words, what our Baptist forefathers of the faith preached through discernment using the KJV. Now lest I get 'deported' from this site - please take notice: the Original KJV had, according to Scrivner , quoted in Edward F. Hill's book "The King James Version Defended", states there were 2738 alternative verse translations in the 1611's gloss, the side column where notes and references were, (2156 in the O.T., 582 in the N.T.) 8422 marginal notes, 4111 literal meanings in original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, as well as 67 variant readings. With 112 literal renderings of Greek, and 37 variant readings, in the New Testament. So unless I misunderstood my 'teachers' about the KJV, they were serious about knowing what God said, enough to clarify it in the gloss of the publication of 1611. Jus' saying. Not trying to get kicked out nor offend anyone, but wanting to share information about the accuracy of our Baptist heritage. Real IFB men of God need to get off their 'traditional-highhorses' and get into the 1560 Geneva Bible and see what we really ought to teach as fact, and not just 'discern' doctrines and tell people that the verses have a 'code' only understood by Baptists.

Is John quoting Jesus Christ correctly? Comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, we can tell the validity of the veracity of a verse by comparing the 1611 KJV to the previously used bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, in places such as this example: John 14:1-3 From the 1560 Geneva Bible: "And he said to his disciples, Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Fathers house are many dwelling places: if it were not so, I would have told you: I go to prepare a place for you. And though I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there may ye be also." John 14:1-3 From the 1611 KJV Bible: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Fathers house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you: I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto my self, that where I am, there ye may be also." And looking down the page and seeing multiple times Jesus and Philip referring to "my" Father, in opposition to the 1611 KJV of "the" Father. In the above verse that says "And though I go..." is the wording I want to point out here. Jesus is in a positively 'clear' moment of revelation to his disciples here, not holding back anything. He refers to "though I go", whereas the KJV says "if I go". How is the KJV helpful in revealing the veracity of Jesus Christ's encouragement of his followers here? Plain and simple - it is not. And, the other verses using the term "my" instead of "the", when in reference to God the Father? Plain and simple, again... the 1560 Geneva Bible is SO much more encouraging to the true believer in Jesus Christ than the traditional 1611 KJV that most conservative Baptist believers follow. Read the KJV and compare it to the Geneva yourself. Much more truth is revealed in the text of the Geneva. Trim your lamps brethren! What do you think?