Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​I do have a hard time not seeing the hand of God on the KJV.

 

in about 1588 the Spanish Armada lost to Britain, at that time the Spanish Armada was the largest navy in the world. It was a miracle that Britain won.

then in 1611 you have the KJV translated. a few years before this there was a Jesuit plot to assasinate King James, and he was uncovered right before he was about to light the fuse on some explosives that would have killed the King.

then some years later you have the printing press ready.

and then you have english becoming the dominant world langauge.

 

all these events happenning around the same time lead me to believe God's hand was in the KJV and that he preserved his words through this translation.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Another excellent book is Touch Not the Unclean Thing by David Sorenson. It gives as well a fairly exhaustive list of TR backed translations into hundreds of languages,including many native American languages, reaching back to the earlypart of the 2nd century with the Italic and Syriack, both very early TR texts, which shows that the TR New Testament was complete and common enough by that time to have it translated into other languages, in toto. Around 125AD, well before the council of NIcea, by the way, who many claim are the ones who set the canon of scripture, yet there were complete NT translations based off the TR well before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​Absolutely. 3rd most common native tongue but a second language worldwide,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Members

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

The proper text was with the proper people all the time Jordan. Whether it be the Geneva Bible or before.

Tyndale's text was full of error. Yet correct doctrine still existed. God still uses mans failures to accomplish his will.

The testimony against translators, that believe wrong doctrine, could be applied to all translators, not just Westcott and Hort. Most translators have had messed up lives just like most regular people down through the centuries.

The translator matters not, but what he translated does!

The error in some bibles is clearly in the wording, or the lack thereof; not in the character behind it.

Find the proper bible amongst the proper folk, and find the proper doctrine. I hold to Geneva Bible Only, because of what Baptists hold as doctrine, and not because of the translators. Translators come and go. Bible texts that are true never go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

Another book that will explain all of your manuscript/text questions as well as the faith in God's preserved Word perspective and likely cement your stance on it is Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. You can buy the print copy or you can read the PDF version for free at buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf (or google "forever settled pdf").

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It isn't the 'archaic' words that make the KJV the most important aspect, it is that many of those words have been kept because they more completely translate what was said in the Greek and Hebrew. Like the 'ye' and 'thee', showing plural and singular, respectively: replacing them with the generic 'you' or "your' will in many cases completely change the context, or at least can hurt the understanding. One of the best examples of this I have seen is when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemas in John 3, and He says to him,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ye must be born again."  Now,  understanding the plural/singular issue in the 'archaic' words, we know that Jesus is saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto THEE, (Nicodemas), YE, (everyone) must be born again.  If it was changed, all you would have is, Verily verily I say unto you, you must be born again. Okay, so WHO must be born again? Nicodemas? Just him? Or is someone else involved in this? The context would fall into question if the archaic terms were removed, unless it was written 'Verily verily I say unto you, Nicodemas, that all men must be born again. Now this would make for an acceptable translation, but its also clumsier. Wordier. And unnecessary.

Now, there are some words that are archaic that I don't see there would be a problem with changing, words that have changed in meaning, like 'conversation', which in 1611 could mean a speaking back and forth between people, OR  a term referring to one's manner of life and activities. Current language has basically removed on of them. So, when the context is conversation was we understand today, it could be left, and when referring to the other, perhaps a more fitting term could be applied, like, well, "manner of life", or something.   The danger, however, in the minds of many, myself included, is when there is a dispute of words. Like, the gap folks who believe that the PROPER translation of  gen 1:1&2 is "IN the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void"  The insistence that it SHOULD say this, even though no other translation has ever read this way, could cause an important change into the text.

See, and its not just that-any number of accidental or intentional minor changes might be made, according to pre-conceived ideas, that could change doctrines, and that's dangerous. I would not even trust myself. Who could we trust? It was such an important thing that King James had it worked on by 50 men, all of whom would put our best scholars to shame today, and they had thousands of manuscripts, earlier translations and other writings at their disposal.  As opposed to the new versions that had TWO men, and both apostates by their own mouths, using only TWO primary texts, one questionable due to its origin, (Vaticanus) and the other questionable as to its authenticity AS an ancient text.

No, all things considered, we have an excellent translation, which has overseen many revivals and countless souls saved-better to STUDY to shew ourselves approved unto God, rather than to dumb it down and take a chance of doing great damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

I use the KJV. You have but to compare the others in English to see that other versions are detracting from basic doctrine in subtle ways. If we don't understand something we should wait on the Lord (through the Holy Spirit)  to come to a proper understanding. By looking to something besides the source we open the door to changing the basic text to fit what we can accept in our human minds or being drawn to what some one else thinks (not to say someone else does not have the right answer sometimes). We can consider what light someone else can shed on a subject but need to be convinced in our own hearts and minds to form a solid conviction about any given subject based on God's word.

If I was charged with a serious crime I would want a lawyer who knows what the law says as opposed to a para legal who just knows parts of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • Members

I use the King James Version but I don't know what edition it is. I do know its not 1611 after seeing what they look like. I had no idea the 1611 had went through so many changes over the years. I wish Cambridge or Oxford would update it again with a version for those of us in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The differences are not what they seem.  Most were to correct printing errors and spelling changes and textual changes.  As Sam Gipp says, it's been purified.

Most KJV bible's today are based on the 1769 Oxford edition.  Mine own happens to be a 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Scrivener.

A little over two years ago there was a fella here whose name escapes me now that was doing a comparison of changes between the two above and modern publishers reprints.  Several of us here at OB noticed that the publishers were changing some words to conform with the MVs.

I have since been watching David W. Daniels of Chick Publications excellent research regarding the Critical Text and Septuagint.  In short, they are frauds which never existed until the 1840s.  There is ZERO evidence of the Septuagint during bible times and we know that Jesus and Paul quoted from the Masoretic Text.

I am King James Only because the Holy Spirit burdened my heart relentlessly to put God's preserved Word in my hands.  Anything else will be found wanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).

 

Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.

I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.

It is indeed from good stock but it wasn't the finished work, the final preservation of God' perfect Word in the English.  The Authorized Version is God's preserved Word and since the two are not in complete agreement, the Geneva bible must be rejected for that which has been purified and made perfect.

For a short time I was a Geneva bible man, but the Holy Ghost was patient with me and showed me that the King James Bible is God's perfect and preserved Word.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...