Why do some only accept KJV?

[clayton]

I don't get it. Why do some folks only accept the KJV of the Bible. Do they really think God only led King James to rightly interpret scriptures. If so what do they base this on?

[Redeemed777]

when the bible was interperated into english it was made into king james form.
these other versions are makeing new versions based off of the king James version because these companies want to translate the bible different so readers can uderstand but its just watering down the meaning of the bible
I mean compare some of the verses in king James compared to New International version.... you will see that there is some pretty big differences
expecialy the words some times have differnt meanings

[Tamara224]

when the bible was interperated into english it was made into king james form.
these other versions are makeing new versions based off of the king James version because these companies want to translate the bible different so readers can uderstand but its just watering down the meaning of the bible
I mean compare some of the verses in king James compared to New International version.... you will see that there is some pretty big differences
expecialy the words some times have differnt meanings

That's actually not true about (most of) the versions out there. The translators do not start with the KJV and modernize it from there. They start with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and do it all over again. For most of them, they do not even glance at the KJV. Each version you will find has been carefully studied by a team of translators. Open the front of any Bible and you should find a description about who did the translating and what their methodology was (i.e. focus on readability or focus on full meaning, etc).
Furthermore, many versions are more accurate than KJV because modern scholarship has more information and ancient texts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) available for help in translation.

[clayton]

Redeemed 777 you need to know that other versions of the Bible, such as the Revised English Bible that I read, are not revisions of the KJV. They are interpretations of the original texts just like the KJV is an interpretation of the original texts. The question is why do people think that the KJV is better. I think the more modern translations are easier to understand and so are better.

[Redeemed777]

ooooooooooooh
ladies and Gentlemen there is a lessen to be learned here(dont post about something you dont know about)!!!!
sorry veiwers
and thank you tamarra

[Redeemed777]

yea sorry like i said i reel pretty bad now
hehehe sorry and thank you updateing my knowledge
love you guys and be patient with me
love

[Tamara224]

That's cool Redeemed...We all put our feet in our mouths at one point or another. I'm impressed by your humility. Being able to admit when we're wrong is very hard to do. Thanks!

[Tamara224]

I don't get it. Why do some folks only accept the KJV of the Bible. Do they really think God only led King James to rightly interpret scriptures. If so what do they base this on?

Clayton, although Redeemed has now retracted his/her original statement, it makes me wonder ... Maybe that misconception is the reason many people only accept KJV. I've wondered that myself - I don't understand why they think the KJV is the only valid translation. Maybe they think the others are 'watering it down' because they have the same misunderstanding about the translation process?

[clayton]

Is it possible that some people who grow up with the KJV and its style come to feel that anything else is a perversion of God's word. As if God really says thee and thou when he talks to the angels.

[Rylee]

I was raised in a Baptist church, and all we read was the KJV, that's really all that was accepted. However, now that I'm an adult and am able to make my own choices, I prefer the NIV, mainly because it's easier for me to understand as I'm trying to learn more and more.

[Godsent]

I don't get it. Why do some folks only accept the KJV of the Bible. Do they really think God only led King James to rightly interpret scriptures. If so what do they base this on?
I think some peope have grown so accustomed to KJV they keep close to only that one while others just feel that other versions delete verses that were in the KJV and that some verses are taken out of context. As for me i will stand by my KJV any day of the week and i use the other versions for comparision and indepth studies cuz i agree sometimes u have to look to a diff version of the bible to get to an understanding of a verse.

[CheeseKing]

Well, there are different reasons...I personally read NKJV, but I find KJV, to be more accurate. KJV, tends to speak on a specific stance. One example is 1 corinthians 13. Many versions would say love. KJV speaks of charity, a type of love. It isn't agape love or aros, it was specific on the type. Another thing that gets me is a part in 1 John 4:10, as well as other parts. KJV says propitiation, but other bibles would say expiation. I would argue against the other interpretations...Exodus 21 has been interpretted to say miscarriages, rather then, what I belive KJV has interpretted better.

[sisterinJesus]

when the bible was interperated into english it was made into king james form.

Hi R777,
That's not exactly correct about the first English translation being the King James :-)
Actually, the first English translation was translated by John Wycliffe and 44 years after his death the pope (at that time) had his bones burned along with all the copies of the Wycliffe bibles. He was known as the "Morning star of Reformation". You see, he was considered a rebel, long before Martin Luther was, because he taught against what the Catholic church was teaching. He believed that the Catholic church was guilty of abuse of God's word and they were false teachers. Wycliffe believed that all of God's people should be able to understand the bible but this made the Catholic church very angry because they only wanted it to be presented in Latin. Unfortunately, only the rich could understand Latin and the church told the others that the priest would TELL them what the Bible and that they were not to read it because they didn't have the knowledge from God to understand it. Hmm..sounds like a 'power trip' to me on the part of the priests, the bishops, the pope.
My father-in-law is in his 70's and was raised Catholic and he has told me that even as a young alter boy, the Bible was only preached in Latin. They were all told the same thing...that they were NOT to read it for themselves because they would have no understanding. Thank God, that has been changed, they now use English. It would be interesting to look-up when the Catholic church started preaching in english...I suppose it has only been in the past 60 years or so.
But anyway, that is your history lesson for today...lol :)
If you want to read more, here is the link:
http://www.wycliffe.org/history/BibleTranslation.htm

After Wycliffe, came Tyndale, who was ordered by the Pope to burned to death. Then King James. King James was also threatened by the Catholic church. Roman clerics tried to kill him more than once. I find the history all very interesting. It's worth looking up online and reading about what great strength (we all know that their strength came from God) it took these Godly men to have the english Word that we now read.

[brenn]

not so dear, you don't need to go to any other version to get understanding of a verse. it is no unknown fact that the other versions delete and change text and verses so how could you trust their explanation. they omit and change because they want to diminish Gods diety and bring people to an new age belief. just go to the library and compare verses in the different versions. You will be amazed at how much is deleted.
as for studying ,I mentioned this in another post get a Strongs concordance and an 1828 Websters dictionary. both are available free online and study.
God Bless
brenn

[m.o.m.]

CheeseKing, would you argue against other interpretations because you have studied the origianl Greek and Hebrew meaning or because you've grown up with the KJV and know it to be true in your heart.

What bothers me about all these KJV only arguements is that they look to the KJV as the authority to measure all the others against. It was not a perfect translation either.

I love the poetry of the King James Version, but it was translated so that the common English speaking man could interpret it for himself -- why is it wrong to do the same thing today -- afterall, isn't it the Holy Spirit that gives the interpretation? I believe he can communicate to us no matter what the words are.

I spent my teenage years reading the Living Bible. I knew it was a paraphrase and not a translation, but it truly got me into reading God's word. Do I reccomend it for in depth study -- No! Did the Holy Spirit of God speak to me, teach me, and move me through the reading -- Most definitely!!!

I am for God's word being shared in any way possible. The Spirit will do the work that follows.

m.o.m.

[Godsent]

I have a strongs concordance/smiths dictionary and a strongs dictionary and a great study bible. Please take notice that my post was awhile back before i took notice to a lot of the verses that were delted from version to version. ;)

[Rylee]

not so dear, you don't need to go to any other version to get understanding of a verse.
Actually, that's not a fact, just your opinion... if I read the KJV and there's a verse I don't understand, most of the time the NIV will clear it up for me.

As far as verses being "deleted", I thought they were just altered....

[jmj81376]

Rylee, depending on the version, some versions omit words and some omit complete verses. It just depends on what versions you look at.

[Rylee]

...how can it be that versions omit entire verses when the number of the verse is still shown? What is written in place of the omitted verse?

[jmj81376]

Nothing. Sometimes they have a footnote or something saying that the verse "was not in actual manuscripts" or something like that.
Check out this site...it compares some versions. There are others out there as well.
www.seekgod.ca/chart5.htm

[Rylee]

This is the kind of proof I was looking for I suppose... thank you for the website Jaime. ;)

[Rufus]

...how can it be that versions omit entire verses when the number of the verse is still shown? What is written in place of the omitted verse?

They just skip the verse...poof...there goes the Word of God. I'll use the NIV as an example as it is the most popular but this type of thing applies to most of the other Alexandrian Bibles (except for the NKJV which is another topic altogether).

Matthew 17 goes from verse 20 to verse 22. If you search for Matthew 17:21("But this kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting) on Biblegateway in the NIV you will get "No Results Found". I have a 1992 NIV that includes a footnote for this verse. However, if the reader does not pause to note the little cross-reference letter then they are apt to skip right past it and miss this important spiritual warfare verse on prayer and fasting.

Then there are verses such as Mark 7:16 ("If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.") that are taken away and not footnoted. The only way the reader will know this verse has been removed is if they notice that they just read verse 15 and the next verse skipped to 17. If and when they realize this, they will have to go get another Bible to figure out what they missed out on.

[m.o.m.]

CK, was there an incomplete thought in your Exodus 21 statement. I found Exodus 21:22 where NAS said miscarriage and KJV said "her fruit shall depart from her." I truly do not see a difference in meaning here. Let me know?

Also, both KJV and NAS say propitiation in I John 4:10. NIV says "atonement."
I looked up the meaning of those words: Propitiation means conciliation or appeasement (especially as an act of concilation to a god). Expiation means atonement or the means of atonement. Atonement means amends or reparations made for an injury or wrong. archaic meaning of atone -- to conciliate or appease. Where is the difference here?

I don't know how to check the greek words, I'm afraid, so I can't speak to your example about charity vs. love.

I do not argue, that there are some significant differences in the KJV and other versions, CK, but some of the ones you have chosen here seem weak to me.

Thanks for making me think and study. :)

Your sister in Christ,

m.o.m.

[m.o.m.]

Actually, Rufus, in my 1978 published version of the NIV, the omission of this verse is footnoted. In the NAS it is included in brackets with the note that this verse is not included in many manuscripts. This also holds true for your Matthew 17:21 example in both these versions.

Again, my contention is not that there are not differences, but that the fallacy of this arguement is that the KJV is the test of what all others should be. It was not a perfect translation -- no translation is.

Thanks again for encouraging me to study. :)

Your sister in Christ,

m.o.m.

[m.o.m.]

Rylee, I encourage you to read the thread on this chat board entitled "A case for the King ..." There is very good information on both sides of this arguement and the discussion is still unfolding. It certainly has sent me to study more.

m.o.m.

[Rufus]

Actually, Rufus, in my 1978 published version of the NIV, the omission of this verse is footnoted. In the NAS it is included in brackets with the note that this verse is not included in many manuscripts. This also holds true for your Matthew 17:21 example in both these versions.

I do not doubt that you are correct M.O.M. Like the New World Translation, I suspect that with each New New International Version these footnotes will gradually disappear and they will not be mentioned at all. If any one has a TNIV I would love to hear how footnotes are addressed in this version.

[blueheron32]

CK, was there an incomplete thought in your Exodus 21 statement. I found Exodus 21:22 where NAS said miscarriage and KJV said "her fruit shall depart from her." I truly do not see a difference in meaning here. Let me know?

Mom.. The difference here between how these two translations translate this statement to me is as follows..

Jesus said, that man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God...

Now if God said every word is important, then our translation should as much as possible contain every word. God did not say every thought, he said every word. A translators job, is to translate the words of one language, into the words of another language. His job is not to exchange words written in one language, for "thoughts" he thinks God is trying to communicate, into another language. That is the Job of the interpreter, the one who is reading the words, or the one who is explaining the meaning of the words God has spoken.

The other day, I did a word study, on the word "seed" as it is found in the bible...In order to know how God uses the word seed, it is necessary to find every occurance of it and examine each one individually to understand what God is teaching concerning that term. If the translator decides I dont need to know the words and instead decides to just give me the thoughts he thinks God meant for me to have....I have lost the ability to search out all those words. I have lost the meaning God intended for me to see in the words he actually did use.

Exo 21:22 If3588 men376 strive,5327 and hurt5062 a woman802 with child,2030 so that her fruit3206 depart3318 from her, and yet no3808 mischief611 follow:1961 he shall be surely punished,6064, 6064 according as834 the woman's802 husband1167 will lay7896 upon5921 him; and he shall pay5414 as the judges6414 determine.

If you look at that verse above, you can see that, while yes, miscarriage may convey the same thought, it does not convey the same richness of meaning that, we see when the two words are given seperately... fruit depart... And if you wanted to do a word study on either of these two words, how would you go about it.?? The NIV with their so called "translation" method have covered them up... you would have to go to the KJV, and a strongs to find them...

Though I agree that the KJV is not a perfect translation, Because it is a word for word translation, it is far superior to most of the newer translations. It should be noted that the translators of the KJV depended heavily on other english bibles that were published before it, like the Geneva bible, and simply copied sizable portions in their Translation. It gives one the pleasure of enjoying..."every word" that proceeds from the mouth of God... it is a healthy, well balanced spiritual diet, dont you think...:-)

blueheron32