Why KJV?

After reading several discussion on this board, I have seen a trend. There seems to be a deep reliance on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God", and any other version is being dismissed as inaccurate or insufficient. (Which, this seems to me as being a dangerous position to occupy as such would give the bible more authority than the Spirit and thus deny the power of the Spirit.)And so, I would like to know why this is? Why do you (if this is you), rely on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God"? Why do you only trust the KJV of the bible?

I have to admit that I'm NOT one of the many KJV fans because I find myself having to guess at the meaning too many times. I don't speak or understand the old language, even though it may be very accurate. I'm not a very good reader. I have been using the NIV (and sometimes a few others, and Strongs, Vines, etc) - doing word studies with it. I put my studies on my web site, and I sure would like to know if my use of the NIV has caused me to stray or be inaccurate. I invite anyone to check my site and let me know where I am off. I don't mind. I agree that we need the Spirit to make God's truths understood. They must be SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.It would be interesting to know if various versions have led people off track more than others. Can anyone ever assess that objectively!!! If spiritual fruit is an indication of the accuracy of one's Bible, then maybe the Chinese bible is one of the most accurate. Yet in their persecution, many would only have a few pages at a time. James 1:13 "...by his own evil desires he is dragged away and enticed". Also, sripture says that people are led away when they follow after a man - false prophet etc, or by sticking to one truth while omitting others. (straining the gnat)Just my own opinions....... Diane

Hi Blake,After reading several discussion on this board, I have seen a trend. There seems to be a deep reliance on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God"I would have to disagree with you. If the general consensus on SI was that the KJV was the only authoritative Bible, then the plethora of discussions and debates--and arguments--would not exist on this forum. True there is probably a highly held opinion among many of the members here of the KJV translation, even among those who would debate with our KJV only brothers on SI.And so, I would like to know why this is? Why do you (if this is you), rely on the KJV as the only authoritative "Word of God"? Why do you only trust the KJV of the bible?Once again I would GREATLY encourage you to search the forum and re-read the threads pertaining to this subject and this question will be more than answered without having to start a whole new thread on this subject.In Christ,Jeremy Hulseyedit: I guess I should have read Krispy's post first...lol. It would have made my post a lot simpler. I would only have had to type, "Yeah, what Krispy said." 8-)

Who is the morning star according to the NIV?In Isaiah, it is Lucifer. In Revelation it is Christ.What is Christ referred to in the NKJV?The Coming One. All the new-agers are looking for the Coming One. Just do the web search.Just compare and see for yourself. Don't rely on anyone's opinion. Honestly compare verse for verse for a few weeks. Study what happened in history as a result of what version. Study what Greek text was under attack, and what version is under more heat to be 'phased out.' Don't trust any of us. The Spirit will guide you into all truth. The first thing to understand is that what we call 'Christianity' today doesn't hold a candle to the New Testament. So anyone's take is just another opinion. Do the research yourself.

I was wondering with all the debate started up about the King James, are there actually any KJV ONLY people on SI, i would define myself as a KJV preferer, but not a KJV only person, i am quite happy to consider/compare/study other translations, but like i said i prefer the KJV.

Hi Krispy...!I think that there may be a miscommunication, misconception or improper generalization of those who are not KJV-only. I totally agree that there are several degrees of seperation between those who prefer the common KJV (1769 edition) and those who are quite vocal concerning their opposition to other translations. Your assessment of the different beliefs of adherents of KJV-only is quite fair. However, there are also several degrees of seperation for those who are not KJV-only. It would only be fair to consider their beliefs as well.There are those who would receive any translation or version of the Bible without question. Unfortunately, it is dangerous to accept any "translation" or "version" on blind faith. There are "translations" of the Bible that are fundamentally flawed -- like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's "translation" was meant to preserve the particular beliefs of that sect (like rejection of the trinity). There are also modern versions of the Bible that are merely paraphrased editions of earlier translations. An example would be The Living Bible, which was a paraphrase of the American Standard Version by Kenneth Taylor. Of course, it is the interpretation of a single man, and contains controversial usage (like the infamous "Barney the Preacher" term in Acts 4:36). There are groups who accept a version of the Bible based upon the good faith placed in it by another person or spiritual leader. Their pastor may preach that the NIV, NKJV, ASV, or even the KJV is a good translation, and that is good enough for them. Again, this is dangerous because the pastor or leader (despite their seemingly good intentions) is still a flawed human being. They may just be stating second-hand or third-hand knowledge that they were taught (by their pastor or in Bible School). Pardon the old anecdote, but this is like tuning a piano with another piano. You may end up with two out-of-tune pianos. There is another group of individuals who have received serious instruction and read books about the reliability of certain non-KJV (or even KJV) translations. Thus, they accept certain other versions that they deem to be acceptable. The danger in this is that such instruction or books also contain secondhand knowledge. Regardless of how spiritual or academically sounding their argument may be (or how sincere the giver of such knowledge is), the fact remains that the information given is still coming from a secondhand source. There is alot of "authoritative-sounding" but prejudiced material readily available concerning Bible translations (especially online). Because of such pre-existing prejudices for or against certain translations, the judgment can be tainted. Such sources should be used carefully, and not for the purpose of using as "proof" to reinforce a pre-existing argument. There are also those who have sincerely and thoroughly considered the matter. These individuals have heard both sides of the argument, and have searched for the truth. They have researched the arguments presented (without prejudice), and have attempted to find source material concerning the matter. Unfortunately, the greatest "source material" is the original text from which the translations are taken (such as the "Textus Receptus"). Even if they had access to original manuscripts, few (if any) researchers can read the original ancient Hebrew or Greek text. Thus, they are confined to study the history of, intent of, methods for, and instructions given to the translators. With such stringent instruction given to the Catholic translators of the KJV by the Roman Catholic clergy and Catholic King James, some debate remains concerning the "infallibility" of this translation.Just like there are extremist KJV-only groups, it is possible that there are also extremist non-KJV groups. But it seems that most of the non KJV-only groups recognize the validity of the KJV (both the original and the subsequent translations). Its just that they also accept other translations as well. Sometimes, they view the KJV as a good translation, but they view it's old-English grammar, terminology and usage as just slightly dated -- and thus it is difficult to understand or comprehend by current day English-speakers (especially non-believers). "There are so many resources out there to help us understand the extremely small percentage of archaic words in the KJV... beginning with the dictionary. Many of these resources are available for free online. Some dont want to be bothered with having to look things up... but whats the problem with making oneself a better reader and studier of the Word? It can only make oneself stronger."While this is true, it is completely against the intent of the KJV translators. In their preface to the KJV, the translators stated that they wanted to produce a version of the Bible in the language of the common-man. Most people (outside of serious believers) do not own Bible dictionaries or dictionaries that explain 17th century English grammar usage. I have noticed that when sharing Scripture from the King James Version, I am often asked, "What does that mean?" by both the saved and unsaved. I am thus forced to offer commentary, which again is contrary to the desire and intent of the translators. They hoped for a translation that was commonly understood by all."The KJV is by far more accurate because it is based upon what many of us here believe is a superior stream of greek text. The KJV and the modern versions are based upon completely different texts. This is something that most people do not understand. They believe the myth propogated by the publi$hing comanpie$ that the only difference is between old English and modern English... and that is a lie."Perhaps it is not wise to make such an open-ended remark. It may have been better to state, "Some of us here at SermonIndex are of the persuasion that the KJV is far more accurate..." There are alot of people here at SermonIndex. And it is unknown just how many hold to the KJV-only persuasion. Just because others may not be as vocal or post as often, they still are a part of this community of believers. Some may be frightened of conflict, or have been bombarded with contradictory comments after having stated a belief or opinion. And of course, alot of non KJV-only people (including here at SermonIndex) realize that the KJV is based on some other texts and former translations than some other versions. However, to say that our beliefs rely on the "myths propogated by the publi$hing comanpie$" is simply untrue. There are many of us that have diligently, honestly and sincerely researched this matter and have simply arrived to a different conclusion that the others. It can be quite dangerous to have a believe-me-or-you-are-believing-a-lie or I'm-right-and-you're-sadly-misguided type of attitude in this matter. Such an attitude is often viewed as prideful or arrogant by those who disagree. Instead, people should be encouraged to make up their own mind on the matter through intense study. Perhaps a better thread for such a topic is not "Why KJV?." Perhaps it would be better to lay the axe to the root about the source texts through which other translations were taken, rather than comparisons between the KJV and other versions. Perhaps it would be helpful for those who believe one way or the other to offer the source material for which they based their beliefs (such as the source information that they found regarding the "Received Text," "Alexandrian Text," etc...). There is also first-hand material available from the translators themselves (through the instructions, preface, intent, etc...). Such material may be helpful to those who are eagerly and honestly searching for the truth. We are all on a journey looking toward our same destination (to be closer to the Lord -- and to know the Truth). There are several areas of belief that are debated here at SermonIndex. From discussions about Judgment, Spiritual Gifts and Music -- we do not all believe the same way. I pray that we can humbly encourage one another (including those with whom we disagree) with all sincerity and devoted love that is evident to all. :-)

2 Pet 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 1 Peter 1:10As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.Acts 3:18"But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled"2 Sam 23:2"The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me,And His word was on my tongue."How could a prophet prophecy his God's message by inspiration, using his own thoughts and words, if he did not always know what he was writing about?Scripture is clear: THE WORD is Jesus, and the word is the Scriptures:our Bible. To assume that this one english word can only mean Jesus, HS, and not the Scriptures is bad interpretation.John 15:7"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for youJohn 8:31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."Jesus said if His word abides in us, then we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free. What is His word? The Spirit abiding in us, and HIS COMMANDMENTS abiding in us (JOhn 14:15; 1 John 2:4)

Hi Krispy...!Thanks for the reproof about my remarks concerning the translators or King James himself being "Catholic" in belief. It has been a little while since I read in this, but I was under the impression that he had "made peace" with the Roman Church. But you are correct in that he was indeed a rather spiritually-questionable man, and his conflict with the Puritans and other religious groups is well documented. However, whether or not King James and the translators were indeed Anglican or Catholic is quite insignificant (some might argue that the Anglican Church was even more corrupt than the Roman Catholic Church because of the events concerning its conception) when considering what was still quite strigent and questionable instructions concerning the translation itself by the major clergy. These instructions were included in the words of the translators themselves. "I understand what you are saying. However, for me this is not an issue of pride. I am vey confident about my convictions and what I percieve the truth to be. My motivation is to encourage and point people in the direction of truth. If it is misunderstood as pride or a bad attitude... well, from experience I can tell you that no matter how you stand for truth, someone isnt going to like it."Krispy, I know that you are a very sincere man of God. But again, it appears that you are saying that you hold the truth in this matter, and thus, you are the one standing for truth. These very comments, no matter how sincere or misunderstood, still reflect an "I-am-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong" type of attitude. Such attitudes can mistakenly be viewed as pompous or arrogantly self-righteous. We must be patient with those who disagree with us, with the hope of edifying one another in the Lord. Besides, if we are gently honest, we may actually learn something from one another. There are those of us who have sincerely and intensely studied this issue (yes, even though I included the words about catholicism) and still do not agree with your opinion concerning this matter. Yes, facts are facts. But some of the facts that are provided through the "great translation debate" are from second-hand sources. We too believe that we are standing for truth on this issue, but we believe that all such issues are open for study and debate. A person must be allowed the room to make their own decision on this issue (or any issue of doctrine), instead of having it presented to them by a second-hand authority. This is so contrary to the intent of having a version of the Bible that is commonly understood -- rather than explained by other sources.There are many of us on this board that have sincerely searched this issue and still disagree (or don't fully agree) with all of the "evidence" that has been presented by the various KJV-only arguments. No one has the authority to say that one group is entirely wrong in this matter. I believe that we should be careful to say, "It is my belief" or "my persuasion" concerning the issue, rather than exhibiting a "this is the truth -- believe it or else" or "if you really studied, you would realize that I am right" type of attitude. The best thing to do is to present the facts (again, not from second-hand sources), and be patient enough to allow others to come to form their own set of beliefs. In the end, they may or may not agree with you.But that is still okay. There are alot of controversial issues that are discussed in these threads. Some may disagree on this subject, or on the subject of music, or "eternal security," or judgment, or spiritual gifts, or Bible prophecy, etc... The point is that no one is an all-knowing authority on this board. Not everyone will agree on such issues. But that is still okay. We do not all have to agree on every matter -- just on the issues that bind us together as believers.Let's humbly encourage one another in our search for truth! :-)

I studied Biblical Greek in College and we translated the greek text and the KJV seemed to be the closest to what we translated it... BUT, our teacher said that the NASB was more close to the actual greek text... Hmmm...In Christ,Doug Renz

Hi dougkristen...!That is very interesting. Which greek text was it that you were translating while in college? And since you have studied this in college, how many actual greek texts are available for research today?Thanks for any help you can give on this matter! :-)

Dear Krispy,Out of curiosity, how do you know which greek text is more authentic? Blake

Dear Chris,I agree with your post. It was beautifully written. Yes, let us be humble. And the "us" certainly includes me. I need to be humbled every day just the same. Blake