ECT Why I prefer the KJV.

[Cross Reference]

Most all on Christian forums have always believed for he veracity of this verse:


"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."
Luke 9:56 (KJV)


Read it in a just about any other modern supposedly more "accurate" translation and see what you come up with..

Do the same with Matt 18:11 KJV.

 

[turbosixx]

Most all on Christian forums have always believed for he veracity of this verse:


"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."
Luke 9:56 (KJV)

Read it in a just about any other modern supposedly more "accurate" translation and see what you come up with..

Do the same with Matt 18:11 KJV.

I'm not seeing your point. NASB reads the same.

56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village. NASB



I agree there are some bad newer versions but not all. The KJV is merely a word for word translation from the original Greek into English but it's not the only one. While I think it's a great version I don't solely rely on it because the Kings English is different than what we use today. There are some that base their version of truth on the KJV because to use a modern version would destroy their “truth”. For example:

2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV

15…. accurately handling the word of truth. NASB

Is Paul telling Timothy Christ is divided or study to accurately handle the word?

The Greek word used means to cut straight not divide. There is a Greek word for divide but it’s not used here.
orthotomeó: to cut straight
Original Word: ὀρθοτομέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: orthotomeó
Phonetic Spelling: (or-thot-om-eh'-o)
Short Definition: I cut straight, handle correctly
Definition: I cut straight; met: I handle correctly, teach rightly.

 

[Cross Reference]

I'm not seeing your point. NASB reads the same.

56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village. NASB

Good! I am happy for you. However, did I say ALL???? Here, for clarities sake:


"Read it in a just about any other modern supposedly more "accurate" translations and see what you come up with".. It was an invitation, not an accusation.

Do the same with Matt 18:11 KJV."

I see you didn't handle Matt 18:11. Why not?

 

[turbosixx]

However, did I say ALL????

No you didn't. I was just wondering why you preferred it when newer versions do a better job of translating the original Greek into language that is easier for us to understand. I don't trust versiions that aren't word for word.

I see you didn't handle Matt 18:11. Why not?

Because the NASB basically says the same thing as the KJV. I looked at the NIV and it didn't have the verse but a note that some manuscripts had the words of Luke 19:10 here.

Any versions in particular you disagree with?

 

[lifeisgood]

One of the reasons I love the KJV is because of the, e.g., thee and ye. Just a couple of examples:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7) (two groups of people being addressed)

Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ (John 3:7) (implies only Nicodemus being addressed)

===

And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? (Ex. 16:28)(addressing the people)

How the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse you to keep My Commandments and My Laws? (Ex. 16:28). (implies Moses was not keeping the laws and commandments of the Lord)

There is a reason for the ye and the thou, etc., even though, if I understand correctly, people at that time did not speak with the 'ye' and the 'thou', etc.

I wish we in our modern times, had a ye and a thou, etc. so that when explaining something to someone they would understand that 'you' (not you who are reading this) are not accusing them of something.

=====

For ME these verses you provided have totally two different meanings as translated.
For ME, ‘rightly dividing’ has to do with separating things into small chunks so that my brain can grasp it.
For ME ‘accurately handling’ has to do with the AFTER I have ‘rightly divided’ already.

2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV

15…. accurately handling the word of truth. NASB

====

I did not find Matt 18:11 in many of the modern Bibles.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cross Reference]

No you didn't. I was just wondering why you preferred it when newer versions do a better job of translating the original Greek into language that is easier for us to understand. I don't trust versiions that aren't word for word.

Why do say that except they are simply easier to read that you prefer them?

Because the NASB basically says the same thing as the KJV. I looked at the NIV and it didn't have the verse but a note that some manuscripts had the words of Luke 19:10 here.

So which one is more accurate, speaks the most to you? Even the BBE says it better than the NIV.

Any versions in particular you disagree with?

Yes. Those that don't properly use prepositions and conjunctives to make the verse say what the KJV authors were inspired to write for the substance they spell out. Here is my favorite example:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 (KJV)

The same verse in you NASB:

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Galatians 2:20 (NASB)
BIG difference!

Try it out in your NIV, ESV, AMP. If and easy read is what you prefer then the BBE would be my selection. [Bible in Basic English]

 

[Cross Reference]

One of the reasons I love the KJV is because of the, e.g., thee and ye. Just a couple of examples:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7) (two groups of people being addressed)

Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ (John 3:7) (implies only Nicodemus being addressed)

But he was. . It is insignicant because the implication was made in the prior verses that have Jesus speaking to everyone.. "Except a one be born again . . "

===

And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? (Ex. 16:28)(addressing the people)

How the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse you to keep My Commandments and My Laws? (Ex. 16:28). (implies Moses was not keeping the laws and commandments of the Lord)

There is a reason for the ye and the thou, etc., even though, if I understand correctly, people at that time did not speak with the 'ye' and the 'thou', etc.

I wish we in our modern times, had a ye and a thou, etc. so that when explaining something to someone they would understand that 'you' (not you who are reading this) are not accusing them of something.

For that I am grateful to the mordern translations because the "you" equates Mose with the people that kept Moses in a proper attitude of responsibility, i.e., "humble"?

=====

For ME these verses you provided have totally two different meanings as translated.
For ME, ‘rightly dividing’ has to do with separating things into small chunks so that my brain can grasp it.
For ME ‘accurately handling’ has to do with the AFTER I have ‘rightly divided’ already.

2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV

15…. accurately handling the word of truth. NASB

For me the KJV opens all the possibilities of learning what is written; what saith the Lord because it requires more than one's mind to comprehend that which God would have comprehended. It is all there to be unlocked but only by being born again and baptized with the Holy Spirit that the living Word can then make real to us the written word that Jesus lived by.

That is just my .02 .

 

[turbosixx]

Why do say that except they are simply easier to read that you prefer them?

Just because they’re easier to read doesn’t’ mean they’re not accurate. Some of the newer versions do a better job of translating than the KJV. It might be because of culture. If someone from the 17th century tried to read our modern versions, I’m sure they would have a more difficult time understanding it verses the KJV and I believe the reverse is equally true as well.

the KJV authors were inspired to write

Where do you see them getting their inspiration?

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 (KJV)

The same verse in you NASB:

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Galatians 2:20 (NASB)
BIG difference!

You’re going to have to point out the difference you see. If you’re talking about “by the faith of” verses “by faith in”, I would suggest the NASB is better for us today.

I looked at the original Greek and that verse is a little confusing so I found others that have the same wording, here is one example.

Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: KJV

22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; NASB

When we look at the original Greek, the prep in front of Jesus isn’t there so the translators added it to make it flow.
Back in the 1600’s “of” must have made more since to them but today “in” makes more sense.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom3.pdf
Strongs G2424
Iésous: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr.
Original Word: Ἰησοῦς, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Iésous
Phonetic Spelling: (ee-ay-sooce')
Short Definition: Jesus
Definition: Jesus; the Greek form of Joshua; Jesus, son of Eliezer; Jesus, surnamed Justus.

We have to have faith for without it we cannot please God.
Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

If I’m off track here, let me know.

 

[turbosixx]

So which one is more accurate, speaks the most to you?

If the KJV is the only version we can trust, what about the rest of the non-English speaking world?

Here are some other examples of why I don’t think it’s a good idea to trust only the KJV. Some build doctrine based on the KJV rendering and reject the newer versions.

In this example the KJV uses two different words for the same Greek word. Since the KJV uses first in v.16 instead of “chief” or “foremost”, some use this to prove that Paul was the first Christian. I believe the NASB does a better job.

1 Tim. 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. KJV

15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. NASB


Here is another example where the original Greek uses two different words but the KJV uses one word for “fall” which makes is a little confusing.

Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. KJV

11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

When I hear people pray and use "thee" and "thou" I sometimes wonder if they believe that Jesus spoke like that or that the Kings English is God's language. It's a great translation but it's not the only great translation. Right now I mainly use the NASB and I do reference the KJV as well. Those are the two I trust the most.

 

[Cross Reference]

If the KJV is the only version we can trust, what about the rest of the non-English speaking world?

Here are some other examples of why I don’t think it’s a good idea to trust only the KJV. Some build doctrine based on the KJV rendering and reject the newer versions.

My trust is in God. The modern versions attempt to strip us of the need for insight by their supposedly more accurate rendering of what is written for our 'better' understanding.

Lay off the thee and thou issue because that is simply an excuse to excuse one from paying the price for insight. I have learned to read the KJV without using them.

 

[Cross Reference]

Just because they’re easier to read doesn’t’ mean they’re not accurate. Some of the newer versions do a better job of translating than the KJV.

Why the need to translate a translation unless one doesn't or perhaps doesn't want to agree with it?

It might be because of culture. If someone from the 17th century tried to read our modern versions, I’m sure they would have a more difficult time understanding it verses the KJV and I believe the reverse is equally true as well.

Perhaps an untoward culture?

Where do you see them getting their inspiration?

Holy Spirit. New translations make every attempt to make unnecessary His insight..

You’re going to have to point out the difference you see. If you’re talking about “by the faith of” verses “by faith in”, I would suggest the NASB is better for us today.

I looked at the original Greek and that verse is a little confusing so I found others that have the same wording, here is one example.

Ah yes, confusing. How come?

Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: KJV

Paul said he lived by the faith OF Christ Jesus, the Son of God. Do you believe if a man did that he would have to worry about the quality/power/intimacy of his own faith?

22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; NASB

Can you see the word "believe" being the operative word? If you can then question becomes: "who is a believer"? What does it really mean to believe? How 'bout it means, "abandoning oneself to God"? Do you think Paul was a believer? Are you a believer?

When we look at the original Greek, the prep in front of Jesus isn’t there so the translators added it to make it flow.

Who added it?? Isn't every Bible translation an opinion about what was originally written of the accounts; an attempt to better convey what THEY assumed was the intent of the message? Now, which translation is the one best in attempting to convey the richness of the written word; intimacy with God.

Back in the 1600’s “of” must have made more since to them but today “in” makes more sense.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom3.pdf
Strongs G2424

Then why change the "of" to "in"? Does it make it easier to understand? NO. I believe if the KJV tanslators had the choice bewteen the preps they chose "of" for a reason that better expresses their conveyence of the message. The object is what is changed at the expense of intimacy, accuracy and example to be attained unto son-ship in the Father. That is why, without the Holy Spirit, the KJV may seem to most to be archaic.

We have to have faith for without it we cannot please God.

And whose faith should we strive for, ours or His? When we arrive at His will we not find ourselves in His Kingdom? Is your faith strong enough to enter it without His life living from you?

Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Again, the operative word "believe" for which our testings by God will reveal what we are made of.

If I’m off track here, let me know.

I "believe" you are but lets both stay open to be rectified in our thinking these things through and be ready for an answer to anyone as to why we walk the path we have chosen for our understanding.. . . Greek or Holy Spirit? [perhaps Greek with the Holy Spirit would be better. . .') . . []

I enjoyed the challenge to me to explain what I "believe" I understand. I trust it has been a help to you or anyone reading it.

 

[Clete]

"Why I Prefer the KJV" is an excellent title for a thread. People who prefer one translation over another don't bother me a bit. It's the ones that try to tell me what I should prefer that I can't take. Your title at least acknowledges that the truth can be found and understood in something other than the King James Bible and focuses the discussion on the KJV strengths rather than trapping you into defending against issues that rabid KJV only people are instantly trapped into defending against.

Incidentally, my preference is the NKJV. It's simply easier to read and understand than is the KJV.

Did you happen to read through the latest Battle Royale? If not you aught to do so. It's brilliant.


Battle Royale XIV: Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

Thanks Clete. FWIW, I have over 10-15 translations and use the one that best expresses what I "believe". I would only add that we owe to both God and ourselves to place the translations, we have been the privileged to possess, up against themselves to examine what is to be gained or lost to our understanding. I sometimes use them to enhance the KJV to come up with my own paraphrase. In that way can folks argue against my understanding/opinion.

 

[Cross Reference]

On Word Ministries Morning Meditation

"The ultimate goal of knowledge is not information but intimacy. I want to know the one who knows me. Someday I will know as I am known (I Cor. 13, but meanwhile, “As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God” (Ps. 42:1). Any search for knowledge that is satisfied with information falls short. If the heavens declare his glory then, even when I study quantum physics, microbiology or epigenetics, I am seeking to know my Father/Creator." . . .Fount Shults

 

[HisServant]

If your selection of a translation is based on Doctrine.... you are doing it wrong.

Linguistics is a science.. there is no room for bias at all.

 

[Cross Reference]

If your selection of a translation is based on Doctrine.... you are doing it wrong.

Linguistics is a science.. there is no room for bias at all.

For which the Holy Soirit is a better linguist.

 

[HisServant]

For which the Holy Soirit is a better linguist.

They Holy Spirit only deals with interpretation... not linguistics and translations.

He inspired the original autographs, and it is his job to lead you into truth. It wasn't the job of 16th century translators with the jack book of King James on their neck.

Make no mistake, the KJV was produced purely as a propaganda tool for the Anglican Church to bolster King James rights as King and Pope of his church.

 

[Cross Reference]

They Holy Spirit only deals with interpretation... not linguistics and translations.

He inspired the original autographs, and it is his job to lead you into truth. It wasn't the job of 16th century translators with the jack book of King James on their neck.

Make no mistake, the KJV was produced purely as a propaganda tool for the Anglican Church to bolster King James rights as King and Pope of his church.

You make the mistake by not including the timing of God in bringing forth a translation for the common people to understand.

 

[HisServant]

You make the mistake by not including the timing of God in bringing forth a translation for the common people to understand.

The KJV was the FIFTH English translation... there is nothing magical about its timing..

If it hadn't been produced the previous translations would have been just as popular, had King James not outlawed their printing.

I still think the Geneva Bible is by far a superior translation (from a linguistics point of view) in just about every way... and it preceded the KJV by 51 years... and it was much easier for the common people to understand than the KJV (which was produced in shakespearian english which was not the common tongue at the time).

If you do some research, you would understand that the KJV was created to combat the Geneva Bible because it brought into question his divine right as a King and it was a direct assault on the hierarchy of his church.

 

[Cross Reference]

The KJV was the FIFTH English translation... there is nothing magical about its timing..

If it hadn't been produced the previous translations would have been just as popular, had King James not outlawed their printing.

I still think the Geneva Bible is by far a superior translation (from a linguistics point of view) in just about every way... and it preceded the KJV by 51 years... and it was much easier for the common people to understand than the KJV (which was produced in shakespearian english which was not the common tongue at the time).

If you do some research, you would understand that the KJV was created to combat the Geneva Bible because it brought into question his divine right as a King and it was a direct assault on the hierarchy of his church.

. . . .whatever. Which one has had the largest impact on the English speaking world?

The KJV was the FIFTH English translation... there is nothing magical about its timing..

You cannot say without knowledge.