Why should I use the KJV?

Discussion in 'Translations and Manuscripts' started by God'sElectSaint, May 8, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    First of all, I am new and realize I am opening a possible :worms: But I have been battling, in my own mind anyways, with which translation to make my primary. I am in seminary and plan to be a ministry of God's precious Holy word. I use several translations. Mostly ESV, NKJV, and of course the beloved Authorized Version. I think each of these have their pros and cons. I know there are some who hold the Old Authorized dearly, understandably. I enjoy the KJV very much and have no trouble with it's language but I know that some do. Are their any fellow pastors that use it? Is the language a barrier at times? Also realistically is it really good enough in terms of beauty and even more so accuracy to hold on to? Or should I just move on and use the EVS or NKJV? I'd love to hear from both sides meaning KJV lovers and/or those who think it's time to move on to a more modern version. Let the sparks fly lol jk
     
  2. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    Last edited: May 9, 2015
  3. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    I do have a preference for the Majority text but think the critical text is valuable as well. More so wondering is the KJV as accurate as some claim? I've heard some say like Michael Marlowe that it is a fairly defective translation.
     
  4. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    I'm doing M'Cheyne's 1 year Bible reading plan I primarily use the AV. I'm 66, been reading it for over 30 years, and love the translation. However, I supplement that with the 1984 NIV, the NASB, and the ESV. The pastor at the OPC congregation I attend preaches out of the NKJV and I use that as well. In spite of the length of time I've read the AV I sometimes get stuck on syntax.

    I've wrestled with this controversy over which translation in the past and did quite a bit of reading on the topic. Michael Marlow's site is very good, but reading The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism, by D.A. Carson, and of course James White's, The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust Modern Translations? offers more detail, and explores the various sides more thoroughly. There are many more, and I've read quite a few, but those two are the best of the bunch In my humble opinion.

    Try reading Song Of Solomon in the AV, then read it in the NIV (1984) or NASB, ESV. As far as I'm concerned that is a great example of the value of the modern translations. Reading Carson, White, and others, convinced me that the CT is reliable, despite what many say.
     
  5. Jerusalem Blade

    Jerusalem Blade Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Edward,

    I'm a retired pastor (now primarily writing), and here are a number of threads and posts on Puritanboard discussing this matter: Jerusalem Blade's textual posts (a partial compilation). I call my view, King James priority (not "only"), and stress scholarship and graciousness when dealing with this topic.

    I hope this will be helpful to you.
     
  6. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    I use the AV in all contexts of specific worship, i.e., secret, family, and congregational. I have always found it to speak with authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity; to be a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. But it is clear that the Scriptures do not work mechanistically like a computer. It is not a matter of putting in and getting out. The Scriptures are a gift and the profit derived from them is a gift. Because of this, meekness is necessary. Ps. 22:26; 25:9. We must come to them in the heart-posture of listening and learning. When men take it upon themselves to set the requirements by which they will hear God they have made a challenge they are bound to lose. When we come to the Bible we should say, Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. It is the Word of God we should desire -- the word which liveth and abideth for ever.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2015
  7. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    Thank you very much for the replies. Jimmy, I just ordered DA Carson's book along with a book on the history of the KJV Lee Rekien(I forget his last name) and the Potter's freedom. I love James White his videos opened my eyes to reformed theology through the work of the Spirit of course. Matthew I agree my friend as James 1:21 says "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." The word is a gift and we as saints of God are given not only the privileged to read it but also discern and receive it. The KJV does have much authority and beauty. Maybe it's just tradition but when I read it it just sounds more like the Bible to me. I enjoy the New KJV and the ESV but most of my memory verses are KJV. I get some looks in my bible study at church like "what's this 24 year old kid doing reading the King James Version" But they deal with it. I'll most likely stick with it because I always go back to it. I guess I questioning myself whether or not I was using it just for the sake of being different. I am a rebel at heart lol
     
  8. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    Indwelling sin would lead us to doubt our sincerity in following Christ with the intention of leading us to follow Him with a little more confusion. That is the only way sin will meet with any gratification. In such a warfare the saints have to stick with what they have been given by God. The middle of the battle-field is not the place to be questioning whether one's sword is made of the right metal.
     
  9. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    Good Point. I'm only questioning because I am admittedly a new convert. There's a whole lotta info out there on the subject of Bible translation can be kinda confusing. Was just bringing it up here to gain some clarity. I wasn't questioning the Bible itself but merely my intention of using the KJV. My intentions can often be misplaced, by being different I meant everyone at my church uses the ESV but I prefer the KJV. My backround prior to salvation is quite severely dark so I always check my intentions these days before proceeding to do something. So it's not a matter of me questioning the metal of my sword but rather the heart of the hand that wields it.
     
  10. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    Just some suggestions; not to be taken as criticisms: (1) The issues surrounding Bible translation can be complex but it is worth asking where the complexity comes from. The Bible has a self-evidencing light as far as the believer is concerned. This light has the ability to sort out motives and put doubts to rest. Commit thy way to God and trust in Him. He will guide through the confusion. (2) The pressure of preparing to teach others may be adding to the confusion over motives. The process of being taught is of first importance in learning how to teach others. It would be better to hold off on teaching others until you have passed from the stage where you call yourself a new convert. (3) According to Eph. 5 we were all darkness. There is nothing more severe than that. We should avoid the tendency to make our experience of sin and grace something different than others' experience of it, especially if we hope to teach others about it.
     
  11. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    Thank you Matthew. I actually just entered pre-seminary, so I got a ways to go. I am not currently teaching anyone but am just beginning. My intention here was to seek some opinions on the matter. I have no doubt that the KJV is the living word of God. But I think it's good personally to question "translations" because not all are created equal. My question was more geared towards the literal-accuracy of the KJV. I wasn't trying to differentiate myself just merely being factual. I am a recovering heroin addict and have been in prisons and rehabs most of my life. So my conversion has been quite radical, the Christian life is very foreign to me. I don't say that to make myself seem like a worst sinner than others but it is in reality quite different than most folks. I am extremely grateful for Christ's effectual call and saving work on me. It blows me away that I am where I am at right now. So I may have an over sensitive conscience at times and judge myself a little harshly. But for me personally I make a practice of checking my motives and intentions because like you said I still have indwelling sin. I took no offense at your comments, there are much appreciated. I think you may misunderstood me a little but I should have probably explained myself better. Thanks my friend!
     
  12. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    All praise to the grace of God in saving you from these depths! I am sorry if I have misunderstood or spoken out of place. I only seek to be of benefit to you.

    We certainly have to examine ourselves, and being different or fitting in to a Christian group of people is no guide as to whether we are doing the right thing. But I think we can easily become tied in knots over ourselves and whether we are doing things for the right reason. It is a blessed thing to be able to look back at the end of the day and acknowledge it is of the Lord's mercies we were not consumed.
     
  13. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    I agree very much so. No you didn't speak out of place. I think I was simply unclear in what I said. God's grace is amazing. My conversion is really what led me to Calvinism, actually. I just couldn't buy into "me" having something to do with it. I knew I was absolutely dead in trespasses and sins. I always rejected any idea of God. I was actually a militant atheist for years prior to being made alive in Christ. The doctrines of grace were kind of a no brainer when I heard them. And yes I definitely need to work on beating myself up sometimes. I can't forget that I am a new creature in Christ. Usually a verse I keep in mind is "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. " 1 Cor 6:10
     
  14. Edm

    Edm Puritan Board Freshman

    My main Bible is NASB. I read KJV also and appreciate it.
     
  15. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    The NASB is a solid formally equivalent translation. I used it in study sometimes because of it's literalness.
     
  16. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    Yes, the more we know ourselves the more precious the doctrines of grace.

    Actually the doctrines of grace might be the best place to start in comparing translations. You could have a look at some of the key texts. My own view is that the modern tendency towards doctrinally neutral translations has led to a blunter message of grace.
     
  17. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    Interesting. The ESV has some Calvinistic renderings that are stronger then other translations. For instance, and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
    2:8 and Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 1 John 5:1
     
  18. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I have found in my preaching when translating passages, that the NASB (from the Critical Text) is generally okay and when it is on it is literal. And the KJV and NKJV are generally good translations as well.

    The thing I hate is the ESV, with a passion. It removes verses from Holy Scripture. It doesn't even bracket them in like the NASB which I can accept, it just deletes verses. And that is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture. I hate the NIV too for obvious feminist reasons.
     
  19. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    1 Pet. 2:8, I don't see how "destined" means anything more than "appointed." On the other hand, the phrase "to do" places a limitation that I cannot see in the original. I must be missing your point on 1 John 5:1 because I can't see any difference.

    I was thinking of texts which are adduced because they explicitly teach salvation by grace. E.g., Rom. 9:16. The addition of qualifiers only serves to blunt the edge.
     
  20. Dearly Bought

    Dearly Bought Puritan Board Junior

    Our presbytery has written the following into our Form of Government,
    If you are interested in audio, electronic, and print resources on this subject from a Reformed perspective, I would heartily commend the website of the Trinitarian Bible Society to you.
     
  21. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

  22. Rev. Todd Ruddell

    Rev. Todd Ruddell Puritan Board Junior

  23. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    I suppose pet 2:8 is can go either way. 1 John 5:1 is the phrase "has been" rather then "is" in the KJV. I feel has been suggest they believe because they were born of God. The has been is past tense which is the proper translation.
     
  24. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    That's good to know. I have quite a way to go before I am behind the pulpit but I agree with this. I think the AV is a great pulpit bible. Some people say you waste valuable time explaining obsolete words but in expositional preaching I think defining words makes sense to me. Plus it takes maybe 2 seconds to explain for instance that "conversation" means your "conduct" I don't see how that is wasting time.
     
  25. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

  26. God'sElectSaint

    God'sElectSaint Puritan Board Freshman

    Hey that's actually the Book I ordered! lol I forgot the title and the authors name. I should be getting that soon. The KJV's language/literary quality is definitely untouchable. I am beginning to feel more comfortable about my decision to use the KJV. I guess I was letting some modern critiques of it weigh on me to much. Some of the good folks here and others have shown me the reliability of the Authorized Version. I believe I will continue to make it my primary bible choice and use others as resources for better understanding. Thanks to everyone who commented I appreciate your input. Bible translation is a issue crowded with ideas, good to get some clarity. I see now that the KJV only position and it's advocates are in their own world. But their are obviously some well grounded Christians who have some good arguments in defense of the KJV. I will read my beloved KJV with confidence from now on. Grace and Peace to all of you.
     
  27. puritanpilgrim

    puritanpilgrim Puritan Board Junior

    :popcorn:
     
  28. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior

    My own experience with Greek / textual comparison is limited: specifically to the book of Galatians. What I found for that book was, leaving all question of text types aside, the KJV had considerably more points where it was arguably a lesser accurate translation of the Greek text than other versions particularly the NASB, (the ESV had not then come on the scene.)
     
  29. DMcFadden

    DMcFadden Puritan Board Doctor

    You hold to feminist convictions that lead you to hate the NIV??? :think:

    :rofl:
     
  30. Captain Picard

    Captain Picard Puritan Board Freshman

    Ok, I hate to wade into what appears to be a little bit of an AV love-fest and be "that guy" defending the ESV, but this post...one, you have established the Majority Text as the standard, without proving it, and then, reasoning from the unsourced presupposition that Majority Text/KJV/TR/whatever="Holy Scripture", you've made two claims 1) the ESV "deletes verses without even bracketing them" and 2) "this is blasphemy" (because again Majority Text=Scripture).

    Some rejoinders: 1) The source you linked to in your above post made the usual borderline conspiracy theory claims about the history of Alexandria, among other things I consider to be pretty rough arguments (although it also made good points).
    2) I reject your implication a) that MT=HS, and also implication b) that passages like the longer ending of Mark are Scripture because you can find Byzantine witness for them. If you were not implying the second one, I retract my statement, but your link certainly made that claim.
    3) The only paper copy of the ESV I have at home is a five-buck paperback my church hands out en masse, not even a study bible or serious scholarly resource, it has less than a footnote a page, but it includes the entirety of the Pericope Adulterae and the Longer Ending, with annotation regarding manuscript witness. So does the ESV on Bible Gateway (the internet source I most frequently use). Don't just throw around unqualified accusations about hiding God's Word, please.

    Also, my Zondervan NIV from the 80's has perfectly orthodox gender pronouns. Not all NIVs are created equal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page