Why should I use the KJV?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
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.

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.

See this thread: Verses Omitted from the ESV
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
You hold to feminist convictions that lead you to hate the NIV???

:)

you have established the Majority Text as the standard, without proving it

I have proved it, with the article I posted. No reason to rehash what it clearly says proving it from a presuppositional approach using Scripture itself. No one interacted with it. I can't help that. Steve also posted a link to where this discussion has taken place in the past on the PB in many locations, and no one has interacted with it.

The issue in this thread must start with Alexandrian (Critical) or Byzantine (Majority), otherwise it just goes into what do you prefer. This is not an argument over KJV only or not. It requires us to go further back than that. The Majority Text is the true text and it does not rely on unlearned/semilearned men to try to figure out what the best reading is at the end of the day. Men who, by the way, come to different conclusions, which means if I go to one church and hear a sermon I could get a totally different reading than if I heard the same passage preached from a different preacher.

And I wasn't referring to Mark's ending. Tyler's post provides what I was saying about ESV deleting verses. Moreover, the ESV removes many more phrases from Scripture that are not referred to in Tyler's link. As for the NIV, I was referring to the current addition. However, any translation that refuses to use the word 'propitiation' and instead uses 'atonement' is questionable and diminishes the Gospel.
 
Last edited:

Cymro

Puritan Board Junior
I am not qualified to enter into the debate on the merits of the various manuscripts etc. Yet I
would add my experimental persuasion. It has been my only version of the Bible for fifty six
years, and possibly such long usage colours my preference. But I feel safe when I read it, and
it communicates the voice of God as no others I have looked at. Even as one reads it, it reads with a poetic rhythm
melodious and flowing. It's language having a gravity, dignity and reverence that expresses supremely the revealed
thoughts of the High and Lofty One. Also its impressive style admirably matches the holy subject content. Whilst the
plain terse Saxon English lends itself to memorisation and to the tongue.
Long has it reigned, long may it reign, until the Word himself comes! It still stands without peer amongst the one
hundred other English Bible translations.
 

Jimmy the Greek

Puritan Board Senior
My favorite is the NKJV (Reformation Study Bible). It notes alternate readings of the critical text. I supplement my study with the NASB and the ESV.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
I am not qualified to enter into the debate on the merits of the various manuscripts etc. Yet I
would add my experimental persuasion. It has been my only version of the Bible for fifty six
years, and possibly such long usage colours my preference. But I feel safe when I read it, and
it communicates the voice of God as no others I have looked at. Even as one reads it, it reads with a poetic rhythm
melodious and flowing. It's language having a gravity, dignity and reverence that expresses supremely the revealed
thoughts of the High and Lofty One. Also its impressive style admirably matches the holy subject content. Whilst the
plain terse Saxon English lends itself to memorisation and to the tongue.
Long has it reigned, long may it reign, until the Word himself comes! It still stands without peer amongst the one
hundred other English Bible translations.

Thank you Mr.O'Neil for your reply. It's not all about textual criticism anyway so I appreciate your experimental persuasion, Sir. I have been trying to humble myself as of late in approaching the topic of which Bible to use. I think it is an extremely important decision to make In my humble opinion. The Word of God is my standard for all of life and as an aspiring minister in seminary I feel that my decision must be grounded in research and the advice of my elder brothers and sisters in Christ. But above all I must prayerfully seek the right decision. I realize this discussion can get heated which is understandable seeing that we are dealing with the Living Word of our God. But I have learned that I must humble myself and respect other's opinions. If I feel they are being mislead then I should gently redirect them. That being said I think they are several quality translations and In my humble opinion the TR/Majority text and the Critical text both have their own merits. I lean toward the Majority text but embrace the new manuscript findings but reject some of techniques and unbelievers that handle them. I personally think I am going to stick with studying the Authorized Version as my primary translation and use the NKJV to supplement it. But I totally respect those who prefer the ESV or NASB they are both very fine translations. I personally will only recommend a formally equivalent translation for primary usage. I think the NIV and the like are useful to supplement a more literal translation. Honestly I haven't used the NIV much but my Mom does and I am sometimes impressed with it's renderings. But at the end of the dayI usually read the ye Ol' faithful Authorized Version and the more I use it and research it the more impressed I am with it's beauty of language, It's faithfulness to Hebrew and Greek idioms and it's boldly unique translation choices. I have seen some criticism of the AV on some of it's unusual renderings and will admit I thought they were mistranslations. King James Version Today I don't know who is behind this website but they make some excellent points on many of the seeming "errors" in the KJV. in my opinion they do a really good job defending the the KJV. This website opened my eyes to a lot of translation choices I thought were errors in the KJV.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
Dabney is instructive here:

TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, by R.L. Dabney.

"Let us, then, briefly sum up the results attempted in this discussion. If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text, whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance. Yet they have their interest, and should receive the intelligent watch of the {390} teachers of the church. Absolute historical certainty of results is not to be expected, since so many of the documents of the primitive church are gone forever; but probable conclusions are all which are to be expected. But, after all, the weight of that probability brings back the critical conclusions to the theory of Nolan and Scholz, restoring the claims of the Κοινη Εκδοσις, or received text, to be a faithful one, and invalidating the claims of exclusive accuracy made by our recent critics in favor of the so-called oldest codices."
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
Dabney is instructive here:

TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, by R.L. Dabney.

"Let us, then, briefly sum up the results attempted in this discussion. If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text, whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance. Yet they have their interest, and should receive the intelligent watch of the {390} teachers of the church. Absolute historical certainty of results is not to be expected, since so many of the documents of the primitive church are gone forever; but probable conclusions are all which are to be expected. But, after all, the weight of that probability brings back the critical conclusions to the theory of Nolan and Scholz, restoring the claims of the Κοινη Εκδοσις, or received text, to be a faithful one, and invalidating the claims of exclusive accuracy made by our recent critics in favor of the so-called oldest codices."

Thanks for that. This is true and the real beauty of the new testament is the precise consistency of it across the board even comparing tr and ct. Thankfully none of our doctrine hangs on one verse and one can find all of Christianity's doctrines in any "reasonable" translation. That being said I think it's still important to educate yourself on what translation your using, whether it's formal or dynamic equivalent and especially what the underlying Greek text is. To say the ESV is blasphemous is a little out of line. I believe it is a faithful translation of it's underlying text whether you agree with that or not is a different story.
 

MW

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

:rofl:

Joking aside, feminists might find the NIV distasteful for its rendering of 1 Cor. 11:3, which at this point is more accurate than the ESV.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.

Technically, the ESV translates the tense but the AV reflects the aspect. The AV simply picks up on the fact that the passage emphasises the present state rather than something which has been done in the past. Neither translation makes believing and being born of God a cause-effect relationship. The argument is that believing is a sign or manifestation of being born of God.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

Technically, the ESV translates the tense but the AV reflects the aspect. The AV simply picks up on the fact that the passage emphasises the present state rather than something which has been done in the past. Neither translation makes believing and being born of God a cause-effect relationship. The argument is that believing is a sign or manifestation of being born of God.

That's a good point I suppose if one want's it to be cause-effect they interpret it that way regardless.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If by some distortion of history it could be proven that the ecclesiastical text is in error and the scholars were correct about the validity of those manuscripts which had been laid aside, the best translation would then be the Revised Version. Why? It would be the most accurate translation of what is deemed to be the original reading. It lacks the literary quality of the AV, but the AV attained that literary quality through years of influencing the language. Part of the problem with most modern translations is that they attempt to instill "literary quality" into their version and fail miserably.
 

joebonni63

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't know what it is but I always go back to the KJV. I have never been a King James only kinda guy but for me because of the diff spellings of same words but diff meanings seems very important.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
King James Version Today I don't know who is behind this website but they make some excellent points on many of the seeming "errors" in the KJV. in my opinion they do a really good job defending the the KJV. This website opened my eyes to a lot of translation choices I thought were errors in the KJV.

Just read the website with a grain of salt. The website's stated purpose is "to show that the KJV is demonstrably inerrant."

After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage. That being said I do have a love for the KJV and if that's the direction you go, you'll be among good company.


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.

And many godly men who use the ESV (or CT) could just as easily say "the KJV adds verses, which is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture". But is either statement really helpful?
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
And many godly men who use the ESV (or CT) could just as easily say "the KJV adds verses, which is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture". But is either statement really helpful?

Rightly it could be said that the KJV does add verses (John's comma)...I'm not in disagreement. But then again I'm not arguing for KJV or KJV-only.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
King James Version Today I don't know who is behind this website but they make some excellent points on many of the seeming "errors" in the KJV. in my opinion they do a really good job defending the the KJV. This website opened my eyes to a lot of translation choices I thought were errors in the KJV.

Just read the website with a grain of salt. The website's stated purpose is "to show that the KJV is demonstrably inerrant."

After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage. That being said I do have a love for the KJV and if that's the direction you go, you'll be among good company.


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.

And many godly men who use the ESV (or CT) could just as easily say "the KJV adds verses, which is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture". But is either statement really helpful?

Thanks for the advice Logan. I have taken it with a grain of salt because there's an obvious bias towards the KJV on the site but they do make some excellent points.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage.

There are great issues with the TR just as there are with the Critical Text. So one with the KJV or NKJV should still look for discrepancies. That's why one must go to the Byzantine Text and not TR.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage.

There are great issues with the TR just as there are with the Critical Text. So one with the KJV or NKJV should still look for discrepancies. That's why one must go to the Byzantine Text and not TR.

The World English Translation claims to adhere to the Majority Text. I have it on e-sword. It's a modernization of the 1901 ASV but with the majority text instead of W&H text. I've been using it a little it seems to be very literal likes it's parent translation.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
That's why one must go to the Byzantine Text and not TR.

If I understand you correctly, that's an endeavor that I've also thought would be worthy of undertaking. Basically a "critical text" but compiled from the subset of manuscripts that were actually in use in the Greek church, i.e., the Byzantine manuscripts (instead of also including manuscripts that had been "buried" or "corrected" for years). There is a good bit of merit to this in my mind.

The TR represents this for the most part with some significant exceptions. The Majority Text doesn't quite get at it either because it just counts noses per se instead of serious critical analysis. The "Byzantine Text", if compiled, would definitely be a contender with the Critical Text in my mind.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Rightly it could be said that the KJV does add verses (John's comma)...I'm not in disagreement.

Even if the comma were not original (which as an absolute negative has no evidence to support it), it would be absurd to say the AV "adds" the verse. The verse was accepted by reformation teachers well before the AV came into existence.
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
I have taken it with a grain of salt because there's an obvious bias towards the KJV on the site but they do make some excellent points.

Just a note, it wouldn't be a good thing to defend a subject with no bias or preferences at all, if you have no bias it means you do not believe either position is correct or worst accept both as equally valid, which is a logical fallacy if you reject relativism in matters of faith. If we would apply this to any other theological subject it would mean "calvinist" should always be taken "with a grain of salt" in their defense of calvinisitic soteriology, we should take paedobaptist "with a grain of salt" in their defense of paedobaptism etc.

Of course we have to be careful to weight arguments properly to see if they are factual, logical, scriptural etc. But it's always good to hear arguments from people who believe what they are defending and then evaluate it. Not saying you aren't doing that already you seem open minded which is good, but not properly evaluating an argument because it might be perceived by some to be in error is not helpful. Fear of deception can leave you in a state of error.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
I have taken it with a grain of salt because there's an obvious bias towards the KJV on the site but they do make some excellent points.

Just a note, it wouldn't be a good thing to defend a subject with no bias or preferences at all, if you have no bias it means you do not believe either position is correct or worst accept both as equally valid, which is a logical fallacy if you reject relativism in matters of faith. If we would apply this to any other theological subject it would mean "calvinist" should always be taken "with a grain of salt" in their defense of calvinisitic soteriology, we should take paedobaptist "with a grain of salt" in their defense of paedobaptism etc.

Of course we have to be careful to weight arguments properly to see if they are factual, logical, scriptural etc. But it's always good to hear arguments from people who believe what they are defending and then evaluate it. Not saying you aren't doing that already you seem open minded which is good, but not properly evaluating an argument because it might be perceived by some to be in error is not helpful. Fear of deception can leave you in a state of error.

Thank you. You make a good point. Like you said we should weigh options from various perspectives. The website I mentioned KJVtoday.com in my opinion does a really good job of defending the KJV. It doesn't seem to be from an extremist KJV only point of view. Seeing, that they never deem all other bibles satanic. They do actaully give credit to other translation quite often but merely show how the KJV translation choices are just as justifiable as theirs. The "demonstrably errant" did trouble me a little but that is a rather loose term. So I'm not sure what it could mean exactly, I don't think it is saying the KJV perfect. My personal opinion right now is that there are some fine modern translations available and I do like to use them. But the more study I do on this subject I find the KJV to be more and more impressive. I think the KJV is as useful and scholarly as the NASB,NKJV, and ESV and oftentimes surpasses them. A lot of the inconsistencies and errors people have pointed out to me about the KJV have proved either false, very minor, justifiable or just plain unique and awesome translation choices. For instance "Easter" in Acts 12:4 to me it would seem to me illogical to just say they messed up, mistranslated. Considering they translate this word as Passover everywhere else. Maybe they were separating the Jewish Passover of the past from the Christian Passover or "Easter" that was occuring in Acts 12:4?
 
Last edited:

Captain Picard

Puritan Board Freshman
My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.

Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.

Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.

The ESV is a fine Bible. I never understood the attacking of some on this subject. At the end of the day it comes down to preference. I love the KJV but I am not going to reject all modern translation scholarship because of my preference. There's a lot to gain from the good modern translations. I admit the KJV is a tough read at times and it's certainly not perfect but if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it's good enough for this guy.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.

Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.

The ESV is a fine Bible. I never understood the attacking of some on this subject. At the end of the day it comes down to preference. I love the KJV but I am not going to reject all modern translation scholarship because of my preference. There's a lot to gain from the good modern translations. I admit the KJV is a tough read at times and it's certainly not perfect but if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it's good enough for this guy.
I suppose it goes without saying but ......... the Apostle Paul never saw a complete NT, much less a KJV, and probably read the Hebrew scrolls, and the LXX.
 

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.

Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.

The ESV is a fine Bible. I never understood the attacking of some on this subject. At the end of the day it comes down to preference. I love the KJV but I am not going to reject all modern translation scholarship because of my preference. There's a lot to gain from the good modern translations. I admit the KJV is a tough read at times and it's certainly not perfect but if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it's good enough for this guy.
I suppose it goes without saying but ......... the Apostle Paul never saw a complete NT, much less a KJV, and probably read the Hebrew scrolls, and the LXX.

Lol That was clearly a joke Jimmy. but thanks
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.

Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.

The ESV is a fine Bible. I never understood the attacking of some on this subject. At the end of the day it comes down to preference. I love the KJV but I am not going to reject all modern translation scholarship because of my preference. There's a lot to gain from the good modern translations. I admit the KJV is a tough read at times and it's certainly not perfect but if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it's good enough for this guy.
I suppose it goes without saying but ......... the Apostle Paul never saw a complete NT, much less a KJV, and probably read the Hebrew scrolls, and the LXX.

Lol That was clearly a joke Jimmy. but thanks
Apologies for taking it seriously (I should have known better) Reminded me of this ;
Quoted (allegedly) from the 4 December 1926 issue of The New Yorker (Talk of the Town, Pg. 27),

Old English

A gentleman connected with the Rockefeller Institute discloses that, among hundreds of letters of denunciation received by the institution during the past year was one from a man in Arkansas who took the view that all this modern education is dangerous and that the new-fangled practice of grounding preachers in Latin and Greek is especially pernicious. They ought to be taught in English, and only English, he said, adding in conclusion, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top