Why do I use the KJ?

[artbook1611]

SIXTEEN REASONS

WHY I USE THE KING JAMES BIBLE

1. It is easy to memorize

2. It says the most amount of information with the least amount of words.

3. After 22 other translations were used by myself, I never found one to ever improve on the King James Bible.

4. It is grammatically correct with the use of pronouns, e.g. ye, thee, thou, etc.

5. The King James Bible was translated from manuscripts out of Antioch, not manuscripts out of pagan Egypt or Rome.

6. The King James Bible was translated at a time when the English language was at its purest. (1611)

7. More souls have been saved through the King James Bible than probably all the other 150 versions put together.

8. The poetic form of the King James Bible is unsurpassable.

9. Just about every new version that comes out compares itself with the King James Bible, but never with each other.

10. The Roman Catholic Church all through history has tried to downplay and discourage the use of the King James Bible.

It was through the Roman Catholic Church that Westcott and Hort finally introduced defective manuscripts to rewrite the
scriptures according to their liking.

11. The Lord promised to preserve His word in Psalm 12:6-7.

"The words of othe LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Obviously they are not preserved in a library in Heaven, but here on earth.

12. The King James Bible was never called a version, it was from its onset called "The Holy Bible".

13. The New Testament teaches "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16) and we know that His word is perfect. If there is not a perfect translation in our day, than we do not have the scriptures, but only have a "dead book".

14. All versions, other than the King James Bible, omit verses, change words that downplay the precious blood of Christ and His deity. Their footnotes also cast doubts in the reader's mind about the authenticity of certain bible events.

15. The Kings James' translators were all Christian men who believed the Bible, and were experts in the field of Greek and Hebrew. Unlike the Westcott and Hort team who did not believe in a good percentage of scripture.

16. And finally, when I read the King James Bible, I have the confidence that this is the Word of God, flawless, and can be fully trusted.

"The King James Bible"

"Where the word of the King is, there is Power" (Eccl.8:4)

[Jim]

Yes, that pretty much puts it in a nutshell doesn't it?

[Mongol Servant]

AMEN, Art!

In addition to those reasons, here's some of mine:

As an American, it's in our nature to "pull for the underdog", so I love the KJB because all of the "educated, intellectual, scholarly" crowd "kicks it." (Acts 9:5)

Bro Roloff gave me some good advice one time: "If the world hates it, I usually like it and, if the world likes it, I usually hate it!" That's kinda the way it is with these new "versions" - the world loves 'em!

On another thread, we KJBBelievers were labeled as "extremists" - I REALLY appreciated that fine testimony, because the same thing was said about John before they exiled him to Patmos! (Revelation 1:1-3)

And finally, you're so right - the Roman catholic organization HATES the KJB, so I HAVE to love it - as David did! (Psalm 119)

[artbook1611]

the Roman catholic organization HATES the KJB, so I HAVE to love it - as David did! (Psalm 119)



I am beginning to realize that if you ever want to know the correct interpretation, find out the catholic view and choose the opposite. In 1605,a catholic named Guy Forbes tried to assinate King James when the King delineated the errors of Rome and when the AV came out,the papacy were furious that the Bible was translated into the common tongue.The popery proved to be the translators chief enemy.
These folks are so subtle, they look so innocent until one takes a closer look. Wolves in sheep clothing and relentless.On several other boards, they try to assume they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. And some believers are actually believing it.

[George]

Quote:Bro Roloff gave me some good advice one time:

Wow! You knew Lester Roloff? I really like and appreciate his work. I have read quite a bit about him. He stood up for what he believed in even in the most adverse of situations such as when the State of Texas was working to shut down the facilities he had started for housing young people. I have tapes of a couple of his sermons. I listen to them often. He was a man of great faith and courage.

In Christ,
George

[Jim]

Yes, that is wonderful, he has some really good sermons.

[Nate]

artbook1611 Wrote:These folks are so subtle, they look so innocent until one takes a closer look. Wolves in sheep clothing and relentless.On several other boards, they try to assume they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. And some believers are actually believing it.

I have met a number that I am convinced are believers given their testimony.

[artbook1611]

That may be true, but I have never met one. Oh, I realize that many catholics SAY that Jesus is their saviour but when you probe deeper, they also say that scripture is not the final authority and that loyalty to the catholic church is mandatory. They still cling to Maryology, still hold to transsubstantiation and freely admit that Peter was the first pope.
My problem is that if any catholics were truly born again, how could they remain in a religion full of pagan ritual, ceremony and extra biblcal doctrines? Would not the Holy Spirit lead them out?
I was a catholic, an altar boy, and well steeped in their catachism, but was still dead in sins and trespasses.
Rome and the gospel cannot exist together.

A popular catholic poster from another board, named Radar, announced that she believes in evolution, meanwhile attesting she is a true believer. Her mouth betrayeth thee.

[Mongol Servant]

Bro George,
Bro Roloff was preaching in South Carolina at another home for wayward boys/girls, when I heard him. After the sermon, some of the guys gathered around to listen to his wisdom, and that's where I heard it. I believe that he was one of the smartest/wisest men our country ever produced. A lot of our IFB brethren think that he was just an old, country "bumpkin", but they either forget, or don't know that he went to Baylor University (before they went liberal)!
Much of my preaching is patterned similar to Bro Roloff's style - he didn't use "notes" per se, just wrote down some verses or topics and went to work. One of the guys asked him about it one time, and I've never forgotten what he said:
"Son, when The Lord gets ahold of you with something, you'll get ahold of your people with it."

[Nate]

artbook1611:
I will freely judge Catholic doctrine against Scripture and in so many ways it is way out of line. But only God knows the heart. The testimony of the few Catholics with whom I've spoken convinces me they are believers. Not all Catholics, just the ones I've spoken to. Some even reject Maryology, the papal structure, etc. In light of that, I can't understand why they stay, but I won't question their salvation because of it. The same applies to evolution, I disagree and don't understand why they let their scientific position contradict their faith, but I do not believe that's a basis to question their position in Christ. Perhaps it is a reason to question their critical thinking skills, though.

[Brother Tim]

The following is a quote from Matthew Verschuur on another board. It is the most concise and yet comprehensive sentence I have ever read. It completely explains his and my position on the KJB and its translators.

Quote:In short, they were the right men at the right time in the right place that knew the right things so as to rightly select the text of the Word which matched exactly to the long lost autographs as was attested to only by copies, and were able to rightly translate it, sense for sense, without deviation, without addition or subtraction, and without any substitution of the sense, so that what we have today is the Word of God, now set forth to be the Word of God for the world, to be presented by the myriad, yet in one standard, agreeing, central and universal form.

AMEN! ... G L O R Y !!!

Matthew not only knocked this one out of the park, he hit the next zip code! (or whatever they have down under )

P.S. Anyone care to diagram this sentence?

[Greektim]

I love how the sentence began... "In short." I thought that was kind of ironic. What is the other board referred to?

[Mongol Servant]

GTim,
I received this from a friend on another site, and he indicated that it helped him understand some of the problems with the newer versions:

"An indication that Arianism (the denial of Christ's Deity) is with us today is to be found in the footnote of the ASV (American Standard Version) at John 9:38. In verse 35 the Lord Jesus asks the man born blind if he believes on the Son of God. In verse 38 he replies, "Lord, I believe, and he worshipped Him". In this footnote the translators plainly reveal the fact that they do not believe in the Deity of Christ but refer to Him as a mere creature of Adam's race. Turn to this in your American Standard Version and see for yourself. Referring to the word "worship" the note reads; 'The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (AS HERE) or to the creator.' Consider this when you hear Bible teachers say; 'This is the best version!'" (And the ASV was published some 50 years before the RSV!)

"A version is that which is translated, or rendered from one language to another. The Textus Receptus is NOT a version. It is composed of basic manuscript copies from which the King James Version was made. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort changed the reading of the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places. The Revision of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version Bibles, are in no true sense a revision of the King James of 1611. If they were, they would follow the same Greek text, the Textus Receptus, and thus would contain the same verses.

"Textus Receptus is the Latin for the Received Text. This is the Greek manuscript used as a basis for the translation of the King James Bible in 1611. However, this collection of canonical manuscripts, written in the Greek language, did not receive the name 'Textus Receptus' until the days of the Elziver brothers in 1633. In the preface of their Greek New Testament they printed the following words translated into English, 'Therefore thou hast the text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt'."

"A number of textual authorities state that the Bible of the Syrian Church, the Peshitta, was translated from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian about 150 A.D. . . . This Peshitta version is admired by Syriac scholars as a careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style. These characteristics have given it the title 'The Queen of the Versions'."

Antioch was the capital of Syria where the early believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). In a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered by the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta, even today generally follows the Received Text (Textus Receptus). This is another proof that the foundation for the King James Bible is older and more reliable than the Codex Vaticanus which was elevated to the chair of authority by Westcott and Hort.

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, spent 28 years in tracing the Received Text (Textus Receptus) back to its apostolic origin. His searching led him to investigate the Bible texts of the Waldenses who were the lineal descendants of the Italic Church. This being done, Dr. Nolan says, "It has supplied me with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolic branch of the primitive church." This means that the Textus Receptus, the basis for the King James Version, has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century. It is important to note here that the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS were not brought into existence for many years following the Textus Receptus, when Eusebius copied them for Constantine.

The Argument "NOT FOUND IN VATICANUS", Is Not Valid.
Vaticanus is claimed by many to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript. VATICANUS OMITS:

All of first Timothy
All of second Timothy
All of Titus
Nearly all of Genesis (Gen 1 to 46:29)
The last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. (Mark 16:9-20)
Our Lord's prayer on the cross. "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34)
Our Lord's agony and bloodlike sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Luke 22:44)
The last four and a half chapters of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25)
Thirty three of the Psalms [Psalms 106 - 138]
Plus many other omissions

SINAITICUS, second of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, has a history.
Scholars discern the hand of ten different scribes, making many, many alterations over a period of several hundred years. Tischendorf then discovered of Sinaiticus and noted 12,000 alterations in the text.

1. If Sinaiticus was an accurate copy of the Word of God at the beginning of its history, it is absolutely impossible that it is now, after ten specialists have made so many alterations in the text.

2. If Siniaticus was not an accurate copy of the Word of God at the start, then it is absolutely inconceivable that ten different textual chiropractors labouring over a period of a few hundred years, have succeeded in making what must have been a hopelessly corrupt copy into one of the "oldest and best" of manuscripts.
The marginal notes of the New American Standard Version, which constantly quote "the oldest" or "late mss. add" etc. serve to obscure the truth of God's Word, rather than to enlighten it."

On July 22, 1604, King James of England announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version. These men were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford, and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language.
Each scholar first made his own translation, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went thru the hands of the entire body of translators.

With the revisers of 1881 (the Revised Version) all was different! The Old Testament committee met together secretly as one body for ten years. The New Testament Committee did the same. All was done in secret. We wonder why? The unpublished new Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, upon which they had been working for twenty years was, portion by portion, secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee.
Similar tactics were used in bringing before the public the RSV (Revised Standard Version) on September 30, 1952. Pastors had no opportunity to review the new Bible, yet they were asked to open their churches for a tremendous advertising campaign! "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other!"

GTim, I know you revere the NASV, and I don't have a NASV/ASV to check those footnotes, so; could you check your NASV and let us know if that "creature" comment is actually footnoted in it, please? I'm not sure if the online version would have footnotes, so that is why I asked. Also, was the listed material covered with you in seminary, or is it new? Thanks.

[Greektim]

First of all, I do not have a written copy of the ASV. I only have it in e-sword. That being said, the NASB and the ASV are not the same translation. There was no footnote in my NASB. The textual basis is not the same. I also want to be careful with words. I "revere" the NASB only in that it is my favorite translation, but I still maintian that there is no perfect translation - that means the NASB or the KJV. As for John 9:38, there was no footnote in my copy of the NASB. I even checked the Greek to see what would make someone say such a thing. I am not sure I believe this story because common Johannine vocab was used. There is nothing that jumped out at me that would deny deity at all. In fact, the usage of the term "Lord" would indicate deity as a reference to the LORD of the OT. But again, I don't have an ASV to check for such a footnote.

Second, this information is not new to me. My school, Piedmont Baptist Collge & Graduate School, did a little in textual criticism in one of my Greek classes (undergrad). But no mss was taught to be authoritative, however we learned different philosophies in textual criticism and we were taught to think for ourselves. That is what I have done. I have studied all about codex S & V. I feel I am able to make my own decisions to the text. As to Vaticanus, I don't think it is correct to say that it "omitted" those texted mentioned above. It's parent copy very likely did not have the pastoral epistles. Also, the last 12 verses in Mark are not present, but the text leaves room for it indicating that the parent copy was either damaged or incomplete somehow. (The GNT text advocated at Piedmont Baptist College & Graduate School is Hodge's & Farstad's Majority Text. This might be seen as a balanced view between the TR and the UBS4r.)

Thirdly, there seems to be a common understanding that the NASB is a translation based on Sinaiaticus & VAticanus. That isn't so. The UBS4r & the N-A27 (the Greek text used for the NASB) are eclectic GNT's. All available mss, lectionaries, translations, and church father readings were consulted. They may have leanings toward certain readings, but they do not follow W-H's Greek compilation. This is a misconception that I want to make sure is understood.

Fourth, you mention the Peshitta and the earliest translation into Syriac. If you do your research, you will see in quite a few places where the TR is not consistent with certain readings from the Syriac.

As for the Revised Version and their method of translation, if that is true, then that is very shady. But I don't use the RV and most certainly do not use the RSV.

I want all to understand, I believe the method of translation for the KJV is very genuine and effective. These men labored hard and long and did well with what they had.

[Jim]

Quote:P.S. Anyone care to diagram this sentence?

You're the expert......