ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Why Is The KJ V Bible So Great

I was wondering, what is the fascination with the king james version that some people seem to have? Could it be that they are not aware of other versions?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---steve on 4/16/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (12)

Post a New Blog



Their IJ doctrine holds that those in ....- that covenant made only with the Jews, not the church.
---lee1538 on 5/29/09

Not holding any doctrine of man....I don't agree with them either. And they have the covenant wrong as well. It was made with the House of Israel and Judah.

I challenge anyone to show scripture saying anything different.

Heb 8:8 Jer 31:31 and supported in numerous other scriptures.

They like most do not know who the House of Israel is at this time....believing Judah to be the entire postition.
---Trav on 5/30/09


Adventists must adhere to the ancient King James Version with its mistranslations in order to support their faulty Investigative Judgment doctrine - a doctrine not supported by any known Biblical expositors and for good reasons.

Their IJ doctrine holds that those in Christ (in whom there is no condemnation,Romans 8:1) will end up in the fires of hell if they do not observe all the ten commandments - that covenant made only with the Jews, not the church.
---lee1538 on 5/29/09


Jerry I have read 2 Peter 2:9 in three versions. I dont see anything that would agree with the point your making. Am I missing somthing?

The KJV is a great verison but not the only version

lscar
---Luther on 5/28/09


trav - *It is not what K.James says...just closer to the originals & concordances...

Would you also hold that the Greek compilations that modern translators use is less exact than the King James Version?
---Lee1538 on 5/28/09


What doctrines do KJer's possess that is really different from those who would support the more reputable modern versions?

I believe the Christian that truly seeks the truth will believe much the same doctrine as a KJers'. ---Lee1538 on 5/26/09

You stated the modern versions are washing away the K.James previously. But above you state their is no doctrinal difference.

Like you I find there is no difference in Doctrines much between groups....are equally blind to scriptural truth.

Tradition is bondage. Non scriptural witnessing doctrines are death.

It is not what K.James says...just closer to the originals & concordances...not as corrupted by Doctrine...although catholic influence is seen in latin.
---Trav on 5/28/09




Mima,

I must agree. As the world waxes worse and worse (2 Tim 3:13), fewer and fewer will study the KJV, and turn to other versions which are not as well translated.

If people study how the KJV was translated, and look at the team of men who translated it, they would throw out their NIV's (Non Inspired Versions). No offense, just a little joke. :-)
---trey on 5/27/09


duane - *To me, translations dont mean alot. If you seek the Lord you shall find. The bible is but just a book unless the Holy Spirit guides you and teaches you.

I agree but God often uses His word to guide one to salvation, also the Bible is our key guide to the Christian walk.

It is unfortunate that some have made the KJV into some kind of fetish that they worship.
---Lee1538 on 5/27/09


To me, translations dont mean alot. If you seek the Lord you shall find. The bible is but just a book unless the Holy Spirit guides you and teaches you. HE is the way and the truth.
---duane on 5/27/09


trav - *Such wisdom .....never heard..... in these "last days". Throw em away...KJer's.....they say things that the masses can't digest.

What doctrines do KJer's possess that is really different from those who would support the more reputable modern versions?

I believe the Christian that truly seeks the truth will believe much the same doctrine as a KJers'.

The problem is that some people are so steeped in tradition they really are in bondage.

As to your statement on profit, I think you will find book publishers have done as well with the old KJV as with the modern versions.
---Lee1538 on 5/26/09


I do agree with this statement.
"KJV is on a decrease as nobody in todays world except in those small minority churches support that version. (Also some highly trusted scholars still believe in the KJV)
And I predict that those types will eventually die out.
---Lee1538 on 5/22/09

(Also some highly trusted scholars still believe in the KJV)

As we get nearer to the end of the age the more , word changing, word eliminating, translations will gain followers.
---mima on 5/26/09




Lets discuss the changing of words. The KJV is by no means not guilty. The very name of God, "Jehovah" has been eliminated 5520 times in the Old Testament. It has been replaced by the word "God" and "Lord".
---john on 5/26/09


KJV is on a decrease as nobody in todays world except in those small minority churches support that version.
And I predict that those types will eventually die out.
---Lee1538 on 5/22/09

A profit has spoken. I mean prophet....the K.J.ers will die out eventually. ha.
Such wisdom .....never heard..... in these "last days". Throw em away...KJer's.....they say things that the masses can't digest.

Some witness are so strong that if they are for something.....searching Christians do righteous to be against it.

Go from presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Proverbs 14:6-8
A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, knoweth nothing.
Proverbs 9:12-14
---Trav on 5/26/09


Although the language of the KJV may be antiquated, it's generally not the KJV translator's fault that succeeding generations changed the meaning of words.

However, it is still the only version to accurately describe the character of God. Compare 2 Pet 2:9 in the KJV with any other translation. See which one describes a just God.
---jerry6593 on 5/26/09


larry - *However we all know anyone serious about seeking God's will shall discover the truth regardless of the version.

My argument exactly! Those that contend for the ancient King James Version do so by pointing to a few verses that modern versions as well as the source manuscripts do not support.

They totally ignore the fact that no basic doctrine of the Christian faith is affected or modified by any of the reputable versions.

---Lee1538 on 5/23/09


The King James version is not so great as it is "traditional" and any pastor can tell you that a trait common in both the saved and unsaved is being "stuck".

I have a word for word Hebrew and Greek to English bible and I can tell you neither has much in common with the King James.

However we all know anyone serious about seeking God's will shall discover the truth regardless of the version.
---larry on 5/23/09


Don't get over excited about Unicorns, and use Strong's concordance it the Hebrew word is Ra.ham H7214 -- basically a wild long horn bull Ox.
---Phil_the_Elder on 5/22/09
But that is my point. I don't toss the Bible because the KJC translates an bull as a Unicorn. I just would point our that a more accurate translation to English would be "bull" or "long horned bull" as you just did.
---obewan on 5/23/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


And, one rub I have with the KJV is the use of the word unicorns. Yes they are there, and are mythical creatures. Modern translations say something more accurate.
---obewan on 5/22/09

Whoa, there partner....
To make this statement you would have to be almost 7000 years old and know everything there is to know.
I count sheep to go to sleep so at that time they are mythical creatures also. I would count unicorns but I can't stand the noise.
---Elder on 5/23/09


And then the KJV Bible speaks of dragons, sea monsters and other mythical characters much in line with other superstitions found in other contemporary literature.

What really attest to the mistranslations in the KJV is Acts 12:4 where it speaks of Easter. No Greek manuscript supports that mistranslation.

But we need to acknowledge the fact that the KJV is on a decrease as nobody in todays world except in those small minority churches support that version. And I predict that those types will eventually die out.
---Lee1538 on 5/22/09


And, one rub I have with the KJV is the use of the word unicorns. Yes they are there, and are mythical creatures. Modern translations say something more accurate.
---obewan on 5/22/09

There are Narwhales, platypus's don't see a problem personally.

And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
Revelation 4:5-7

He has not missed much in the way of things we can't understand. The Beast full of eyes above for example.
---Trav on 5/22/09


Don't get over excited about Unicorns, and use Strong's concordance it the Hebrew word is Ra.ham H7214 -- basically a wild long horn bull Ox.
---Phil_the_Elder on 5/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Who says unicorns were mythical. Maybe they weren't.
---Betty on 5/22/09


I don't believe any translation to be 100% correct. Man, even under the influence of the Holy Spirit makes too many mistakes. Example: Ex 20:13. It says "thou shalt not kill". Obviously a translation problem or we couldn't step on an ant or spider, or eat any animals. What it really means is "do not murder people". The "word" of God, not any translation, is true, and every man a liar.
---john on 5/22/09


My problem with the NIV and similar versions is removing words like fast or fasting from key verses. Fasting today is very rare yet it was widely practiced in the Bible. Other such words are removed without the 'side note' usually giving an explanation as to why. To me it seems like those are taken away to accomodate 'itching ears'. Like Mark 16:9-20 the best argument being it 'doesn't sound like Mark's style'. So the Holy Spirit had him write differently! I believe God had the KJV put together at the right time and besides a version that takes out thee's and thou's (possible NKJV although still have to be careful there) He doesn't need a different translation.
---Kellie on 5/22/09


I agree the KJV is one of the best if not THEE best TRANSLATION, I balk at radical churches that INSIST it be the ONLY translation.
Such churches ignore the good work of Wycliffe Bible translators to bring the gospel to the 4000+ languages on the planet. There are still some 2000+ left to translate - at least. What are we supposed to do? Must we teach these people the "kings English" before they can be saved?

I say the same concept applies to modern language translations. If they will get more people to read their Bibles they are a good thing.

And, one rub I have with the KJV is the use of the word unicorns. Yes they are there, and are mythical creatures. Modern translations say something more accurate.
---obewan on 5/22/09


Shop For Christian Debt Consolidation


It is hard to find anyone among the younger generation that uses the KJV except in the more radicalized KJV only churches.
---Lee1538 on 5/19/09

Even with the few mistranslations the King James is closer to the original and why most researchers anchor with it. Concordances are linked K.J.

Any that desires truth....King James is enough...Replace the word "gentile" which was never in originals.
Additional research towards the septuigant and ancient language studies.
---Trav on 5/22/09


Again, I submit the challenge:

Compare 2 Pet 2:9 in the KJV with any other translation. See which one describes a just God.
---jerry6593 on 5/22/09


Yes Lee ... and it is also interesting to know that the original translators of the KJV acknowledged their own fallibility.
---alan8566_of_UK on 5/21/09


The KJV was once an excellent translation but is out of date in parts as the meaning of language has changed.

For example Genesis 1:29 which in most modern translations has-be fruitful and multiply and 'fill' the earth. The KJV uses 'replenish' instead of 'fill' and this gives the wrong meaning. The Hebrew for 'fill' is 'male' which was translated into the original KJV as 'replenish' which then meant 'fill.' However in the intervening centuries 'replenish' has come to mean refill. This is not true to the Hebrew, and should be updated (along with other words) as it lead to the wrong idea that the earth had been destroyed and was now being refilled. The ruin and reconstruction theory, which is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.
---Warwick on 5/20/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Betty - *Some meanings were changed in versions other than KJV.

True, but no doctrine of the Christian faith was altered or had to be re-interpreted as a result of the obvious mistranslations found in the King James version.

You should try to understand that the King James is no more or less than just another version. In fact there were other versions in existence prior to the 1611 King James version. Even the translators of the KJV were instructed to stick as close to the Bishops Bible as possible.
---Lee1538 on 5/20/09


Some meanings were changed in versions other than KJV. KJV stuck to original meanings. Godly, God-fearing men translated the Scripures reverently for the King James Version.
---Betty on 5/20/09


For those that like Shakespeare, the ancient King James Version is to be preferred. Howbeit, for those that would like to read the Word of God in the modern vernacular, most of the prominent modern versions are to be preferred.

One of the main reasons why some sects prefer the King James is that with its mistranslations, their unique doctrines can be better supported. This is particularly true with the Adventists and their unique Investigative Judgment doctrine.
---Lee1538 on 5/19/09


Aside from the fact that the KJV Bible is the most beautiful example of written English language in existence, its true value lies not in the accuracy of its translation (although quite good, but with antiquated English, like Shakespear), but rather in the accuracy of its foundational texts. It is the only common version taken from the Textus Receptus Greek text rather than the corrupted Latin Vulgate. See for yourself. Compare 2 Pet 2:9 in the KJV with all other translations. See which ones describe a just God.
---jerry6593 on 5/19/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


*The King James Version is by far the most widely read and influential piece of English literature ever published.

While true it also is being replaced by more accurate translations. Sales of the NIV and other versions have already outsold the KJV.

It is hard to find anyone among the younger generation that uses the KJV except in the more radicalized KJV only churches.
---Lee1538 on 5/19/09


The King James Version is by far the most widely read and influential piece of English literature ever published. Whether or not it is an accurate translation is a separate question....
---JohnnyB on 4/25/09


In my opinion, the "King James" is the most accurate, using the best texts. Its' translators were both faithful, and were less subject to a hidden agenda than many modern translators. Probably, there are some importations from other bible verses in some places, but none that modify its' meaning. You need to take time to learn new (or old) meanings to some words. But afterwards, it is still the easiest to read, and requires a lower comprehension level than most other versions.
---Glenn on 4/25/09


Another blog discusses extemism. "The KJV is God's choice and the only real translation!" "The KJV is the most accurate translation to the original scriptures!" Please! The KJV IS a wonderful translation that has stood the test of time. It wasn't translated from the original Greek and Hebrew however (do your homework). Unfortunately the language of 1610 is a hindrance for many, new translations are needed.
---bartel on 10/8/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


It is not a fascination people have about the KJV, but instead it is a preference for the superior translation over other inferior translations.
---Eloy on 10/8/07


Could it be that they are aware of the other versions?

Don't start some silly debate again over which Bible is correct.

The KJV has been faithful to me for over 30 years and I have studied the other versions. If you like them use 'em.

Don't condemn others for what they use.
---Elder on 10/7/07


Considering the FACT, that Jesus came to establish a New covenant & reinforce his Fathers testament of the 10 commandments which is the Basis of Christianity.So all other bibles were written after, based on the comprehension of their interpretations.Documented evidence shows us that the Protestant & other denominations sprang up because of the temptations of Satan, & peoples failure to live by the word & actions as God commanded, its easier, so people took this road.Jesus showed us that there is no gain without pain, his subsequent defeat of the Devil was fought & won by him At Gethsamane.
---Emcee on 3/29/07


john-----the kjb is not using "helper" to replace Comforter. the nkjv DOES use "helper" instead of Comforter---just like the JW's
---r.w. on 8/4/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


harm7866..if you dont want to live by the Law which is also Christ, then whose Law are you living by...whose sabbath are you going by? the sdas didnt make the laws and sabbaths, they are merely obeying what the truth of God says ... and again, it is the ceremonial laws that are done away..do away with the 10 laws, then you do away with Christ...
---jana on 7/29/06


I appologize, the last blog statement was ment for jana
---harm7866 on 7/9/06


I would like to make a comment in regards to Mrs. Lover's comments about us not being removed from the obligation of the LAW. In Romans 6 vs 14, it says: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under grace (emphasis mine)

As plain as day. This should also refute the SDA's claim that we must live by the LAW, like keeping the seventh day holy.
---harm7866 on 7/9/06


r.w. The KJV uses the word helper more often than comforter. Just like the cult Jehovah Witness one does. So does that make the KJV bad now too? The word "helper" or "guide" are much more explanatory than the word "comforter" to explain what the Lord is to us. It's no wonder that even the KJV uses the word helper more often.
---john on 7/9/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


Believe it or not, many Greek words have more than one meaning, just like English words.

"Paraklitos" can mean "comforter" OR "helper" OR even "sidekick".

The corresponding verb, "parakaleo" can mean "comfort", "help", "intercede," or "supplicate."
---Jack on 7/9/06


lover you mentioned nkjv and the Holy Spirit. are you aware that the nkjv uses the term "helper" instead of comforter? this is what the cult jahovah witnesses use-helper
---r.w. on 7/9/06


lee..read this, Col 1:24 NIV bible says: that which is lacking in Christ's afflictions...in KJV it says The afflictions of Christ in my flesh.
Eph 1:14 NIV,NASB "to the redemption of God's own possession" KJV "The redemption of the purchased possession" NIV Mat 8:17 carried away our diseases KJV bare our sicknesses .. note the differences
---jana on 6/3/06


Just because someone uses the kjv or nkjv bible does not mean it is the final information you must study the scriptures many versions to compare along with having the Comfortor the holy spirit guide you as he did the original scpitures then king james came along wording for his best interest and for europe rather than greek or hebrew context.
---mrs._lover on 6/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


Jana ... I think you must be replying to someone else?
---alan8869_of_UK on 6/1/06


alan of uk..Jesus is the New Covenant...read Ezekiel 37:26 to 28, Hebrew 13:20 and Revelation 21:3...there are many more texts which clearly states this...that Jesus is the New Covenant but take note, it did not say that Jesus has done away with the Moral Laws...
---jana on 6/1/06


If you read New Age Bible Versions by G A Riplinger you will find that she uses the King James version as the standard to which she compares other versions to. Each difference she views as an error. She does not beleive in modern Biblical scholarship nor is she one.
---lee on 5/28/06


curt, I use the KJV because it is the one bible I like and it is easily understood..and more so than some of the new ones...if you read the book called New Age Bible Versions by G A Riplinger, you will find, the new versions are full of errors and if your not well bible versed, you will not know it..I read other versions as well to compare the translations.
---jana on 5/27/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


All standard Bible translations have flaws and advantages. But ALL are works of human skill and knowledge, and hence have men's ideas in them, so none can claim the inspiration of the original Greek and Hebrew.

This is why the KJVOnly cultists are wrong. As well, it's just one more exmaple of people feeling like they can lie about others in the name of Jesus--but let's not go there.
---Jack on 5/28/05


I use the KJ because I am use to it, which helps me to understand. My pastor uses another version which throws my off. I am not an expert on what is closest to the origanal words of God.
---Ulrika on 5/4/05


okay, if i sounded arrogant, i am sorry. please remember that i am working on my faults, and arrogance is one of them.
---curt on 5/4/05


The AV or the KJV has a lot of textual errors especially in the New Testament there are 7959 in the New Testament and only 4999 dont have variants between various Greek source documents. Most of the errors are minor but some do cause doctorial interpolation problems. Demerits Erasmus, editor of Textus Receptus, did not help the situation when he took bribes to change the portions of text from various parties between it first publication in 1515 and 1522. Use a Modern Version based on NA27 or UBS4 as the source text for the New Testament and you will be on safe ground.

Phil
---phia4633 on 5/4/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Curt ... that is a bit strong, since you started this little exchange by trying to stop other people making their comments!!
---Alan_of_U.K. on 5/2/05


elder, to talk the way you do suggests a hostility that does not belong on this site. please refrain from telling others that their comments are not valid.
---curt on 5/1/05


the King James version, despite popular belief, is NOT the closest translation of the original scripts. the NKJ and the NAS are the best and closest versions.
---gabriel on 4/29/05


the KJV was fine for the 1600's, but as words changed in meaning, we needed newer versions. thanks steve, for telling me about John 1:12, i already knew about that, but thanks anyway.
---curt on 4/21/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Steve
Its not that most are not aware of other versions,Its that KJ next to the Literal Bible is the closest transaltion to the original languages. I read nkj but study kj
Have a great day in the LORD.
---willow on 4/20/05


I don't understand it either steve. In the early days, I used the KJV because I wasn't aware of any other translations. Then along came the NIV. God has taught me from both. It's the hearts' desire that is important - to connect with our Father and His desire for us. God can and will speak through anything and everything. We just need to be willing and receptive. It makes me very sad to see Christians ridiculed because of arguments over translations. Loving God first and one another as He has loved us is the only real translation that we need - nothing more-nothing less.
---CarolT on 4/20/05


Alan thanks for your confidence. Curt is here to learn also as we all are. He may not understand how things work.

Barbara glad you healed and came back.

My whole point in this matter is that the plan of Salvation and Salvation did not occur just when Jesus took on flesh. Our Salvation was from the foundation of the world by the founder of the world.

God bless you all, (and the chat rooms also.)
---Elder on 4/19/05


Shava ... you say that some verses are totally different in the KVV and modern versions.

I do not think there are may where the meaning is very different.

We have to watch that we understand the words used in the KJV, because the meaning of some of them may have changed over the years.

For example, you may think that the KJV word "strait" means the same as today's word "straight" But it does not ... in the KJV it means narrow, or even difficult.
---Alan_of_U.K. on 4/19/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Well as for me i use the KJV, NIV & Goodnews Bible. My opinion of choosing the KJV would be that there are some controversial verses that are found in the KJV and are missing in other version & some have a tatally different meaning.well thats me
---Shava on 4/19/05


Elder ... I AM glad you are back with your wisdom.

Thank you for deepening my knowledge.

I myself would not use the word Christianity for what people had revealed to them before the time Christ came to earth, because to me the word means, not the salvation, but the church (in the widest sense) of believers that was established following His sacrifice 2000 years ago.

It's good that we can use different words for the same Truth, and view things from different perspectives.

Our little diversion here has been valuable, in spite of Curt's objection.
---Alan_of_U.K. on 4/19/05


Again, the prime issue is not the translation, but rather the veracity of the source material from which it is translated. The KJV is taken from the Greek Textus Receptus, and most others from the Latin Vulgate. I would suggest a choice based upon the conception of God found in 2 Peter 2:9. Only the KJV presents a just God here.
---Jerry on 4/19/05


Of course, if you study OT history God was trying to ready them for a Savior. If you study Jewish holidays and customs, they all reflect what Jesus would do on the earth, how they were to recognize him and symbolic rituals that reflected just who Jesus was. All OT prophecies were fulfilled during Jesus' ministry. In agreement with you Elder, as usual.
---NV_Barbara on 4/19/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Curt ... please do not try to censor what is said and discussed here.

As you will know, most discussions go off the subject & back again The same thing happens here. It helps us to learn from and understand the other people.
---Alan_of_U.K. on 4/19/05


Alan I know what you mean as you do me also.

There were those in the OT who knew there would be a Sacrifice coming.

In Gen 22:8 Abraham said, "God will provide himself a lamb."
I believe this meant that God would provide His own self as a sacrifice and ol' Abe knew this.

Curt you have no authority to make the statement you have. Alan and I have been here a long time and if the Staff of ChristiaNet wants us to do something They will tell us. In the last 6 years they haven't found fault with our format.
---Elder on 4/18/05


people, lets keep our responses on the subject. the chatroom is available for debates over issues not related to the question. okay?
---curt on 4/18/05


Elder ... yes I agree that Christ was there at the beginning ... no, I mean for ever.

And there was salvation, but before Christ I do not think that people were aware of salvation through the sacrifice of the Son Of God ... of God Himself

But with the sacrifice of Jesus, 2000 years ago, came the New Covenant, and that is the basis of what we know as Christianity.

Badly put, but I hope you see what I mean ... it is a question really of what we each mean by the word ... as it has been before in our discussions!
---Alan_of_U.K. on 4/18/05


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


My ol' buddy Alan.......
Alan my point is three fold.

1. Christ did exist before creation and He created all things, John 1:1-12, Gen 1-chapter 3. Christ has always been and will always be. He was not a created being but He created all things.

2. Salvation was provided in the Garden with a "type" through the shedding of innocent blood when Adam sinned.
Cond #2-->
---Elder on 4/18/05


Cond #2-->
3. The term Christian came on the scene first at Antioch because people were living so close to the Lord they were called "Christian" which means Christ like.

In the Old Testament people were saved the same way we are today. They looked at the sacrifice of the Lamb who is Christ. The only difference is they looked forward and were "saved on credit" we look back and are Saved because "the account is paid in full."

Salvation and Christianity did not start at Bethlehem or Golgotha.
---Elder on 4/18/05


Elder ... you say Christianity has been in existence since the book of Genesis.

I am puzzled by this since Christ came here only 2000 years ago, so the was no awareness of Him before then therefore no Christainity.

Do you mean that God was then building the foundation for the eventual emergence of Christianity?
---Alan_of_U.K. on 4/18/05


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.