Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, ‚ÄúIt is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.‚ÄĚ - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: ‚ÄúBecause faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.‚ÄĚ In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34‚Äď35 Jesus says, ‚ÄúA new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.‚ÄĚ Love always requires an ‚Äúother‚ÄĚ as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
becauseofgrace

Bible Versions - Anyone else KJV only?

Recommended Posts

becauseofgrace

Are there very many others on here who believe in using only the King James Version also? Not wanting to start a debate, just wondering. ūüôā And if so, what are the reasons that you do?¬†

Edited by becauseofgrace

Share this post


Link to post
CorneliusCenturion
14 hours ago, becauseofgrace said:

Are there very many others on here who believe in using only the King James Version also? Not wanting to start a debate, just wondering. ūüôā And if so, what are the reasons that you do?¬†

The King James Version would be the translation I use, or an equivalent (e.g. Geneva Bible). Reasons:

  • Translation is as literal as possible (and readable) from the original texts. Many translations do paraphrase it.¬†
  • Translators, I believe, were faithful men to the Scriptures, living a godly life and submitted to the Scriptures. This will influence the translation as well.
  • The original text for the KJV is the best one (Majority Text or Textus Receptus), while many current day translations are based on the Critical Text.¬†
    • Related to this is that those texts were used for a long time. An argument can be that God preserved His word (see Psalms), wherefore it would be strange to change the original text suddenly to another one with many changes.
  • Translation was initiated by the government working together with the church, and therefore authorized. The Geneva Bible does not have this advantage, but has the above three and would therefore be a possible Bible translation as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
3 hours ago, CorneliusCenturion said:

Translation was initiated by the government working together with the church, and therefore authorized. The Geneva Bible does not have this advantage, but has the above three and would therefore be a possible Bible translation as well.

And we well know that everything is better when the government gets involved. 

 

sarcastic willy wonka GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
3 minutes ago, William said:

And we well know that everything is better when the government gets involved.

ryan gosling lol GIF

Share this post


Link to post
seashore

What about the NASB? A pastor told me it's a good literal translation. Also, I find it more understandable than the KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
1 hour ago, seashore said:

What about the NASB? A pastor told me it's a good literal translation. Also, I find it more understandable than the KJV.

Be sure to vote in our poll:

 

While I am not educated in the original biblical languages I think understanding more than less by translation is better. 

 

The irony of the Geneva vs KJV debate is that the Geneva actually contained Reformers notes which spoke of the citizen's obligation to rebel/resists against tyranny. I'm sure you may well imagine the resulting concern from an established monarchy? 

 

free freedom GIF

 

Presbyterianism or give me death!

 

In all seriousness every American ought be familiar with the Presbyterian framework of government. Our founding fathers framed America's government on Presbyterianism with all her checks and balances. Our then representatives were servants of The People 2/3rds of which were Calvinist that laid down their lives on the battlefield of the Revolutionary War. Our forefathers sailed to escape across the sea with the Geneva in hand and not the KJV to distance themselves from the very people that held the very notion that the government is better than the church in biblical matters. 

 

My preferred translation is the ESV for the very same reason your pastor suggested and for the ESV notes. While I can't answer your question as I never really read the NASB @seashore I think if you understand more of it then that is better. 


On another note, hanging around @Origen I've learned there are no direct word for word translations or purely direct equivalences. Hebrew euphemisms as an example make little sense word for word into English. There is a degree of functional equivalence in every translation. 

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
becauseofgrace
On 1/14/2020 at 11:54 AM, CorneliusCenturion said:

The King James Version would be the translation I use, or an equivalent (e.g. Geneva Bible). Reasons:

  • Translation is as literal as possible (and readable) from the original texts. Many translations do paraphrase it.¬†
  • Translators, I believe, were faithful men to the Scriptures, living a godly life and submitted to the Scriptures. This will influence the translation as well.
  • The original text for the KJV is the best one (Majority Text or Textus Receptus), while many current day translations are based on the Critical Text.¬†
    • Related to this is that those texts were used for a long time. An argument can be that God preserved His word (see Psalms), wherefore it would be strange to change the original text suddenly to another one with many changes.
  • Translation was initiated by the government working together with the church, and therefore authorized. The Geneva Bible does not have this advantage, but has the above three and would therefore be a possible Bible translation as well.

Thank you for your reply! I share a couple of the same reasons, namely the Textual line that it was translated from (I believe this is the main, and very important part of understanding the difference between the KJV and many other versions), and also that God has promised to preserve His Word. He is not the author of confusion, and did not leave us with numerous versions of His Word for us to pick the one we each like best.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
becauseofgrace
21 hours ago, seashore said:

What about the NASB? A pastor told me it's a good literal translation. Also, I find it more understandable than the KJV.

My reason for not using versions such as the NASB and others, is that it is translated from the Minority Text. If you're curious why I believe that, here's a link that explains some (though I do not endorse everything on the website). It just helps explain about the textual lines. 

WWW.1611KINGJAMESBIBLE.COM

A defense of the Textus Receptus

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just Mike
1 hour ago, becauseofgrace said:

My reason for not using versions such as the NASB and others, is that it is translated from the Minority Text. If you're curious why I believe that, here's a link that explains some (though I do not endorse everything on the website). It just helps explain about the textual lines. 

WWW.1611KINGJAMESBIBLE.COM

A defense of the Textus Receptus

 

There are so many people who have heard someone they respect, like a pastor or Bible professor give their reasons as to why they prefer one translation over another. While in Seminary two of my professors were involved with two different Bible translations, the NASB Updated, and the 1985 NIV. I used both as a pastor. I respect the NASB most of all. However now I like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (now out of print) for my personal use. Holman discontinued the HCSB, and came out with the Christian Standard Bible, which has some changes which Holman felt was needed. I disagree.

 

The problem with many of the Bibles made after 1990, is they lack the tools like an Exhaustive Concordance.  In my humble opinion the biggest problem is getting people to read the Bible say nothing about what translation they read. Usually its good to use the same Bible as the one your pastor preaches out of.

 

God be with you all. 

Share this post


Link to post
CorneliusCenturion
3 hours ago, becauseofgrace said:

My reason for not using versions such as the NASB and others, is that it is translated from the Minority Text. If you're curious why I believe that, here's a link that explains some (though I do not endorse everything on the website). It just helps explain about the textual lines. 

WWW.1611KINGJAMESBIBLE.COM

A defense of the Textus Receptus

 

That seems to be a good source as well. Probably you know the articles of TBS (Trinitarian Bible Society) as well. Here the link (under Biblical Language Texts):

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Becky

I use King James . My reasons are personal having not much to do with anything other then emotions. When some one quotes John 3 :16 and it aint KJ  i a caught off guard. KJV is part of my childhood often i can still hear my Daddy's voice when i come across one of his favorite passages. From a scholastic standpoint i know it is lacking . I will use other translations  to learn but go back to KJ  for my heart . 

Share this post


Link to post
becauseofgrace
4 hours ago, CorneliusCenturion said:

That seems to be a good source as well. Probably you know the articles of TBS (Trinitarian Bible Society) as well. Here the link (under Biblical Language Texts):

 

I have heard of TBS, but wasn't familiar with their page of information. Thank you for the link!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Forgiven182

I read only King James version. I grew up on it. I think its the best mix of accuracy and sounds really nice to read. There are some tough words but looking them up enhances my study and understanding rather than detracting from it. I used to be staunchly KJV only, but I have become more accepting of some of the other versions, but i still prefer and soley read KJV. I like it. I like to say I am a KJV only for me. I am not a big fan of those who are militant about it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher

KJV was the first Bible I read as a kid and it was difficult to understand for me back then and for my kids it's nearly incomprehensible. The reformers wanted a Bible that was in the language of the people but the language has changed a lot since the KJV was first published so it no longer works well for that purpose. It was a good Bible for it's time but given the limited number of ancient manuscripts available  compared to the number we have today and that it contains known errors it makes sense to use a more modern version if the goal is to have a translation that is most faithful to the original autographs. I personally prefer the NASB because it tries to be literal but in some instances I find the NIV to be more understandable. Modern translations sometimes use a minority reading because there are less ancient manuscripts then there are newer ones and an older manuscript logically tend to be given more weight then a newer one since it is closer to the original autograph which means less time has accumulated in which errors could be introduced into the text; it's part of the process of manuscript selection known as textual criticism. I would recommend that anyone who is interested in accurately understanding the topic read The King James Only Controversy by James R White. The book is written in simple enough language that a layman can understand it but also detailed enough that it has been used as a textbook. It covers the important subjects of inspiration, transmission, preservation, textual criticism, and translation which every believer ought to understand. I am currently teaching these concepts to my children as part of family worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
6 hours ago, Becky said:

From a scholastic standpoint i know it is lacking

That's a myth peddled by promoters of modern versions. 

 

35 minutes ago, davidstarcher said:

The reformers wanted a Bible that was in the language of the people but the language has changed a lot since the KJV was first published so it no longer works well for that purpose

It hasn't changed nearly as much as those same promoters would have us believe. The vocabulary and phraseology is often simpler/plainer than that found in modern versions.

39 minutes ago, davidstarcher said:

It was a good Bible for it's time but given the limited number of ancient manuscripts available  compared to the number we have today and that it contains known errors it makes sense to use a more modern version if the goal is to have a translation that is most faithful to the original autographs

Most manuscripts agree with the AV. The major changes were

 

42 minutes ago, davidstarcher said:

initially made on the basis of TWO codices that are incomplete, riddled with mistakes and disagree with each other (literally) thousands of times

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
54 minutes ago, davidstarcher said:

Modern translations sometimes use a minority reading because there are less ancient manuscripts then there are newer ones and an older manuscript logically tend to be given more weight then a newer one since it is closer to the original autograph which means less time has accumulated in which errors could be introduced into the text

That theory disregards the fact that in the days of handwritten manuscripts, copies of the Scriptures were scarce. A faithful copy would have been used extensively, to the point of wearing out. One that survived in good condition, would be one that the church rejected as being unfaithful.

 

54 minutes ago, davidstarcher said:

I would recommend that anyone who is interested in accurately understanding the topic read The King James Only Controversy by James R White

Er......no! James White is a friend of heretics (Michael Brown and Doug Wilson) and doesn't always stick to absolute truthfulness. It's not surprising that he also defends the textual efforts of heretics....... 

 

 

 

https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/Which-Version-Does-it-Really-Matter.pdf

 

 

https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/9D62A49E-9FF0-410B-B3CB-23A3C5EAE1CF/The-Lord-Gave-the-Word.pdf

 

 

Edited by Wull
Unsolicited merging of posts
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Faber
16 hours ago, Just Mike said:

Holman discontinued the HCSB, and came out with the Christian Standard Bible, which has some changes which Holman felt was needed. I disagree.

 

 Hi JM,

 

 Can you list a few examples of these changes.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
6 hours ago, Wull said:

That theory disregards the fact that in the days of handwritten manuscripts, copies of the Scriptures were scarce. A faithful copy would have been used extensively, to the point of wearing out. One that survived in good condition, would be one that the church rejected as being unfaithful.

 

Er......no! James White is a friend of heretics (Michael Brown and Doug Wilson) and doesn't always stick to absolute truthfulness. It's not surprising that he also defends the textual efforts of heretics....... 

 

 

 

https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/Which-Version-Does-it-Really-Matter.pdf

 

 

https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/9D62A49E-9FF0-410B-B3CB-23A3C5EAE1CF/The-Lord-Gave-the-Word.pdf

 

 

All these claims and more are both addressed and thoroughly refuted in The King James Only Controversy by James R White for anyone who is interested in accurately understanding the topic. For those who aren't interested in accuracy or truth don't bother reading or you may get an allergic reaction. The reason hardcore KJV Onlyists do not want you reading this book is because it has been the means by which numerous people have abandoned that position. KJV Onlyism in it's extremes acts more like a cult than anything else and like most cults it relies on making sure that other people never hear arguments from the other side since the arguments it uses are often easily refuted..  

 

Edited by davidstarcher
correcting title of book
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Forgiven182

I thought this was a discussion  about why we read the KJV not a debate about the accuracy  of any particular version? I think KJV is very accurate and english speakers have been blessed by it for generations.  I do not think it is necessarily a either or discussion. I think some versions are more accurate  than others and being made 50 years  ago doesnt make it better or necessarily worse.

 

I agree to a lot of the statements in KJV defense. I also think a lot of arguments  against  sound more like preferencial reasons. Who can really get into the nitty gritty of the actual texts? Very few of us have looked at all, if any of them. Its scholars arguing back and forth on there expertise. In the end, common sense dictates that with all the algorithms  and theories there is still margin for errors. Thus we cannot know for certain, so i think trust in God is paramount and  a dedication to study further is necessary  without attacking the other side out of turn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
3 hours ago, Faber said:

 

 Hi JM,

 

 Can you list a few examples of these changes.

 

Thanks

Here you go @Faber.

 

1910046800_ScreenShot2020-01-16at10_06_31AM.thumb.png.3ff11c3fa97dfbb38c86c55497824cfa.png

317594320_ScreenShot2020-01-16at10_07_47AM.thumb.png.960ec01be451ec3975e5cee214aace4d.png

290521400_ScreenShot2020-01-16at10_08_22AM.thumb.png.9ec097ef472600f4ebc33b93896de57b.png

1173150952_ScreenShot2020-01-16at10_09_00AM.thumb.png.fb8c0456b4e6d403b4e991cab6549f37.png

1543118431_ScreenShot2020-01-16at10_09_36AM.thumb.png.f2c47de0de10f8af2b60d2ac491ca529.png

36512602_ScreenShot2020-01-16at10_10_34AM.thumb.png.91dcb416c9b0323599f4b6382a89cbb1.png

 

CSBIBLE.COM

Changes from the HCSB to the CSB With the goals of increased fidelity to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts and increased clarity for today’s readers, the Translation Oversight Committee has updated the text of the...

CSB_VerseComparisons.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

For those who aren't interested in accuracy or truth don't bother reading or you may get an allergic reaction

This is very much a matter of accuracy and truth. That's why I posted links to articles written by faithful Gospel ministers, demonstrating the truth surrounding Bible versions (as opposed to the theories and speculations of those who don't always have anything resembling a sound doctrine of Scripture, and/or hold to Catholicism and other heresies).

While I might find White's book interesting in one way, for further research into the ideas he peddles, I don't intend to take seriously the position of a man who is a friend of heretics.

Share this post


Link to post
Wull

And the defense of the AV as being the only faithful English-language version in current widespread use, is NOT in itself KJV-Onlyism - but is largely the historical position of the Christian church. When Westcott and Hort started their work to replace the TR, it was seen through. Nowadays, their successors are lauded.......

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
1 hour ago, Forgiven182 said:

Thus we cannot know for certain, so i think trust in God is paramount and  a dedication to study further is necessary  without attacking the other side out of turn.

That's a very dangerous attitude to take to God's Word - if we can't know for certain, then we might as well live in constant fear of a large body of ancient manuscripts coming to light, that "prove" that other passages "shouldn't" be in our Bibles. 

The fact is, the Lord has blessed the spread of His Word through Reformation-era Bibles such as the AV (and arguably the Geneva, along with equivalent translations in other languages).

Error must be attacked - it is a Christian duty. When Higher Criticism came into the church in the later 1800's, very few actively opposed it (as C.H. Spurgeon found to his cost). It was allowed to get a foothold, and the consequences for the church were most regrettable.

The Free Church of Scotland was far from united in opposing the heretics who had crept in, and it largely ended up back in the Church of Scotland..........

And the errors of those days were VERY SIMILAR to those held by the modern textual critics telling us what should and shouldn't be in our Bibles!!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...
Articles - News