What Does King James Only Really Means?

24 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I am King James preferred, but not King James only. The bible came to us, not only in English or in the Spanish language?

:popcorn:

Edited by The Glory Land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's an open question...open to different reasons from different people.   :beatdeadhorse:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To me, King James only means, I only read the King James Bible, I only read books that use the KJ scripture as references, I only listen to preachers who use the KJ and if I hear the phrase "this is better translated as"  I get up and leave.

2bLikeJesus and Miss Daisy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am King James preferred, but not King James only. The bible came to us,not in English or in the Spanish language? 

 

:popcorn:

I'm Jesus Christ preferred. Though I leave my options open. Especially when I don't like what he says.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm Jesus Christ preferred. Though I leave my options open. Especially when I don't like what he says.



What part, That I am KJ preferred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's an open question...open to different reasons from different people. :beatdeadhorse:



I am not asking what's the best Bible here today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

KJVO is one who holds to the KJV 1611 (Authorized Version) only, for the English speaking peoples of the world.  Since I speak the English language only, that would be me.  :)

quinkie and 2bLikeJesus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I speak English...and the King James is the ONLY one for me.

quinkie likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not going to get into a drawn out discussion, but:

 

KJV (English)

RVG (Spanish) (though I do have an 1865 revision of the 1602)

Luther (German)

Synodal (Russian)

 

 

keep the bricks in your hand and save them for another day.

John81 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not going to get into a drawn out discussion, but:

KJV (English)
RVG (Spanish) (though I do have an 1865 revision of the 1602)
Luther (German)
Synodal (Russian)


keep the bricks in your hand and save them for another day.





With bricks you can hurt someone. I through my KJ at someone, the soft cover one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the whole world didn't know Hebrew.  The New Testament was given to the Jews and the Gentiles in the Greek.  The whole world didn't know Greek but it was the universal language of the day.  Then the Lord chose to preserve His Word in the English and did so in the King James Bible.  The English is the universal language of the world today.

 

So, if you want God's Word in your native tongue, should it be translated from the Received Text or from the King James Bible?

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the whole world didn't know Hebrew. The New Testament was given to the Jews and the Gentiles in the Greek. The whole world didn't know Greek but it was the universal language of the day. Then the Lord chose to preserve His Word in the English and did so in the King James Bible. The English is the universal language of the world today.

So, if you want God's Word in your native tongue, should it be translated from the Received Text or from the King James Bible.




Today we must say, The Original KJ version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Today we must say, The Original KJ version.

 

I think that might be confusing, TGL, as there are no originals.  It might be better to say the KJV 1611 (Authorized Version) or just KJ (Authorized Version).  

At least that is what I say to people before they look for a Bible.  I don't want them to be confused with the NKJV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I simply refer to the KJB. I don't use dates because that can lead to confusion as I've known some who went out to by a KJV 1611 and that's just what they got and they were unable to read it at all.

 

Most of us are using a 1700s edition of the KJB but that typically doesn't need to be addressed. Simply saying "King James Bible" will suffice.

 

For myself, I only use the KJB because the Lord directly said to, not by audible voice, but by His Spirit telling me directly just as clear as day.

swathdiver and ASongOfDegrees like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have said KJV to people and they buy the NKJV.  That is why I specify Authorized Version, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, spelling, which included the updating from old style English to modern. The 1611 is very difficult to read because of the style of print as well as the spelling.

 

The update amounted to typographical editing, not actual change of content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So, if you want God's Word in your native tongue, should it be translated from the Received Text or from the King James Bible.

Translate from the Received Texts. Much more of a precise language than English and it was directly inspired.

Rebecca and HappyChristian like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For myself, I only use the KJB because the Lord directly said to, not by audible voice, but by His Spirit telling me directly just as clear as day.

 

Same here.

 

I use an 1875 edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Translate from the Received Texts. Much more of a precise language than English and it was directly inspired.

Huh? How can you say this? English is one of the broadest and most precise language there is. Also, you don't even have punctuation and capitalization in the TR plus all the ADDED words that are not in the TR. And how can you say the TR was "directly inspired" when it is made up of copies of copies? If you truly believe this you should read it instead of your KJV. There is nothing magical about the "original languages" over the English.

 

Translate it from the KJV which is already being done by many missionaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What part, That I am KJ preferred?

Brother, you said you are KJV "preferred" which is way too open ended. Can't you see the fallacy in your thinking? Just replace the words "King James Version" with "Lord Jesus Christ" and that should throw some light on it?

 

In a nutshell you are saying that all bibles are full of errors and you will decide which is right and which is wrong to your liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Brother, you said you are KJV "preferred" which is way too open ended. Can't you see the fallacy in your thinking? Just replace the words "King James Version" with "Lord Jesus Christ" and that should throw some light on it?

 

In a nutshell you are saying that all bibles are full of errors and you will decide which is right and which is wrong to your liking.

 

 

I don't believe that the bible, or bibles are full of errors, if they are, then we all might be just wasting our time..  :godisgood:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't believe that the bible, or bibles are full of errors, if they are, then we all might be just wasting our time..  :godisgood:

Then what do you do when the versions contradict each other? Which one do you pick or prefer and on what basis do you make this determination?

 

They can't all be right if they don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Then what do you do when the versions contradict each other? Which one do you pick or prefer and on what basis do you make this determination?

 

They can't all be right if they don't agree.

 

 

They don't contradict each other, just the newer versions are water down to go down smoother. If I said to you, the wages of sin is death or the payment of sin is separation from God. Which one sounds smoother to the ears? They both are saying the same thing.

 

The true bible is 100 percent free of errors.  :th_tiphat: . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites