Bible Study The Errors in New Versions of the Bible (Why KJV only)

[Pass-A-Gospel-Tract]

 

[Free]

First question is, what are their qualifications? Being a reader of the Bible is not one of them.

Second, at 2:03, he says that "unless you have a King James, you do not have the perfect, pure word of God." That right there excludes the Bible from being written in any other language. This is a common error by KJVOists, showing that they really don't understand how translation from one language to another works.

Third, around 4:30 he misuses Prov 22:28 to support using the KJV only.

Fourth, at 5:00 he bashes "so-called modern scholars," when he is not a scholar himself.

Fifth, starting at 5:17, he misuses "translated/translate" from Scripture to support the idea that the KJV is better than the originals. Using those verses in the Bible, he even says, "Every time something is translated, it is always better than the original." Wow. Heb 11:5, 2 Sam 3:10, and Col 1:13's use of "translated" and "translation" have absolutely nothing to do with translating language. That's called twisting Scripture. Not only that, he doesn't apply the same reasoning to modern translations.

Sixth, at 8:15, there is another serious misapplication and twisting of Scripture by using Psalm 12:6 to say that since English was the seventh language the Bible was translated into, the KJV is pure. But that is completely false. The Bible and portions of it, were translated into many languages prior to English:

"The Armenian language first developed an alphabet around 406 AD.36 An Armenian translation of the entire Bible existed by 414.37 Early Christians were obviously very zealous about bringing the Scriptures into the languages of the people. There were also very ancient translations of the New Testament into Palestinian Aramaic,38 Georgian,39 Ge’ez (Ethiopic),40 Arabic41 Nubian,42 Persian,43 Sogdian (Middle Persian),44 Gothic,45 Slavonic,46 and others.47 The Early centuries of Christianity thus saw the Scriptures translated into a variety of vernacular tongues as the gospel spread throughout the known world. The biblical translation was clearly a high priority."

And that's in addition to Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, and Latin, among others. So there are many different languages prior to the first English translation.

https://carm.org/the-bible/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations/

That is a serious error and display of ignorance of the history of translation. So, 9 minutes in and there are several instances of twisting Scripture and errors in reasoning. Such a pastor is divisive and twisted in his mind:

Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (ESV)

Further in, around the 27:00 mark, he starts by bashing colleges in general, and then concludes from that that Bible scholars cannot be trusted if they say to go with a wrong text (wrong as defined by him, of course). That is seriously faulty reasoning, not to mention it is begging the question, and ignores the fact that he likely learned from Bible scholars, or perhaps just those who identify as Bible scholars but are not. Either way, once again, he doesn't use the same reasoning for his position.

I'm not going to bother watching the rest because I've been in enough of these discussions to know that the vast majority of differences between the KJV and other translations are more likely to be errors in the KJV. The argument that newer versions are missing verses or changing the meaning of verses is the error in reasoning called begging the question. That is the most common error in KJVOism, but certainly not the only one.

KJVOism is of the devil. Of course, if you want to discuss certain things regarding it or the video, I'm open to it.

I truly do feel sorry for people that believe the KJV is the only true Bible, or that it is even the best version.

 

[jasonc]

First question is, what are their qualifications? Being a reader of the Bible is not one of them.

Second, at 2:03, he says that "unless you have a King James, you do not have the perfect, pure word of God." That right there excludes the Bible from being written in any other language. This is a common error by KJVOists, showing that they really don't understand how translation from one language to another works.

Third, around 4:30 he misuses Prov 22:28 to support using the KJV only.

Fourth, at 5:00 he bashes "so-called modern scholars," when he is not a scholar himself.

Fifth, starting at 5:17, he misuses "translated/translate" from Scripture to support the idea that the KJV is better than the originals. Using those verses in the Bible, he even says, "Every time something is translated, it is always better than the original." Wow. Heb 11:5, 2 Sam 3:10, and Col 1:13's use of "translated" and "translation" have absolutely nothing to do with translating language. That's called twisting Scripture. Not only that, he doesn't apply the same reasoning to modern translations.

Sixth, at 8:15, there is another serious misapplication and twisting of Scripture by using Psalm 12:6 to say that since English was the seventh language the Bible was translated into, the KJV is pure. But that is completely false. The Bible and portions of it, were translated into many languages prior to English:

"The Armenian language first developed an alphabet around 406 AD.36 An Armenian translation of the entire Bible existed by 414.37 Early Christians were obviously very zealous about bringing the Scriptures into the languages of the people. There were also very ancient translations of the New Testament into Palestinian Aramaic,38 Georgian,39 Ge’ez (Ethiopic),40 Arabic41 Nubian,42 Persian,43 Sogdian (Middle Persian),44 Gothic,45 Slavonic,46 and others.47 The Early centuries of Christianity thus saw the Scriptures translated into a variety of vernacular tongues as the gospel spread throughout the known world. The biblical translation was clearly a high priority."

And that's in addition to Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, and Latin, among others. So there are many different languages prior to the first English translation.

https://carm.org/the-bible/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations/

That is a serious error and display of ignorance of the history of translation. So, 9 minutes in and there are several instances of twisting Scripture and errors in reasoning. Such a pastor is divisive and twisted in his mind:

Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (ESV)

Further in, around the 27:00 mark, he starts by bashing colleges in general, and then concludes from that that Bible scholars cannot be trusted if they say to go with a wrong text (wrong as defined by him, of course). That is seriously faulty reasoning, not to mention it is begging the question, and ignores the fact that he likely learned from Bible scholars, or perhaps just those who identify as Bible scholars but are not. Either way, once again, he doesn't use the same reasoning for his position.

I'm not going to bother watching the rest because I've been in enough of these discussions to know that the vast majority of differences between the KJV and other translations are more likely to be errors in the KJV. The argument that newer versions are missing verses or changing the meaning of verses is the error in reasoning called begging the question. That is the most common error in KJVOism, but certainly not the only one.

KJVOism is of the devil. Of course, if you want to discuss certain things regarding it or the video, I'm open to it.

I truly do feel sorry for people that believe the KJV is the only true Bible, or that it is even the best version.

Why dost though doubt mine Holy Writ ?
Surely thou knowest the Jews were anglo Saxon and spoke and wrote in elizabeathean English .

Repent ye sinner !

 

[jasonc]

Btw the kjv Bible was modernized in 1768 and later and it's actually now a Cambridge English version .

Here I thought the proper English was in 1611

 

[Hopeful]

I did NOT watch the video, but I have found no other version of scripture that has the truths the KJV has intact.

 

[Pass-A-Gospel-Tract]

First question is, what are their qualifications? Being a reader of the Bible is not one of them.

Second, at 2:03, he says that "unless you have a King James, you do not have the perfect, pure word of God." That right there excludes the Bible from being written in any other language. This is a common error by KJVOists, showing that they really don't understand how translation from one language to another works.

Third, around 4:30 he misuses Prov 22:28 to support using the KJV only.

Fourth, at 5:00 he bashes "so-called modern scholars," when he is not a scholar himself.

Fifth, starting at 5:17, he misuses "translated/translate" from Scripture to support the idea that the KJV is better than the originals. Using those verses in the Bible, he even says, "Every time something is translated, it is always better than the original." Wow. Heb 11:5, 2 Sam 3:10, and Col 1:13's use of "translated" and "translation" have absolutely nothing to do with translating language. That's called twisting Scripture. Not only that, he doesn't apply the same reasoning to modern translations.

Sixth, at 8:15, there is another serious misapplication and twisting of Scripture by using Psalm 12:6 to say that since English was the seventh language the Bible was translated into, the KJV is pure. But that is completely false. The Bible and portions of it, were translated into many languages prior to English:

"The Armenian language first developed an alphabet around 406 AD.36 An Armenian translation of the entire Bible existed by 414.37 Early Christians were obviously very zealous about bringing the Scriptures into the languages of the people. There were also very ancient translations of the New Testament into Palestinian Aramaic,38 Georgian,39 Ge’ez (Ethiopic),40 Arabic41 Nubian,42 Persian,43 Sogdian (Middle Persian),44 Gothic,45 Slavonic,46 and others.47 The Early centuries of Christianity thus saw the Scriptures translated into a variety of vernacular tongues as the gospel spread throughout the known world. The biblical translation was clearly a high priority."

And that's in addition to Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, and Latin, among others. So there are many different languages prior to the first English translation.

https://carm.org/the-bible/a-brief-history-of-bible-translations/

That is a serious error and display of ignorance of the history of translation. So, 9 minutes in and there are several instances of twisting Scripture and errors in reasoning. Such a pastor is divisive and twisted in his mind:

Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (ESV)

Further in, around the 27:00 mark, he starts by bashing colleges in general, and then concludes from that that Bible scholars cannot be trusted if they say to go with a wrong text (wrong as defined by him, of course). That is seriously faulty reasoning, not to mention it is begging the question, and ignores the fact that he likely learned from Bible scholars, or perhaps just those who identify as Bible scholars but are not. Either way, once again, he doesn't use the same reasoning for his position.

I'm not going to bother watching the rest because I've been in enough of these discussions to know that the vast majority of differences between the KJV and other translations are more likely to be errors in the KJV. The argument that newer versions are missing verses or changing the meaning of verses is the error in reasoning called begging the question. That is the most common error in KJVOism, but certainly not the only one.

KJVOism is of the devil. Of course, if you want to discuss certain things regarding it or the video, I'm open to it.

I truly do feel sorry for people that believe the KJV is the only true Bible, or that it is even the best version.

"First question is, what are their qualifications?"
Graduated from Pensacola Bible Institute

You may also refer to Pastor Gene Kim, who has Masters and Doctorate degree from UC Berkeley and Pensacola Bible Institute

"KJVOism is of the devil. Of course"
Surely thou art jesting

Ecclesiastes 8:4​

King James Version​

4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?​

 

[Free]

"First question is, what are their qualifications?"
Graduated from Pensacola Bible Institute

That is the main problem, not a qualification. A qualification would be advanced degrees in appropriate areas of study.

You may also refer to Pastor Gene Kim, who has Masters and Doctorate degree from UC Berkeley and Pensacola Bible Institute

I’ll look at this when I have time.

"KJVOism is of the devil. Of course"
Surely thou art jesting

Ecclesiastes 8:4​

King James Version​

4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?​

I don’t jest at all. KJVOism is needlessly divisive, replete with errors in reasoning, and often twists Scripture to support the erroneous beliefs. As Titus says, people who are continually divisive are warped, sinful, and self-condemned.

 

[Pass-A-Gospel-Tract]

That is the main problem, not a qualification. A qualification would be advanced degrees in appropriate areas of study.


I’ll look at this when I have time.


I don’t jest at all. KJVOism is needlessly divisive, replete with errors in reasoning, and often twists Scripture to support the erroneous beliefs. As Titus says, people who are continually divisive are warped, sinful, and self-condemned.

Houston we have a problem, other bible versions omitted "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 which makes it read like Jesus is the fallen one when comparing who is the morning star / son of the morning in Revelation 22:16.

Isaiah 14:12

New International Version
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

New Living Translation
“How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world.

English Standard Version
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

Berean Standard Bible
How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations.

King James Bible
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Revelation 22:16

New International Version
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

New Living Translation
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star.”

English Standard Version
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

Berean Standard Bible
“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star.”

King James Bible
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

[Charlie24]

I was taught from a child in the KJV, so I'm partial to that version. What I have found is that the key words make the difference.

In most other translations those key words are already interpreted for easy reading. I have found that I don't agree with much of that interpreting.

I prefer to read the KJV and go to the Greek with those key words for myself and place it in context. Of course another will disagree, and that's ok too.

 

[Free]

Houston we have a problem, other bible versions omitted "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 which makes it read like Jesus is the fallen one when comparing who is the morning star / son of the morning in Revelation 22:16.

Isaiah 14:12

New International Version
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

New Living Translation
“How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world.

English Standard Version
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

Berean Standard Bible
How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations.

King James Bible
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Revelation 22:16

New International Version
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

New Living Translation
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star.”

English Standard Version
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

Berean Standard Bible
“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star.”

King James Bible
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Yes, there is a problem, with the KJV, in this case. There is no being in the Bible with the name Lucifer. Don't you think it odd that even the KJV only has "Lucifer" once, in the entire Bible? That should be a rather large hint.

The first problem is that "Lucifer" is Latin, from the Vulgate, that never got translated into English. It means "day star," "morning star," or "light-bearer." It is a title, not a name, and likely is a reference to Venus.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/heylel.html

Second, context is king, and we see from Isa. 14:4, that this passage is about the king of Babylon. It is he who is the morning star. Third, there is not only no justification to leave the Latin "Lucifer" in there, there is no justification for then equating the morning star with Satan. To do otherwise is to read into the text ideas that simply are not there.

 

[Free]

I was taught from a child in the KJV, so I'm partial to that version. What I have found is that the key words make the difference.

In most other translations those key words are already interpreted for easy reading. I have found that I don't agree with much of that interpreting.

I prefer to read the KJV and go to the Greek with those key words for myself and place it in context. Of course another will disagree, and that's ok too.

It is a good translation, just not the best, and if people prefer it, great. There certainly are worse translations out there which will actually lead people astray.

 

[Pass-A-Gospel-Tract]

Yes, there is a problem, with the KJV, in this case. There is no being in the Bible with the name Lucifer. Don't you think it odd that even the KJV only has "Lucifer" once, in the entire Bible? That should be a rather large hint.

The first problem is that "Lucifer" is Latin, from the Vulgate, that never got translated into English. It means "day star," "morning star," or "light-bearer." It is a title, not a name, and likely is a reference to Venus.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/heylel.html

Second, context is king, and we see from Isa. 14:4, that this passage is about the king of Babylon. It is he who is the morning star. Third, there is not only no justification to leave the Latin "Lucifer" in there, there is no justification for then equating the morning star with Satan. To do otherwise is to read into the text ideas that simply are not there.

If the Bible is the Pure and Perfect Words from God then Scripture should support Scripture and the words can be defined within the Bible, it should hold no contradictions, and everything can be explained within the same Bible.

Another version comparison:
Proverbs 18:24

New American Standard Bible
A person of too many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

NASB 1977
A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

English Standard Version
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

Berean Standard Bible
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who stays closer than a brother.

King James Bible
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Based on other versions, if I have a lot of friends they will bring me to ruin...

Thanks for explaining your side of the argument, but I'll stick with KJV.

 

[jasonc]

If the kjv was perfect there would be no three editions of it.

1611 which only a dozen exist and that included the apocrypha..the most common 1768,and the other edition that is also quite common.

Also other languages exist.luther was German ,calvin was swiss and neither spoke English and used the English to make reforms.i can usually read that old English and I often see it in old graves ,maps of Florida .

 

[Free]

If the kjv was perfect there would be no three editions of it.

1611 which only a dozen exist and that included the apocrypha..the most common 1768,and the other edition that is also quite common.

Also other languages exist.luther was German ,calvin was swiss and neither spoke English and used the English to make reforms.i can usually read that old English and I often see it in old graves ,maps of Florida .

Why do you have to go and bring facts into the discussion?

 

[jasonc]

Why do you have to go and bring facts into the discussion?

King James Version - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You will love that .

I personally can still read the kjv and use it but I use the esv as my church does and it's common for the pastor and elder who is ordained to mention the best translation

The kicker ,is I am using the Adam Clarke commentary on the last book to study that .he uses that era English

 

[Free]

If the Bible is the Pure and Perfect Words from God then Scripture should support Scripture and the words can be defined within the Bible, it should hold no contradictions, and everything can be explained within the same Bible.

Another version comparison:
Proverbs 18:24

New American Standard Bible
A person of too many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

NASB 1977
A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

English Standard Version
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

Berean Standard Bible
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who stays closer than a brother.

King James Bible
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Based on other versions, if I have a lot of friends they will bring me to ruin...

Thanks for explaining your side of the argument, but I'll stick with KJV.

That is an error in reasoning known as begging the question. I have no problem if people prefer the KJV, for whatever reason, but KJVOism is of the devil and utterly false.

Not even the translators of the KJV believed what that pastor in the video stated and what all KJVOists seem to believe, that is, that the KJV is perfect:

"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

"Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

https://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

So, it is quite clear that the authors of the KJV claimed the KJV wasn't perfect and that there were difficulties in translation such that one would do well to consult multiple translations to get a better sense of what was being said. Why is it then, that modern KJVOists are making claims that even the authors of the KJV not only never claimed, but disagreed with?


Also, from more modern times:

"The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it also served for several centuries as the classic expression of the English language. Indeed, its translators coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the translators of the 1611 edition was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes — and we must note that there are many of them — make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language — and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV) — it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed Greek text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation other than the KJV or the NKJV." (Fee, Gordon D.; Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (pp. 43-44). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.)


Here is a source from a legitimate and relevant scholar that sums up some of the issues with the KJV, including, as jasonc has pointed out, "the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes.":

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

 

[Hopeful]

That is an error in reasoning known as begging the question. I have no problem if people prefer the KJV, for whatever reason, but KJVOism is of the devil and utterly false.

Not even the translators of the KJV believed what that pastor in the video stated and what all KJVOists seem to believe, that is, that the KJV is perfect:

"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

"Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

https://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

So, it is quite clear that the authors of the KJV claimed the KJV wasn't perfect and that there were difficulties in translation such that one would do well to consult multiple translations to get a better sense of what was being said. Why is it then, that modern KJVOists are making claims that even the authors of the KJV not only never claimed, but disagreed with?


Also, from more modern times:

"The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it also served for several centuries as the classic expression of the English language. Indeed, its translators coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the translators of the 1611 edition was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes — and we must note that there are many of them — make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language — and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV) — it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed Greek text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation other than the KJV or the NKJV." (Fee, Gordon D.; Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (pp. 43-44). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.)


Here is a source from a legitimate and relevant scholar that sums up some of the issues with the KJV, including, as jasonc has pointed out, "the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes.":

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Instead of "consulting multiple translations", I think I will just pray about my questions.
That has worked on many occasions, thanks be to God.

 

[jasonc]

That is an error in reasoning known as begging the question. I have no problem if people prefer the KJV, for whatever reason, but KJVOism is of the devil and utterly false.

Not even the translators of the KJV believed what that pastor in the video stated and what all KJVOists seem to believe, that is, that the KJV is perfect:

"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

"Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

https://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

So, it is quite clear that the authors of the KJV claimed the KJV wasn't perfect and that there were difficulties in translation such that one would do well to consult multiple translations to get a better sense of what was being said. Why is it then, that modern KJVOists are making claims that even the authors of the KJV not only never claimed, but disagreed with?


Also, from more modern times:

"The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it also served for several centuries as the classic expression of the English language. Indeed, its translators coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the translators of the 1611 edition was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes — and we must note that there are many of them — make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language — and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV) — it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed Greek text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation other than the KJV or the NKJV." (Fee, Gordon D.; Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (pp. 43-44). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.)


Here is a source from a legitimate and relevant scholar that sums up some of the issues with the KJV, including, as jasonc has pointed out, "the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes.":

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Their own words in the olde English.

Anyone who has learned more then one tounge fluently will notice not all words or thoughts are translatable

 

[Free]

Instead of "consulting multiple translations", I think I will just pray about my questions.
That has worked on many occasions, thanks be to God.

Or, consult multiple translations and when that study is exhausted, consult commentaries, and then the works of scholars and theologians throughout the history of Christianity. We are never, ever meant to do this on our own and simply pray about it. Doing that alone is not a biblical idea; it wasn’t then and even more so it isn’t now. That tends to lead to error. Yes, the Holy Spirit helps us and we should always pray prior to any Bible study, but the way he mostly helps is through others, past and present.

 

[jasonc]

Or, consult multiple translations and when that study is exhausted, consult commentaries, and then the works of scholars and theologians throughout the history of Christianity. We are never, ever meant to do this on our own and simply pray about it. Doing that alone is not a biblical idea; it wasn’t then and even more so it isn’t now. That tends to lead to error. Yes, the Holy Spirit helps us and we should always pray prior to any Bible study, but the way he mostly helps is through others, past and present.

Plurality of elders .the elders always review any teacher and his or her materials .the ladies are studying the book of Daniel .one elder says that isn't a bad book ,I don't agree with his eschatology but we'll that is a difficult subject .

Lord I know that .back at again and still learning