KJV Only People, don't you believe that scholars have better understanding of Greek/Hebrew than 400 yrs ago?

I like the KJV, grew up with it, it was my first study Bible. Anytime I have to remember a verse, it is in my mind as a KJV verse. Great Bible, valuable tool, but...

1 Corinthians 13:11 KJV (11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Not saying necessarily that the KJV itself is childish, but the attitude that some folks have that it is the only perfect Bible is very childish. I much prefer to be able to access multiple Bible versions in order to make sure that I am correct in my beliefs.

For instance, the Festivals of the Almighty (Leviticus 23) were ordained before the weekly Sabbath was created in Genesis:

Genesis 1:14-19 GNB Then God commanded, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, *******and religious festivals begin*****; (15) they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth"---and it was done. (16) So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. (17) He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, (18) to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw. (19) Evening passed and morning came---that was the fourth day.

This truth is impossible to understand from reading the KJV:

Genesis 1:14 KJV And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

But what the Hebrew actually says is very plain:

Genesis 1:14 KJV+ And GodH430 said,H559 Let there beH1961 lightsH3974 in the firmamentH7549 of the heavenH8064 to divideH914 H996 the dayH3117 fromH996 the night;H3915 and let them beH1961 for signs,H226 and for ******seasons,H4150****** and for days,H3117 and years:H8141

H4150

מועדה מעד מועד

mô‛êd mô‛êd mô‛âdâh

mo-ade', mo-ade', mo-aw-daw'

From H3259; properly an appointment, that is, a fixed time or season; specifically a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed).

Leviticus 23:1-4 KJV+ And the LORDH3068 spakeH1696 untoH413 Moses,H4872 saying,H559 (2) SpeakH1696 untoH413 the childrenH1121 of Israel,H3478 and sayH559 untoH413 them, Concerning the *****feastsH4150**** of the LORD,H3068 whichH834 (H853) ye shall proclaimH7121 to be holyH6944 convocations,H4744 even theseH428 are *****my feasts.H4150*****

Another example is being able to clearly tell exactly what was "nailed to the cross".

Colossians 2:13-14 KJV And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

What it actually says is much clearer here:

Colossians 2:13-14 ESV And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, (14) by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

What legal demands were cancelled?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...

It is not that the Almighty is incapable of using the KJV to lead a person to His Truth, He is, and He has. But once you start to learn that Truth, then one begins to see the insufficencies of the KJV...or the NIV or depending on any single version of the scriptures to prove doctrine.

Here's one more example, just what, exactly, should the Savior's name be in English?

Heb 4:8

(ASV) For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

(BBE) For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have said anything about another day.

(Bishops) For yf Iesus had geuen them reste, then woulde he not afterwarde haue spoken of another day.

(Darby) For if Jesus had brought them into rest, he would not have spoken afterwards about another day.

(DRB) For if Jesus had given them rest he would never have afterwards spoken of another day.

(ESV) For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.

(GNB) If Joshua had given the people the rest that God had promised, God would not have spoken later about another day.

(ISV) For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken later about another day.

(KJV) For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

(KJV+) ForG1063 ifG1487 JesusG2424 had given them rest,G2664 G846 then would he notG3756(G302) afterwardG3326 G5023 have spokenG2980 ofG4012 anotherG243 day.G2250

(KJVA) For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

(MKJV) For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.

(WNT) For if Joshua had given them the true rest, we should not afterwards hear God speaking of another still future day.

(YLT) for if Joshua had given them rest, He would not concerning another day have spoken after these things;

Of one thing I am sure, the KJV has it wrong.

G2424

Ἰησοῦς

Iēsous

ee-ay-sooce'

Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

Edit: For those who think that their KJV is without error, here is a link to study the truth:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/king-james-vers...

Erasmus was Not the “Author” of the KJV, and he did not "invent" the Textus Receptus, He mearly printed a small collection of what was already the vast majority of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. The KJV New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts, which had 47 of the best biblical scholars and linguists of the day. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text. Yes, I understand the point but the fact is that critics can find fault with Anything, or Anyone. Even Westcott and Hort. However, the important thing to keep in mind here is the Fact that there is Very Few differences between the 2 texts and what differences do exist do NOT change any of the doctrines of the N.T. Edit: @Carl, your quoting from the Old Testament which is NOT even part of the Textus Receptus and your Also Quoting and Comparing 2 different ENGLISH Translations of the same Masoretic Hebrew text.

You are making the mistake that is common these days. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (the Received Text that came from God). The modern scholars you talk of don't use that manuscript, they use the Alexandrian manuscript which was a bastardised version re-written in the third century AD, which changed much of the Textus Receptus.

Perhaps, but our world is also becoming more corrupt as well. I personally am not a KJV only person. But I can see their beef with some of these newer translations. If you can't see that in some verses of new bible versions that they're clearly trying to be politically correct, Then you must have blinders on. Some of these newer versions are played around with a lot. And not in a good way. God bless.

The newer translations are certainly better. The only reason people use the KJV is tradition. The King James certainly doesn't help with understanding. Old english is one of the more tedious kinds of literature. Those christians that chose to quote the KJV instead of one of the more contemporary translations do so just because it sounds more official.

Also, the fact that a certain translation of the bible defines your view on the religion, says something about the validity of the bible itself. The fact that we don't have the original written manuscripts strips a lot of the credibility. One's experience with christianity should depend entirely on the bible, and when that bible has been coppied numerous times, changed, added to, subtracted, translated, retranslated, really there could be an infinate amout of errors in it. Anyone who reads a translation in the first place is not actually reading the "word of god." Translation is an inherently broken practice. You're arguing about which hand-copied manuscript is best. When this is something a billion people or so are buying into, you should AT LEAST have the original manuscripts.

No, considering the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from which modern "versions" are translated, disagree with each other and include hundreds of missing verses. The KJV manuscripts originate from Antioch where the Apostle Paul preached. The modern ones orginate from pagan Egypt.

King James worshipers are the Fundamentalist answer to Jehovas Witnesses' attachment to the heinous New World Translation.

edit

I hope Dancing Dog is spoofing.

They just don't understand. MY Bible is criticized because it is "biased," when in actuality, it is the KJV that is biased. They didn't have the manuscripts available that we have today. Besides that, as you said, they didn't understand Hebrew and Greek as well as we do today.

Sometimes I get upset that the translation that I prefer (not KJV) is criticized, but then I read about "unicorns" in the KJV and I realize everything is okay. :p

it's not just the languages. we also have a better understanding of culture, history--and above all we have created in effect a science of textual criticism.

You can have the word of Man. I'll take the Word of God.