KJV BIBLE

The King James Bible is a byproduct of extensive debates and study by the most learned scholars who worked as translators that time...having an access to every manuscript in Hebrew and Greek plus the availability of prior versions of English bibles from Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's, Geneva, Bishops...

Hello to all brothers and sisters in Christ. The subject that came up is just very interesting! It's true that these people to mention SDA and INC would make those comments because they have no way to refute the KJV.

They'll find they are in jeopardy if they stick to this version, the King James Version. It is because:

 1.) it's been tested and have with stood in its integrity for over 400 years since when it was first translated into English that now we can understand it and that even children from 4th grade in a plain and simple understanding.

2. The KJV itself and show verses that it is complete and perfect word of God that it commands us not to add or subtract any part of the scripture. “Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:1-2) KJV “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19) KJV

3. This is the preserved book that God has provided us for our guide to instruct us for eternity. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) KJV

4. It is the only book that proves itself as pure and been preserved from the beginning. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalms 12:6-7 KJV

To bro. Nel Versoza

What textual sources did the King James Bible translators use?

From Pastor Terence McLean:
http://www.discerningthetimespublishing.com/contactus.html

"You may recall mention of the Complutension Polyglot of 1517 and the Antwerp Polyglot of 1572, the writings of Chrysostom (347-407) and a half dozen more familiar translations which were all at the King James translators' disposal: Martin Luther’s German, John Wycliff’s Bible of 1384, William Tyndale’s translation of 1525, Myles Coverdale’s of 1535, John Roger’s Matthew’s translation of 1537, The Great Bible of 1539, Richard Tavener’s of 1539, the Calvinistic Geneva of 1560, and it is critical to point out that they had the Roman Catholic readings found in Vaticanus, Siniaticus, NIV, NASV, TLB, AMP, etc. in that they had the Rheims-Douai of 1582.

Well, if that is too heavy and too technical, you'll just have to get over it: here comes some more

In their production of the King James Bible the translators also used the Soncino Hebrew text of 1488, Bomberg's of 1516, the Rabbinic Bibles of Pratensis of 1517 the ben Chayim of 1525, and the Stephanus of 1539.

Additional Greek texts on their desks were Erasmus of 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535, Colineaus 1534; Stephanus 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1535; the Beza of 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598; the Nurnberg Polyglot 1599; the Syriac of Widmanstadt of 1555 and Tremellius of 1559; the Spanish de Reina 1569 and de Valera of 1602; the French of d'Etaples 1530; Olivetan 1535; the Louvain faculty 1550; the Geneva pastors of 1588; the Italian of Brucioli 1530 and the Diodate 1607. In addition to Luther's German Bible they also had the Zurich 1529, Latin versions of Paginus 1528; Juda 1543; Castalio 1551; Montanus 1572; Tremellius 1579 and of course the Vulgate.

Now: the next time someone says to you that the King James is an English translation of the Textus Receptus Greek you know you are dealing with an argumentative ignoramus who wants you to leave your King James Bible... and end up with no Bible at all… just like James White, Dan Wallace, James Price, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and an host of others.

Portions taken from David Cloud’s “History of the English Bible - The King James Bible”

King James Only?

Is the King James only doctrine correct? Is the King James Version the only inspired English Bible?

Frontispiece to the original King James Bible
Public Domain

The King James version of the Bible was translated in 1611 by three teams of translators. King James of England authorized this translation, but he did not translate it himself.

Why King James Only?

The argument for the KJV only goes something like this:

The Bible says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). Modern versions violate this by making changes from the KJV. These changes are not just in the translation but also in the Greek texts from which their New Testament is translated.

King James only literature says that the NASB and NIV, the two most popular modern translations 20 years ago, make some 5,000 changes in the Greek text of the New Testament, often leaving out important words and phrases.

For example, the King James Version says in Colossians 1:14 that we have redemption "through his blood." Modern translations, following an updated Greek text, usually leave out "through his blood."

Are we losing the Gospel in these modern versions?

King James Only:
Colossians 1:14

It is true that most modern versions leave out "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14. However, Ephesians 1:7, which says exactly the same thing, has "through his blood" in both the modern versions and in the KJV.

If this is some sort of conspiracy, it's not a very good one.

The fact is, modern translations are just trying to recreate the most accurate Greek text. There is no conspiracy, and you cannot teach any different doctrines out of the New American Standard than you can out of the King James Version.

King James Only:
1 John 5:7

Another notable passage is 1 John 5:7, which is not even found in most modern translations.

All Bibles say that there are three that bear witness: The Spirit, the water, and the blood. The KJV, however, following the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus, adds that there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.

King James only advocates argue that the omission in the modern versions takes away from the doctrine of the Trinity.

Of course, it does not. There are plenty of verses in modern translations that describe all three members of the Trinity in the same verse (e.g., Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14).

King James Only:
So What About Matthew 5:18?

Matthew 5:18 is a prophecy passage. The word there for "fulfilled" is the Greek genoito, which means "happened." Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:18 that no prophecy of the Law will be forgotten, but all of them will come to pass down to the smallest part or "every jot and tittle."

Jesus was not promising that the Greek text of the New Testament would never be in doubt throughout the centuries. He wasn't even commenting on such a thing.

And if he was, then we have a big problem …

Losing the Words of God?

What about our confidence in the Word of God? King James only advocates argue that the differences, as well as notes that are usually added to modern versions, create doubt in the Word of God because they indicate that we are not certain about the original wording of certain passages of Scripture.

Here is where it is time for us to be honest. There are doubts about the original wording of certain passages of Scripture!

Back to 1 John 5:7

This page on 1 John 5:7, which appears to be well researched, says that it's "an overstatement of the evidence" to say that Erasmus promised to include the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, if someone produce a manuscript.

They do say that the converse is true. Erasmus did refuse to put it in without Greek manuscript support.

I left my description unchanged because those two statements are not that different, and I got my version from a history book as well.

1 John 5:7 is one of the passages where there is NOT doubt about the original wording. The King James version is wrong on this passage, and we know that.

The extra passage, saying that there are three that bear witness in heaven, is included in the updated edition of the Latin Vulgate, put out by the Roman Catholic Church around A.D. 800. The original Vulgate, done by Jerome around A.D. 400, did not have it.

When Erasmus put together the Textus Receptus ("Received Text")in the 16th century, he did not include the part about three bearing witness in heaven because it was not supported by even one Greek manuscript.

There were people who were offended by this, and Erasmus told them that if they could produce even one Greek manuscript that contained the disputed passage, he would include it in his 3rd version of the Textus Receptus (but see sidebar). He had already finished versions one and two.

Not surprisingly, they came up with a Greek text, which Erasmus was aware was almost certainly a forgery. Erasmus, however, did not like personal conflict, and he included the passage in his 3rd version just as he promised.

His conscience got the better of him, though, so when he created the 4th version, he left it out.

Unfortunately, the translators of the King James Bible used a text based on Erasmus' 3rd version, not his 4th.

Thus, when modern versions leave out 1 John 5:7 they are not taking away from the words of God, they are correcting the Greek text back to the original wording of the apostle John.

King James Only:
Questionable passages

Painting of Erasmus by Hans Holbein in 1523

King James only advocates are right about one thing: there are questionable passages in our Bibles. There are numerous places where the over 5,000 Greek texts of the New Testament disagree with one another.

Sometimes it is obvious where the problem lies. A passage is clearly duplicated or a word is left out, and it obvious that this was a copyist's error.

In other cases, however, like, for example, Romans 8:1, it is impossible to tell. Some Greek texts have the phrase "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." Some don't.

Is this a case where a copyist looked down at Romans 8:4, saw that phrase, and accidentally added it onto Romans 8:1 as well? We don't know. Therefore, even if a modern translation chooses to leave that phrase out of Romans 8:1, they normally include a note saying that some Greek manuscripts—usually less ancient ones—include the phrase.

Sometimes such difficulties can be resolved by examining quotes of the Scriptures in the early Christian writings. We have Christian writings dating back to A.D. 100, or even before, that quote some passages of the New Testament.

Sometimes, however, a difficult Greek text can't be found quoted by the early Christians.

As a result, there are some passages in our New Testaments where we do not know the original wording of the writer.

We can pretend all we want, but facts are facts and history is history. There are simply some passages of the New Testament where we do not know the original wording.

King James Only:
Have We Lost the Word of God

Part of the problem we modern Christians have, whether we hold to King James only or not, is that we have made the Bible into something it was never meant to be.

Until the 4th century, there were questionable books among the books of the New Testament. Some churches included James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, and some didn't. Some included Hebrews, and some didn't.

Some even included books like The Letter of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and First Clement.

Even as late as A.D. 390, Augustine of Hippo (the famous St. Augustine) talked about how to resolved disputes over which books should be included in the New Testament:

Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures [the skilled interpreter] will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. (On Christian Doctrine II.8.12)

The early churches lived for 400 years with those kinds of doubts, and they did just fine.

In fact, they lived significantly better than we do!

King James Only:
What is the Word of God

The Word of God is neither the King James only nor any other Bible only. The Bible, whether read in the KJV or any other version, states clearly that the Word of God is not limited to what is written.

For this reason, we thank God continuously; because when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you did not receive it as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13, emphasis added)

Eventually, I will have to do a page on the Word of God as it was understood in the Scriptures and in the early churches, which will thrill you, change your life, and build great confidence in God. For right now, let me just give you this.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and when he is planted in human hearts, like a seed (Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23), he will produce in his followers everything they need to know in order to follow him.

That is why the Scriptures tell us—together as we speak the truth in love to one another (Eph. 4:11-16)—that we don't need any man to teach us. The anointing that comes from God will teach us all things (1 Jn. 2:27).

This is why Zaccheus knew, as soon as he heard the Word of God from the lips of Jesus, that he must do something about his love of money. He immediately promised to give half his goods to the poor and restore fourfold to everyone that he had cheated (Luke 19:8).

That same reason is why Peter knew, after hearing the Word of God from the lips of Jesus, that he was a sinner and that he needed to forsake everything and follow Christ (Luke 5:8,11).

Both men had the Word of God planted in their heart like a seed, and it gave them everything that they needed to know, whether they had heard it before or not.

This is the trust that the apostles and their churches had in the Word of God, which is the Scriptures, but is far more than the Scriptures as well.

You search the Scriptures because you think you have life in them; however, these are they which testify of me, and you refuse to come to me so that you might have life. (Jn. 5:39)

Primarily, Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:1; Heb. 4:12-13), and we would fare much better if when we used the phrase "the Word of God," we were referring to him.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was ending, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

FIFTEEN GENERAL RULES WERE ADVANCED FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE TRANSLATORS:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."
As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.

This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.