Is the KJV the final authority? Some won’t like me after this 😞

Below are affiliate links. Thank you for your support!

[EQOAnostalgia]

Eh, too many things are changed in the newer translations. Just look at this one example i mean...

King James Bible
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

New International Version
For it is: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.”


That is NOT the same message, one instructs you to compare and contrast scripture to get the whole picture, the other is garbage...

[robertjohnson]

As a gospel preacher, when asked to preach at different congregations than my own, I want the message to come through, not me. So, if they only use the KJV, then I preach from the KJV. If they mainly use the NKJV, then I use the NKJV. If they allow me freedom in translation, then I use the one I believe most accurately translates the passages I will be using. All the 50 years (has it really been that long) I have preached, I have been hard pressed to use only one version, even at my congregation. I want people to hear the word as closely as possible to the original text. No one has demanded me to do otherwise just because of an emotional attachment to one version over another. It grieves me we have these version debates when living the Christian life, teaching others how to be saved, and such, are so important and when so many people struggle with such.

[keng]

Thank you for this video, wonderfully done. I love the KJV, i just recently purchased a premium one from the KJVStore. However, over the last few days I can’t seem to get passed the OT quotes which seem to be from a different OT (the Septuagint?) from within the NT of the KJV. Have you done any videos about this?

[graigya]

Thank you so much for all your work brother. Laymen you can get power Bible, blueletter and logos, tones of others as well.

[migueltantas]

Excellent Stephen! we need more of this kind of conversations. In all honesty, before studying Greek I used to be a follower of the New IFB movement (and particularly of Stephen Anderson, who is well versed in Greek and not your typical KJVist) and shared most of their thoughts on the KJV and the TR but after reading more on the translation process, and learning greek myself, I got more respect for both groups of scholars(majority vs critical text). They are not pursuing some sort of agenda when translating(as I used to believe) because they all come from different backgrounds, they are just trying to render the best translation possible. I love your approach brother! keep being a BRIDGE and a PEACE MAKER. for the Truth! btw, the KJV is my favourite version too!

[makarov]

If the KJV is the final authority on things spiritual; then that would assume a "new inspiration" would have had to take place after the Geneva Bible had been out for some 50 years! Doesn't seem plausible to me.

[johnuitdeflesch]

I’m curious—did you used to be KJvO or were raised that way?

Speaking honestly is always a blessing. Thank you for sharing and explaining.

[capnsalty]

From the beginning of your video I thought I fell in the second group but after listening to your video I fall on your side of the controversy. I use many versions but lean to the KJV.

[myselfpoker]

Thee maketh a lot of sense. I appreciate thy thoughts and halcyon attitude. Sadly many Christians art worshipping one particular english bible translation, while at the same time neglecting Jesus Christ. Those gents should instead beest reflecting Christ in their life and focus on the Gospel of Christ which saves.

[johfu]

Appreciate all your comments here. However, I think you still have understated the similarities between the different Greek manuscripts and textual traditions. When one actually reads slabs of texts and do exegesis, you quickly realise that meaningful or significant differences are less than 1 percent. In practice, it hardly makes any difference. In addition, questioning differences between alternative readings may set up a false alternative in terms of inspiration, both readings may be inspired. It is highly probably that the biblical authors edited their works after the “first edition”.

[wattlebough]

I’d really like to see an interlinear comparison between the TR and the Hort-Westcott text. Are there any scholarly books or papers that cover the details of every point of difference and their implications?

[chrisjohnson]

What you said at the 8:00 minute mark about walking out the truths we do know, Paul Washer once said that we have more light than we will ever be able to walk out in this life.

Also, KJV-onlyism repeats the same misunderstanding that the Roman Catholics had concerning the Latin Vulgate translation. When Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin, it was so that it could be understood by the common people of the day. Then the catholic church kept it locked up in a language that hardly anyone could read or understand because latin had died out. Many men risked their life and many also died trying to get the bible back to the common people, Tyndale, wycliffe, Jan Huss, Luther, etc. The king James translaters were trying to make a good translation and they succeeded greatly by God's grace. That translation has been a wonderful blessing used for several centuries. But there have been many translations before it, and many translations after it in many different languages to reach the people of every tongue, tribe, and nation. KJV-onlyism tries to alter history in an attempt to make a perfect translation in something other than the original greek and hebrew manuscripts originally penned by the inspired authors because theres a fear and misunderstanding about how translation works. God has indeed preserved His word through the many many copies of manuscripts. There are more manuscripts for the bible than any other ancient manuscript. Not just a little bit more, but landslides more. And the overwhelming consistency between them is astounding. There are minor variations mostly in spelling and some varying words with very few big variants. But even those few big variants do not change or contain doctrine that isnt taught in other parts of the bible. And the big ones are marked out for us in most of the major trustworthy translations so that through careful study and prayer we can come to our own convictions about what we think concerning those bigger variants. I reall do think that the majority of KJV-onlyists make a bigger deal of those variants and focus far too much on them and make it a divisive issue and don't understand the difference between first and secondary issues. Mostly I see this with the Independent Fundamental Baptist KJV-onyists. My point here is not that everyone who holds to KJV-onlyism believes or pushes these things but many do. For anyone who is wrestling with these things theres a really great resource that helped me think though these issues. I can't put a link or YouTube will delete my comment, but if you type: Ankerberg show KJV james white, it will pop up. Its a very long video but it takes its time working through many questions and topics regarding translation and claims of KJV-onlyism with scholars on both sides.
Anyways. God bless you all, whatever translation is dear to your heart.
Chris from California

[makarov]

And in-depth study tool of the KJV is a Nelson NKJV with center column references. If you can get one from back in the 80s, GET IT!! I own TWO now. One I keep down in a desk drawer for safe keeping. The archaic words are changed into modern English, and the textual differences are referenced. Because of all that info, mine is highly regarded! I've got over 30 years of notes written in mine.

[lloydcrooks]

Really balanced discussion the issue is over included/missing passages say Mark 16 v 9 to 20 it brings into question what is inspired or what is not inspired the main is underlying Greek text as opposed to translations there are versions which give better translations of a number of passages but I constantly have to refer back to check if a verse is missing

[aitornavarro]

16:43 on your comment about the Reina-Valera, if your wife uses Reina-Valera 1960 that makes sense that it doesn't lineup with KJV, you need to read older revisions of Reina-Valera or the newer revisions that correct some errors in the 1960 version.

1909 and 1863 are better revisions than the 1960 and current newer revisions are Valera 1602 Purificada which probably reads almost 100% with KJV or also Trinitarian Bible Society's own revision of the 1909 Reina-Valera, although so far they have only published the new testament, they are still working on the old testament. Personally I'm enjoying the TSB new testament revision of the classic 1909.

[geraldparker]

It helped when learned and popular commentaries alike clarified difficult passages in Scripture by making first resort to the Authorised King James Version and THEN commented on how the K.J.V. handled a particular passage in the light of the few truly respectable and widely accepted versions of the time. I don't mean how an hundred or a zillion and an half versions (like today's situation) handle passages, when such extended comparisons only make things more confusing, but the few relatively authoritative and scholarly versions of those times treated such translation matters. Today's commentaries and study Bibles just tend to sweep this under the rug for any lack of consensus on what even is worthwile to consider. Those old commentaries on the K.J.V. (or on the Douay-Rheims, for Catholic literature) are much more lucid and useful than the "Heinz' 69 varieties" oriented comparisons in works that end up being less weighty in their worth.

[eramu]

I can understand why some hold the view that the Textus Receptus best represents the original manuscripts, and therefore modern versions that use the critical text are suspect. That's a logical position if you hold to TR priority. I can't understand the belief that the KJV is the final word in English.

[gastie]

A great and well thought through video as always! You mentioned that there were more differences between a CT formal and dynamic versions than between different manuscripts. Has someone studied and put anything together on that? Sorry if I just missed you giving the details.

[veneroantonio]

I read between the KJV, NKJV and WEB(MT), I’m not an onlyist, I don’t disregard other translations, I always tell people compare the translations to get a broader perspective, I’ve to acknowledge that there’s scribal errors in all translations, and through studying the scriptures one can pick it up, example in Acts 12, the KJV has Easter in it, while the NKJV, Geneva and other translations such as CT, all have Passover, studying the scriptures you’ll find that the same person, Luke, who wrote Acts, tells us in his Gospel chapter 22:1, that the feast of unleavened bread is also called the Passover, in Acts 12 verse 4 I think, it says “then were the days of unleavened bread “, now if you keep in mind what he wrote in his gospel, feast of unleavened bread is called the Passover, you’ll understand that it’s Passover and not Easter in Acts 12, it’s an error, also in Deuteronomy 32:8 where the KJV and the Mesoretic text have “according to the number of the children of Israel “ which is an error, cause in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, it says “according to the number of sons/angels of God “ and not “sons of Israel”. I mostly use the Septuagint and English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls as my Old Testaments, but I don’t disregard the Mesoretic text, cause I know there’s instances where the Septuagint has it wrong and Mesoretic has it correct, example would Hosea 11:1, Septuagint reads “Out of Egypt I called my children “, this is an error, the Mesoretic reads “Out of Egypt I called my Son”, which is correct, cause it’s a quotation that Matthew quotes when Mary, Joseph and Jesus was in Egypt. My conclusion is, don’t stuck with one particular translation or manuscript, search them all, you’ll have a broader understanding, sticking to one limits you

[Must_not_say_that]

Thank you for your observations.

It seems to me that as the Scriptures themselves were inspired by the Holy Spirit so we too need the Holy Spirit when reading and considering them.

The plethora of translations and their popularity seem to very much ignore, even undermine that. They don’t have to but that seems to be the consequence from putting too much emphasis upon mere translation and scholarship, having a “perfect” text.

You touched upon this when you rightly observed that the textual differences pale to relative insignificance next to living as the Sermon on the Mount. This latter certainly requires the Holy Spirit

So too the reading and consideration of Scripture, we absolutely need the help and understanding given by the Spirit. We need to hear God, out of His mouth.
And as an aside, isn’t what we may hear suited to the individual need which God alone knows?

Is this not, after all, the true faith once delivered unto the saints, the like precious faith of the Apostles? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. We need to have ears to hear. Maybe we also need patience to wait for that understanding?

It also seems to me that even if any has a perfect fluency in the original languages that in itself would be of no benefit, and do we not have the testimony of those who were, but did not walk in Christ’s salvation?

This is not to decry scholarship and textual considerations, they can be very valuable, absorbing, fascinating and helpful and can draw out praise to God, but like all things they have their limitations and must be handled wisely and ultimately with dependence upon God to receive from Him.

It is as though God has deliberately made it impossible to have a perfect text, to have the originals, to have one final authority just in order to cause us to seek Him for what we need. And obviously also to avoid idolatry. We are to ask, to seek and to to knock are we not? To those who do will they not receive, and much more, because it comes from Him and not men? Five words from Him is worth far more than ten thousand words of men.

In God’s wisdom it is surely better this way?