7 GOOD Reasons to use the KJV

The KJV is perhaps the most beloved of English Bible translation of all time. I've compiled 7 good reasons why someone might want to dust of ye olde King James Version, and give it another read through. This enumeration is not meant to be exhaustive, but is meant to encourage you to make good use of this fantastic translation.

[@woobbryant]

Speaking as a "Textus Receptus Preferred" (but not Textus Receptus Only) guy, also as a "New King James Preferred" (but not New King James Only) guy, and as a "King James Version is the Most Important English Transition ever but not the only important one" guy, I am 100% in agreement with you on each and every one of these 7 reasons. (I also notice that your channel is consistently one of the most fair and balanced channels out there every time you present one of these topics.)

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks! Appreciate the encouragement :)

[@peterchudleigh6708]

I'm not very well educated but I'm 65 y.o. and became a believer, over 50 years ago. I was saved through the words of the KJV. And carried through deep trials. Its still and always will be my best friend

[@70_X_7]

100% Agree with all but especially #7. That’s what I tell people as well. TheKJV forces you to slow down while reading and contemplate.

[@terencealbertmcbain8041]

The Bible is not meant to hold up to our thinking or reasoning, but God's reasoning and thinking His ways are higher than ours His thought are higher than ours. Bless you Pastor.

[@church7180]

Great video! A breath of fresh biblical air. I have homeschooled my three daughters for the past 10 years and I taught them how to read and they have always used the KJV and when there was a question on an anarchic word I would instruct them to pick up a dictionary; usually Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. We love the KJV and never afraid to look at a different translation of needed. Godspeed

[@ArroEL922]

Reason 8: KJV is able to differentiate between you (singular) and you (plural) where the former uses words like thee, thy - that begin with "t" and the latter uses words like ye, your - that begin with "y", e.g. Jesus saying to Nicodemus in John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee (singular you, Nicodemus, ), Ye (plural you, all people not just Nicodemus) must be born again. " I use KJV mainly but may look at parallel translations for specific verses to help me better understand a difficult passage. Oh, I also refer to many different commentaries, e.g. Adam Clarke, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, etc. All of these Bibles and commentaries (and many more) are available free to download from E-Sword. Of course, there are others that cost a small fee.

[@twiceborn_by_grace]

I LOVE #7! When I’m reading and start to really get hyped up, I start to read fast and don’t really study anymore. At that point, I’m just reading.

[@tcollier5739]

Great video Dwayne! I am a KJV Only Guy. I know your not, but I appreciate your honesty. May our Lord bless you and your work my brother.

[@foreversavedbygrace]

A few years ago I attended a Bible study with a group of retired ladies. This was a Southern Baptist church so the Bible of choice was the NASB. One morning, one of the retired ladies was teaching the class one day and was reciting a verse. She stopped in the middle and said “Now why is it that I always tend to remember the verses in the King James Version?” Well that’s simple. When she grew up that’s all there is and years and years later that’s what her heart knows regardless of the translation the pastor uses.

[@AndrewP-fj8rn]

And I would add that it's because the KJV is simply much more memorable as well. I find it just lends itself to memorization.

[@EminentSeafarerGIO]

King James Version was NEVER a book of the American people. And for a very good reason. Because of a bunch of distortions, inaccuracies, and alternations in KJV to suit the dogmas and indoctrinated manipulation of the Anglican church, whose primary objective and agenda were to lord over the folks, manipulate and control them as well as to make advantages of them in the ruling clergy"s favour and the favour of their beloved James, of course!. Neither the US Founding Fathers nor serious outstanding writers and reformers did ever quote anything from KJV or reckoned it for an authoritative Scripture. The Best Bible of choice was The Bible of the Protestant Reformation, The Geneva Bible which had shaped America and Britain. to the very core John Bunyan, John Milton, William Shakespeare, John Dunn, William Bradford, John Knox, even the two US Presidents, George Washington and Andrew Jackson as well as a bunch of other well-noted characters, all of them quoted from The Geneva Bible, and , again, for a very good reason. Because of its uniqueness and accurate, well-crafted translation! John Adams, the 2-nd US President , quote: "Let not Geneva Bible be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it most respect". Herebelow are more well documented details www.reformedreader.org/gbn/igb.htm

[@davidbrock4104]

I chuckled at the last point. All I knew growing up was the KJV, I have to read an unfamiliar translation to slow myself down. I've since made the NKJV my main translation with several others regularly used. Thankful for the word.

[@Dwayne_Green]

yeah.. I actually use the NKJV as my main, I go back to the KJV periodically or to compare.

[@Tax_Buster]

I'm actually reading the KJV as my daily devotional for the first time. Although I also refer to the NKJV to aid my understanding and for comparison.

[@johnrideout7124]

I haven't seen the NKJV, but the old one contained God's correct name Jehovah, or YAWEH, as many prefer, only four times. Exodus 6v3.......Psalm 83v18.......Isaiah 12v2 and 26v4. The other 7000 places where it is found in the Original Scrolls, have been replaced with "Lord". ! So any Bible that has also deleted the Authors name in this manner, cannot be a true translation of the Holy scriptures, can it.? After all, at Exodus 9v16, he said his name would be known all over HIS Earth. Also in Acts 15v14-17. He made another startling statement you may have not known about.! Read it.!..............

[@OrthodoxPhilip]

I'll add a few more: 8) Source texts. The KJV is one of the only translations of the TR and the Jacob Ben Chayim edition of the Masoretic Text in English. 9) Study tools. There are a ton of Bible study tools like Strong's concordance and the Englishman's Concordance designed to work with the KJV. The KJV has some the most available and cost-efficient Bible study tools available.

[@NayShea7]

These videos have helped me. I started with NLT amd ESV but find i like NKJV and KJV best. NKJV word of promise audio bible to play in the morning for the family to listen to, NKJV for bible study group and KJV for my personal devotions and passage readings

[@SpeakingGraceTV]

This is very insightful. I always read other versions because I thought KJV was a bit complex! Your video has shown me the positives of this version of the bible. Thanks for sharing

[@BlueBusssss]

your point about needing to slowdown to understand the text was well stated.

[@Masta_E]

Thanks for the video friend. My old esv is on it's last legs so I've been bible shopping and with your video plus many others i am going to be getting the Esv again AND a kjv. Gotta keep rhe esv around just in case I need some help lol but also I like reading scripture with multiple versions to get my mind thinking in different ways. Plus kjv is just based and old school cool.

[@MarkDouglass-dt9ky]

A convert to the King James Bible. Good for you, smart man. But you should dust that ESV. You don't want to be contaminated (or keep tonince and a while remind yourself how bad it is).

[@DavidRoush1689]

These reasons are on point, and the editing was fun. Good job.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks! There's so many other reasons too, this is certainly NOT an exhaustive list!

[@rcchristian2]

@@Dwayne_Green The King James Version of the bible, is one of the bibles that has the most mistranslations in it. Do you know any of them? :)

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@rcchristian2 Curious question. I don't think I inferred that the KJV is a perfect translation... I also wouldn't say it has 'the most' mistranslations, I can think of a number of other translations which are much worse than the KJV.

[@rcchristian2]

@@Dwayne_Green Do you know what some of those mistranslations are in KJV? Which is a question I asked you.

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@rcchristian2 In a video I did 8 or 9 years ago I touched on Pascha and Easter

[@JonStallings]

Great points Dwayne, It has been years since I have done a lot of KJV reading but I can't tell you how many times I will be reading a modern translation but still hear the KJV in my head. - Often during sermon prep I will compare multiple translations and the KJV is in that list. - Have you watched any of the video's by Mark Ward? - He does a lot on responding to KJVOs but does it in very nice / professional way.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I love Mark Ward's stuff! Been watching his videos for the last 2 years or so. His false friends series is especially enlightning!

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thanx, Brother 🌹🌹🌹

[@CadillacBunner]

Fantastic run down of the translation process! Good video!

[@Me2Lancer]

Thank you, Dwayne for your comments on the KJV translation. Like you, I'm not a KJV only person but that said, it is still very close to me. Appreciate the seven points you made. Bye the way, I grew up on the KJV translation.

[@proclaimingliberty3954]

Excellent video brother!! Thank you. One thing that I myself might add is that the KJV has English rhythm or cadence that increases memory and learning. God bless

[@lloydcrooks712]

Great video my go to Bible study main reason literal translation also having notes querying whether or not texts are in the Bible is of putting from the UK doing a great work Dwyane

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks Lloyd

[@NiteStocker3]

I grew up hearing the Bible preached using the KJV and it still is one of the translations that I read. Great video!

[@Dwayne_Green]

That's Great! I still use the KJV on a very regular basis. My main is the NKJV but I always find myself back in the KJV :)

[@GreenFamily2007]

Great video!

[@austintucker394]

Could you pray that God helps me get a define kjv if it's truly His will for me to use it ?

[@Nick-wn1xw]

$10 at Walmart will get you one. Doesn't require a miracle. A dollar maybe at thrift shops.

[@leobaker291]

Love the review I always use my King James Version

[@Sola-scriptura_]

Things that are different are not the same.

[@selaminbelica777]

KING JAMES BIBLE IS AMAZING...SHALOM! 😇

[@EminentSeafarerGIO]

Sorr... amazing in WHAT? Did you peruse it with the help of The Holy Spirit?

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

To avoid misunderstanding the archaic kjv words that have changed in meaning since 1611, maybe: 1> use annotated kjvs done by fundamentalists like defined king james (done by kjvo baptists) and or tbs westminster (done by kjvo calvinists). 2> read archaic kjv in parallel with free kjv verse by verse commentaries found on the internet done by fundamentalists from the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s, which might be acceptable to some fundamentalists. 3> use annotated kjvs done by evangelicals like kjver, tyndale house publishers kjv with footnotes, thomas nelson center column reference, reformation heritage study bible. 4> read archaic kjv in parallel with TR translations done by evangelicals like ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev.

[@austintucker394]

I'm not kjvo. But I'd like to maybe start using the kjv again. But the only edition I'm at peace with using is a large print define kjv Bible and unfortunately I can't afford it.

[@UncleNath]

Good job brother

[@timpczman]

excellent reasoning.

[@911Glokk]

The NASB 95 fits most of these reasons… The LSB is what I prefer for study. NKJV does have a special place in my heart because I grew up reading it.

[@garythomas3150]

I appreciate your video because I am very much not KJVO (at all), but I prefer the KJV and NKJV. It seems like I don’t fit nicely into any camp. I would suggest considering one more reason in your list: You get to just simply read it without the text constantly suggesting that the true reading might be something different. None of the passages have brackets or footnotes making you wonder if an alternate reading is actually correct or if this passage actually shouldn’t appear at all and is a mistake to ever be included. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate translation notes and want them sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Sometimes I just want to read the Word of God and not go down the rabbit hole of textual criticism half way through a thought. The KJV is the only translation that offers this way of reading scripture. Good video..

[@Dwayne_Green]

Definitely, another nifty thing, is you can buy 'reader editions' which remove all the marginal notes and references. Some even take out the verse number so there's nothing in the way of you and the text :) I have one in NKJV and it's quite nice to read from time to time!

[@garythomas3150]

@@Dwayne_Green is it the “Deluxe Readers Edition?” I bought it for that exact reason 😊 I wanted an NKJV with no translation notes. I don’t love the readers version format, but to be fair, maybe I haven’t given it the chance it deserves. I made that decision pretty quickly. Maybe I could get used to it, if I read it enough. I saw you mention Mark Ward. If I’m not mistaken readers version is one of his favorite formats. Crossway makes a really nice ESV leather over board set that I’ve considered.

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@garythomas3150 That's the exact one I'm thinking of.

[@mikelowry298]

Well done 👏

[@kjb1611tw]

amen, greetings from taiwan 🕯️🙏

[@Jeremy_White75]

These are all great reasons! Especially number 7!

[@WogChilli]

Dwayne do you believe Jesus is the Son of God, or Jesus is God?

[@Dwayne_Green]

I believe the Trinity, One God in three persons.

[@Don531]

I didn't know it was copy righted in the UK

[@Dwayne_Green]

Sure is, it's a pro and a con... On the one hand, it serves as a protection for the translation itself, but on the other hand, being public domain elsewhere ensures it's rapid dispersion free of licensing and red tap.

[@jamessheffield4173]

I use the AV, but know most of the critical text issues.

[@wiggleword]

I love the KJV. I've read many other translations but find I keep coming back to the KJV.

[@joeseczulaica3053]

I love the King James Version Bible I had a hard time understanding but I pray to God to teach me to read and understand Now I prayed to the Holy Spirit to teach me what it wants me to know And he wants me to know Jesus the Son of God To know Jesus is to read the gospel of John , If preachers would stay on the Gospel of John many lost souls would be saved , Back to the KJV I love that Bible because in Genesis chapter one it says Heaven not heavens I don't understand why others bibles would say heavens

[@Nick-wn1xw]

What heaven was Paul caught up to?

[@joeseczulaica3053]

@@Nick-wn1xw The third heaven My point was the types Publishers will use heavens The king James version uses heaven not heavens And that was in the beginning of creation In Matthew Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of heaven not heavens Hope you understand my point Thank you also for your comment and God bless you through your journey knowing the truth of Jesus the Son of God Shalom

[@supersilverhazeroker]

@@joeseczulaica3053 if only the plurality of heaven in genesis 1 was the only difference.. modern translations are horrendous.. look up something like "kjv omissions" in any search engine or if you want to see how the nkjv distorts the word of God look up something like "new king james version comparison chart"

[@fridge3489]

I'd like to echo other comments regarding #7. It's so true. Btw, I recently became KJO.

[@shirleygoss1988]

I used to be KJO. I have since, however, become a user of multiple versions I am not KJO, but it is my preeminent version. The NKJV is my most frequent use version.

[@douglaswebster1028]

One of the best reasons to read the KJV is because it is poetic and majestic. The Word of God should be above the ordinary.

[@user-wt4jd3dm6d]

That’s all I ever read is the King James Version I have other translations but nothing compares to the King James versions and it’s what my family used

[@thetruthhurts7808]

I would also add that the language is more precise and the punctuation is better.

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @thetruthhurts7808 The Hebrew Scriptures are fairly more precise that the English and the Greek Scriptures are much more precise than the English translations. And there is no punctuation in either. Some of the language in the KJV is not accurately precise at all in comparison to the Greek Text of the NT. Specifically the many translation errors in the text of the KJV. DZ

[@johntheo4729]

👍

[@lunarrn]

There can only be one English translation of the Bible that is God’s preserved word. Choose wisely

[@normmcinnis4102]

Still valuable?

[@Dwayne_Green]

yes sir

[@dough3821]

Good video. My view is very similar to yours :)

[@dough3821]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZCol6ihbs10fc0

[@Nick-wn1xw]

Yes it's been used for over 400 years. And no modern language bible can say that. Why? Because they weren't translated 400 years ago! And when the KJV was new it was disliked and distrusted by a lot of people because it was new. Being old does not automatically make it "better".

[@TenMinutesOfTruth]

Onliest ... onlyism I’m not KJV onlyiest either. But I don’t use just any version to make it fit my theology either #RWarren 😂

[@Brandaniron]

I think he used 15 different translations to write purpose driven nonsense.

[@bizpo1286]

KJV Numbers 22:30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear Dwayne Green, Point # 1. Test of time = an appeal to tradition. But time is not on the side of the KJV, because as time go by, all translations become more and more obsolete as a result of the words in the text change meaning, making the translation losing accuracy and reliability in comparison to the original language text source. Point # 2. A committee translation is strongly preferred. However the committee responsible for the revision/translation of the KJV was predominantly a denominational committee of the Anglican Church, authorized by the head of the Anglican Church - King James of England, To be a replacement to the Anglican "Bishops Bible" for use in the Anglican Church. The KJV is undoubtedly biased towards Anglican polity and doctrine. More conservative Christians who were not of the Anglican Church more likely preferred and used the Geneva Bible, which has been in use longer than the KJV. Just as committee translation are preferred over single translator or small group translations, an Interdenominational committee of conservative Christian scholars is preferred over a denominational committee translation like the KJV. Point # 2b. These translators were very good scholars in the Anglican Church and most were Bishop/pastors of anglican Churches. Most of them had a very good general (wide breath of) knowledge, and were very acquainted with classical Greek, but none of them were very proficient in "Biblical Greek". When generally call this "Koine Greek" the dialect of Greek the New Testament Scriptures were written in. The KJV translators were a little puzzled by some of the vocabulary and Grammar of Koine Greek which may have been a direct cause of some of the translation errors in the text of the KJV. Point # 3. Yes the KJV is considered a "Formal Equivalence" translation, but I have found many instances were the "Dynamic Equivalence" method was used. Some people think "Formal Equivalence" translations are better, but actually both methods do have drawbacks. he major Problem with "Formal Equivalence" translations is that they confuse the meaning of the text in colloquial words and phrases, and when idioms are used These are used considerably more in Koine Greek than in the classical Greek that the KJV translators were familiar with. When studying the Scriptures using English translations of the Scriptures, it is highly recommended to use multiple translations of the Scriptures and very wise to use at least one "Formal Equivalence" translation (to get the literal words of the text) and at least one "Dynamic Equivalence" translation (to get the accurate meaning of the colloquial words, phrases, and idioms used). You can have a literal word but not have what the word means in the cultural context of that time place and culture. This is why is is very wise to follow the good advice of the KJV translators and use multiple translations if you want understand the Scriptures. You can find where they advise to use more than one translation in the Preface of the 1611 KJV. The KJV themselves were opposed to only using one translation of the Scriptures to study the word of God. Point # 4. Italicized Text - These are examples of where the KJV Translators thought the "Formal Equivalence" translation method could not adequately carry the actual meaning of what was being so that added to the text for clarification (essentially using the "Dynamic Equivalence" method). Sometimes these additions are interpolations, to the text are placed there to support a theological presupposition or a translators’ interpretation of what they think the text is saying. Point # 5. Epitome of a stable text. NO !!!! Not at all !!!! There are many obsolete words in the text of the KJV that have changed meaning since 1611 or have fallen out of use that will confuse the modern reader about what God is actually saying in His Word. I think you are confusing longevity with stability. The Latin Vulgate (the Scriptures translated into Latin) has been around for over 1000 years longer than the KJV of 1611, and the Vulgate is still used by the Latin Church. Surely the Vulgate should be considered "the Epitome of a stable text" under your criteria far more than the KJV. It seems your zeal to defend the KJV has cause you to overlook many issues of scholarship. The idea that a translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures of God can be stable through time would assume that the language in the daughter text would never change and that is certainly not an observable reality. Your assertion ignores the fact that words change meaning with time resulting in obsolete definitions of Words and words that have fallen out of use. This is the reason most "King James Version" users do not use the 1611 version, but instead use the 1769 version, and is also why a New KJV, King James 2000 Bible, American KJV, etc. exists. Point # 6. Since the KJV is under a perpetual crown copyright, should genuine Christians disregard that copyright on the basis that our nation refuses to recognize the copyright of those who originally labored to translate and publish the KJV ? Jesus said, "for the laborer deserves his wages." We should honor the law that brought the KJV to us and not violate the copyright of the KJV - Only buy KJV Bibles that comply with the original copyright. Let devout Honest Christians follow the Spirit of the Law without seeking loopholes in the law. Point # 7. Yes, the KJV slows down effective study time because you really do need to look up the meaning of words, BUT you will need to use a dictionary that give the meaning of words in 1611, not a modern English dictionary. You will need a "Early Modern English Dictionary" that covers word definitions during the 16th to 17th century. I have noticed that many of the modern dictionaries no longer carry definitions of English words during that time period, unless they are very comprehensive dictionaries (I have one and it is 5 inches thick and they tend to be expensive). Of course you can purchase "Early Modern English Dictionaries", BUT they are very expensive (much more that the cost of a NKJV or an ESV Bible) Another problem you will encounter is that you probably will not always know if the word in the text of the KJV has become obsolete by a change in it's fundamental meaning, so you will need to look up many words in your "Early Modern English Dictionaries" to make sure since you may not know if the word is obsolete. It is much easier and makes studying the Scriptures far more effectively to use a translation of the Bible that is definitionally up to date, with no obsolete words. Conclusion Points, The KJV is not a desirable translation of God's Word to use today because it has obsolete and about of usage words that negatively impact the accuracy and reliability. There are also translations of the text that are poor renderings of Koine Greek. Some NT Scholars today specialize in the vocabulary and grammar of Koine Greek which the KJV found confusing because they were unfamiliar with it (when one needs specific help they go to a specialist). It is better to use a nondenominational Committee translation than one that has denominational bias. The KJV translators themselves recommend it is wise to use multiple translations of God's Word. Something that is not mentioned is the many translation errors in the KJV, some of which may be obvious to the diligent student of the Scriptures, but most people had no idea how many translation errors exist int he KJV unless that compare the text of the KJV against the Greek Text (the KJV used the Textus Receptus as its NT Greek source text but there are many instances where the two disagree = translation errors. Actually there are many more valid reasons not to use the KJV than there are to use it. Bottom Line - Use a variety of translations of God's Word to study the Scriptures !!! Be Well, DZ

[@blackeyedturtle]

The underlying Greek text of the AV KJV, is by far the superior underlying Greek text, being in agreement with the majority of copies ever made or discovered. The reliability of a copy should not be determined by its age, anymore than a witnesses testimony in a court of law should be determined by the age of the witness. Especially when that witness's testimony disagrees with the overabundance of the majority of witnesses, whose testimony harmonizes with one another's. Don't be fooled by margin notes that state, "The Oldest and Most Reliable MSS Omit This Verse." That refers to less than a handful of abundantly corrected and corrupted manuscripts that disagree with the majority of manuscripts ever discovered. Manuscripts that were most likely found in such a pristine state of preservation due to the fact that early Christians knew of their corruptions, thus they were not handled for purposes of copying.

[@billyjohns7258]

Man cannot make it more understandable Proverbs 1:23 another thing that none of you all understand is Satan wants to be The Lord, the Lord is the Word so Satan wants to be the word in the midst of the congregation and Eve corrupted the commandment given to Adam then Satan came and added the NOT and also he basically said it will give you easily gotten wisdom, created doubt about true words of God by his words he planted in her heart. First ones who printed the new ones bc they believed pridefully they could do better also believe only the original first letters are pure meaning God couldn't preserve his words so they have no true faith in who God is!

[@MarkDouglass-dt9ky]

The King James is by far the greatest of the English versions. The new King James Version is a perversion. Even a quick analysis shows this.

[@morganfrmn]

First it's the Bible handed down to us by the Holy Ghost.

[@Silverheart1956]

The Holy Spirit !!

[@morganfrmn]

Now that you have the KJV it's time to start studying Dispensationalism.

[@Heckle174]

The reason I don't touch any other version... they are corrupt as corrupt can get. The main reason I only use the KJV, is that it is God's actual inerrant Word... why use anything else? My next reason, is that all modern versions remove vital instructions to do with deliverance & our fight in the spirit... they dumb down our faith so that we become useless.

[@micahg2242]

exactly!

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @Heckle174, It is apparent that you have never done any comparison of the text of the KJV against the Textus Receptus Greek text, the very Greek text the KJV was translated from. If you had studied the Scriptures that deeply, you would have discovered many places where the Textus Receptus and the KJV does not agree. These are actually "translation errors" in the KJV, where the KJV did not accurately translate the Word of God into English. I agree that God's Word IS inerrant, ..... because God is inerrant !! But if the KJV has translation errors then the KJV is not God's inerrant Word because God does not make errors. And it does have translation errors that any one with good study skills and diligent research can detect. Many KJV Only Supporters will intentionally avoid studying the text of the KJV that deeply for fear of what they will find. They prefer to exhibit blind faith (very much like what the Mormons exhibit in the Book of Mormon) in the accuracy of the KJV and never dare to test and try it In reality, The KJV is an English translation of God's Word, made by the good skills of men, but the men who translated the KJV were not perfect and their translation proves their work was good, but obviously not perfect, because of the presence of translation errors. Most KJV Only Supporters will probably 1. ignore these errors, Or 2. Deny these errors exist, or 3. try to forget they ever heard that errors exist. or 4. Pretend these errors don't really exist. One thing they probably will not do is to actually objectively and honestly search fro the truth, because they are too committed to their traditions to change even if the truth demands it Diligently search for truth Because: All truth is God's Truth. I take God's Truth over tradition any time. Be Well, DZ

[@micahg2242]

@@Silverheart1956 can you provide examples or links to these studies?

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @@micahg2242, Hello ! "These studies" ?? Are you referring to my studies ? No links to my studies, because I have never posted them online. However there are lots of sites that provide this kind of information. "Can you provide examples" ?? Not really sure what you want examples of - you were not very specific and I covered a lot in that very general overview. However, if you are referring to translation errors in the KJV .... Yes, I can give you examples ! Here is one example: Gal. 2:21 in the KJV says: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (KJV) The Problem is in Gal. 2:21c - "then Christ is dead in vain." (KJV) In contrast, this is what Paul originally wrote, as he was guided by the Holy Spirit: "ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν" (Greek Textus Receptus) "Then Christ in vain died" (English word for word literal interlinear) Paul used the "aorist past tense" of the verb "to die" in the Greek NT. To accurately translate this verb into English, we must use an English past tense verb. I assume you know the difference between past tense and present tense, and that you understand that to use the wrong tense, can very significantly change the meaning of a sentence. The KJV mistranslates the past tense verb "ἀπέθανεν", by using the "present tense" English verb - "is dead". Anyone with middle school English skills knows that the verb "is dead", is in the present tense, and is not a past tense verb. This is a definitive translation error in the text of the KJV. DOES IT REALLY MATTER ? Emphatically YES !! Point # 1. -------- When we translate the Word of God we should NOT change what God has written. !!! Man does not have the authority to change God's Word !!! The KJV changes the verb tense, altering and changing what God originally said, in His Word. This change significantly changes the meaning of the verse Point # 2. -------- This mistranslation distorts a very important primary doctrine of Christian teachings. It is true to say that "Jesus died", because all Christians know that Jesus "died" on the cross for our sins (past tense - aorist past tense in Greek). However, it is basically heresy to say that Jesus "is dead", because Christians do not believe that Jesus Christ "is" presently dead. We firmly believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, according to the Scriptures. "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:4) "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor. 15:14) This mistranslation basically presents a heresy in the text of the KJV. Of course there is no problem if the KJV had translated The Text of God's Word as The Holy Spirit guided Paul to write it. If the KJV had not changed the verb tense from what God said, there would be no problem. Point # 3. --------- This mistranslation causes an internal contradiction within the text of the KJV. As Christians we believe that God's Word does not contradict itself. In Gal. 2:21 the "KJV" states that Christ "IS DEAD", but in Matthew 28:7 (and in many other places in the KJV) the KJV clearly says, "he is risen from the dead" ! So how can Christ be "risen from the dead" in one place of the KJV, and in another place say, Christ "is dead" ?? That is a contradiction within the text of the KJV. God's Authentic Word does not say two contradictory ideas because Paul clearly said ἀπέθανεν" = "died" (Past Tense) and that is consistent with Matthew 28:7 and other place in the Scriptures. It is the KJV that changed the tense making the text of the KJV say something different from God's Word in this verse. This is undoubtedly a translation error, present in the text of the KJV, where the KJV strays away from the Word of God, and what the Holy Spirit led Paul to authentically write in Gal. 2:21. I can give you other examples or you can find them for yourself if you compare the text of the KJV against the text of the Greek Textus Receptus - the source text the KJV used to translated the NT from. Be Well, DZ

[@paulrivalto1974]

I like the KJV 1611 Bible and still use it today. Yet, there are many misinterpretations from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. There were not 47 men on the panel of interpreters who interpreted the KJV. There were 27men and only 10 were true theologians with language skills that would have benefitted them in correct interpretations from the original scriptural languages. 17 men were political appointees by King James himself to say yes to his final discisions of interpretations. He alone had final say as to the interpretations used. With that said, all interpretations in use today have their problems in interpretation, every one. That is why one needs to be a student of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. That is also why scripture tells us to Study to show oneself approved of God, a workman who need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15. " Rightly Dividing" - Greek word " Orthotomeo " meaning to perfectly disect and to perfectly line oneself up with the truth.

[@Silverheart1956]

Good and accurate points and observations !!! DZ

[@MauriceCBrown3rd]

In my view, the most important reason I read the KJV , is because it was from the Textus Recptus Manuscript. Versions made from the Alexandrian texts emit not only words but entire verses. Having now even places in versions from the Alexandrain text that say, some versions say, and go on to tell what versions from the Textus Recptus say, well, that in itself is an admission of something being wrong, but worst off, it leaves a wide open thought of doubt about all that God's word actually says. And things left out often are things of high importance about our authority in Christ. Myself, I have several different translations, and also look at different version renderings online. But more important than comparing different versions is having the Strong's Exaustive Concordance that has the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries in the back coinciding with the designated numbers at the end of each word in search. Because each word is very important to study in the orginal language, and not just a general dictionary. Secondly, when examining any individual word as it was before translation, one must have the Holy Spirit in them, guiding into all truth, because the words were given by the breath of God, the inspiration of God. Without being led by the same Spirit that authored the word being written, one, even groups of people will easily come into error. That is one of the reasons we have so many denominations. People of God in Christ who are not fully submitted to being led of the Spirit in learning and understanding, this is a grave problem against unity of the faith and the body of Christ. There are good traditions and bad traditions. The bad ones are the things that cause division in the body of Christ. This is my summation of the 8th and most important point about the King James Version. It is written throughout the old and new testaments , not to add to or take away from the word. so vitally important within the book of Revelations itself, that doing so can get your name removed from the Lambs book of life. I'll add a bit of information on this subject ; often it is an attempt to criticize the KJV by claiming the oldest is best when coming to which texts to rely on. Well, the original texts the KJV was made from no long exist . But, about 90 % of all manuscript evidence is of the Textus Receptus , that is, things like art , poetry, literature , everything in existance that supports the Textus Receptus , those are manuscript evidence, and they are older than the oldest complete manuscripts. So there is that. Most important above all this, is, to love one another in the unfeigned real sincere love of God in Christ Jesus. And to pray for the unity of the faith . Remember, knowledge puffs up in pride, while love edifies and builds up and strengthens the brethren . This is why humility is a very vital thing in the Lord.

[@MauriceCBrown3rd]

I'll add, to think you have no need or respect for translations other than King James, that is like saying, I am complete all by myself, but hopefully no one thinks that. It's also like saying, all those other scholars and people involved in study and work to make a translation, that they don't matter, that they are insignificant. I hope no one thinks that way either. How can anyone have any thought, stance or idea like that and say they are humble ? To be honest with yourself, after reading and studying , you come to find out, there are words in the KJV that are not accurately done, being in itself a translation. There are words that are translated into the same English that if all you do is read the words translated, you get a wrong impression of what God's word is relating. I'll give an example. Look at the word translated "contentious" in the KJV. In Romans 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 11:16. Two Very different words were translated as "contentious" . In our mind, in our English language of this modern time, we get an idea of what those words mean. In the original Greek, in Romans 2:8 , "contentious" means: grudgingly, vehemently, strife, self exaltation. Whereas, in 1 Corinthians 11:16, "contentious" means : having a dispute, disagreement, in a good way. See how severely different those words mean in the original Greek ? And, when you examine those passages in whatever version you read, you will find how strongly wrong people think concerning how it's seen in 1 Corinthians 11:16. The KJV is actually described in a manner where the right intention can be received, but this is why there is such strong views in almost every denomination about men with long hair. Pride and hardheartedness is dominant across the board about this bad interpretation. That's just one example from a bible filled with words translated into a language to one word, from many different words originally.

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @MauriceCBrown3rd I can understand many people having some skepticism towards the Alexandrian Texts, but that is no reason to gravitate toward the Textus Receptus. It not an, either - or, choice. I would strongly prefer the Majority Texts and the Majority Greek Text over the Textus Receptus. I would assert the Majority Greek Text is more accurate and better represents the autographs than the Textus Receptus. There is a much stronger manuscript support for the Majority Greek Text. The Majority Greek Text also have the advantage of being compiled by more knowledgable conservative Christian scholars than the compilation of the Textus Receptus in the context of a Roman Catholic Priest (yes, I am not Roman Catholic). The major reason some Christians advocate loyalty to the Textus Receptus is actually because of tradition, - it is the textual NT source of the KJV and their loyalty to the KJV causes them to affirm loyalty to the Textus Receptus (in defense of the KJV's textual Basis), despite the problems (which they are usually not aware of) in the Textus Receptus. Be Well, DZ

[@christianuniversalist]

For the NT I prefer reading the DBH translation. KJV is fine, but it has its problems.

[@sylvesterbestertester1013]

God definitely speaks the 1600's & 1700'ss style of English. Sorry all of you who whill never get an exact kjv. Your language is toxic, learned english and youll understand the kjv. And if you're wondering what was the real word of God before the kjv 1611. I'd tell you, but ive gotta go somewhere Maybe next time.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I'm not a KJV onlyist...

[@Mattieberry85]

Public domain and if you enjoy the syle are the only reasons that are valid. KJV is not a very good translation.

[@lanbaode]

Because my KJV Bible tells me so! When you read the KJV only like these Biblically misguided and miseducated KJV-onlyist guys here you get to believe that "unicorns" exist as they are mentioned (that is, erroneously translated) in the KJV Bible! Read: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-12; Psalms 22:21; and Isaiah 34:7.

[@Learningthetruth7]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/foXPn5mXa9x3hs0

[@freegracerevival]

Im not KJV onlyist but I will admit the new translations really suck.

[@Silverheart1956]

Some do, but some are better that the KJV

[@ounkwon6442]

Read 'meat' for food; 'easter' for passover, etc. Good for you.

[@Silverheart1956]

The Word "easter" is not in the Scriptures and there is absolutely no justification for mistranslating the greek text in such a manner.

[@damhlaicmagshamhrain5039]

KJV= KJ "VERSION",and as a "version" is substantially a PER-version. Many people are happy with that. And good luck to them.Armenians are equally happy with their "version". And Copts/Syriacs/... All going their own way/wayward. Greek of course is all that matters!

[@ritheshkumar3009]

kjv is hersey it is the defiled word of god!

[@WordMadeFlesh777]

And somehow God let it be the primary English translation for around 400 years??!! Ok 🙄 so God let us have a corrupted text for centuries…I don’t think that how God rolls lol

[@micahg2242]

Why do you say that? can you provide a link to your reasons? genuinely curious

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear@@WordMadeFlesh777 The KJV does certainly have translation errors in the text. Anyone studying the KJV and comparing it against the Textus Receptus can clearly see that. So why would God let it be the primary English translation for around 400 years" when it contains translation errors in it ???? I don’t think that how God rolls lol. God is perfect, but obviously the KJV is not. The KJV is a good English translation of God's Word, but to say it is without error, is to clearly exhibit that one has not studied the Scriptures deeply. Be Well, DZ

[@Silverheart1956]

Dear @@micahg2242 , Hello ! I will take a shot at answering the question you have proposed. I wouldn't agree with @ritheshkumar3009, that the KJV is heresy. However there are certainly problems with the KJV that many of it's faithful supporters are not very aware of. To clarify up front, I certainly affirm that the Gospel is clearly presented in the text of the KJV and if one lives by the basic teachings in the KJV, they can live a life honoring to God. I grew up with the KJV, and became a Christian by reading its contents, and I still love the KJV for certain situations. I certainly have sentimental affections for the KJV However, I do not use it for serious study because of: 1. the presence of obsolete words that have changed meaning since 1611, This causes the text of the KJV to lose accuracy and reliability. There are also words in the text of the KJV that are no longer used. To study from the KJV one really needs an Early Modern English Dictionary to look up what the words meant back in 1611, Not what they may mean in today's contemporary English. This causes many problems that many people are not even aware of. 2. I prefer a nondenominational committee translation. The KJV is a committee translation, but a denominational translation specifically authorized by the head of the Anglican Church (King James) to replace the "Bishop's Bible" (in which the KJV is actually a revision of), to be used in the Anglican Church and translated predominately by Anglican bishops and scholars with a theological slant towards the doctrines and polity of the Anglican Church. Denominational Bias is evidence in the KJV) 3. Contrary to the awareness of many people, the KJV does contain many translation errors where the text of the KJV does not agree with the original language source texts. The Textus Receptus (TR) is the Greek source text for the NT of the KJV (I speak of the NT because I am much more familiar with the NT problems int he KJV). There are many places where the text of the TR does not agree with the text of the KJV. This is where the KJV failed to accurately translate the Greek text into English. When I comes to the Scriptures, I am sure you can understand the importance that the text of the Scriptures needs to be accurately translated in to English. I certainly and definitely agree with the wise advise of the translators of the KJV, as they stated in the preface of the 1611 KJV, that if you want to understand the meaning of the Scriptures, one should use a variety of translations of God's Word. The KJV translators were opposed to the idea of KJV only and they used multiple translations to study the Scriptures. This is a good and very reasonable principle to follow. There are other considerations, but these are the major issues. Be Well

[@rogerferrell861]

Good bye

[@Nick-wn1xw]

Bye!

[@rogerferrell861]

@@Nick-wn1xw Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV) 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.

[@rogerferrell861]

Nick what do u think about this

[@Nick-wn1xw]

@@rogerferrell861 I think you needed to say why you were just saying "Good bye". You left no reason for anyone to ponder as to why. I personally am strongly KJV preferred for MYSELF. I honestly don't care what someone else reads as long as they READ it, believe it and live it. I don't criticize their choice and won't debate my choice. I appreciate that you asked the question.

[@rogerferrell861]

I said bye because I'm old king James only I don't. Elite anyone should defile the word of GOD and old king James says plainly do not add to or take away from this book and I do care because it's is the youth that has to read the word of GOD and i don't want them to be lead down the wrong road with a counterfeit modern day Bible because see I do care and that's why I am against counterfeit bibles hope that explains why I said good bye old king James only the rest are garbage and I would burn them all if i could praise JESUS CHRIST THE LORD ALMIGHTY