I personally do not prefer the KJV. On the issue of KJV Onlyism, I find it pretty silly. The arguments are generally never (1) historically or (2) theologically sound. From the historical perspective, the ecclectic TR which the KJV was based on was not the best set of manuscripts. A number of late medieval interpolations made their way into the KJV simply because they did not have the text critical resources we have today. On the theological level, the argument that God must perfectly preserve a Bible in English, and that Bible is the KJV is circular.

I use KJV but sometimes switch over to another Bible that I have so I can read it easier (sometimes it can get confusing when you're tired =/)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with other Bible versions such as the NIV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, TNIV, ESV, etc. They are just as good or better than the KJV.

HERESY...STONE HIM!!!

There was one thing my pastor pointed out though....

I think one passage said something about the devil being the morning star (I think that was what it was)then Jesus as the morning star in the new translations.


I think it was Revalations and Jeremiah



Probably the biggest thing people don't like is that the Bible says not to add or take away and the newer versions add on things at the bottom instead of the text.

This post has been edited by Winding Willing Wind: Nov 1 2009, 10:11 PM

I severely dis;like the KJV, unless I want to read it for epic purposes. Like an awesome quote or something.

Chad, your appeal went down by 20 with that post.

KJV-Preferred? You've changed, man. CHANGED! ... **runs through a window

1) The Bible doesn't say "Don't add or take away from the Bible." Revelation says "Don't take away from this text," this text being Revelation itself. John of Patmos had no clue that his book would be compiled along with other books and letters as a set canon.

2) The reason the verses are added as footnotes is because while later versions have said verses, the earliest versions we have (from like the 4th c. or something like that) noticeably lack these verses, meaning they were later interpolations or additions. That the NIV, NASB, NAB, etc wouldn't include these is not to spite the KJV, but is because they were translated from different documents than was the KJV. The KJV was translated from relatively old documents than were our newer translations.

The NIV is the version you are talking about. And actually Isaiah 14 has nothing to do with Satan. Its just a tradition someone took on. lol.

I beg to differ. Isaiah 14, in the tradition of the Old Testament, has more than one accurate meaning. Literally or poetically, there ARE verses which describe Satan perfectly. Allow me to quote the respective ones:

12 “How you are fallen from heaven,

O Day Star, son of Dawn!

How you are cut down to the ground,

you who laid the nations low!

13 You said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;

above the stars of God

I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly

in the far reaches of the north;

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.’

15 But you are brought down to Sheol,

to the far reaches of the pit.

16 Those who see you will stare at you

and ponder over you:

‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,

who shook kingdoms,

17 who made the world like a desert

and overthrew its cities,

who did not let his prisoners go home?’
Isaiah 14:12-17 (ESV)

Taken figuratively, these verses DO describe the king of Babylon--the most obvious recipient of the passage. However, especially in the light of similar OT passages (Ezekiel 28:11-19, for starters), Isaiah's underlying, accurate meaning also starts to make itself known.

Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: 12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:


“You were the signet of perfection,

full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;

every precious stone was your covering,

sardius, topaz, and diamond,

beryl, onyx, and jasper,

sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;

and crafted in gold were your settings

and your engravings.

On the day that you were created

they were prepared.

14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.

I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;

in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.

15 You were blameless in your ways

from the day you were created,

till unrighteousness was found in you.

16 In the abundance of your trade

you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;

so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,

and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,

from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;

you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.

I cast you to the ground;

I exposed you before kings,

to feast their eyes on you.

18 By the multitude of your iniquities,

in the unrighteousness of your trade

you profaned your sanctuaries;

so I brought fire out from your midst;

it consumed you,

and I turned you to ashes on the earth

in the sight of all who saw you.

19 All who know you among the peoples

are appalled at you;

you have come to a dreadful end

and shall be no more forever.”
Ezek 28:11-19 (ESV)

Compare the two: see for yourself.

I found a humorous scribal error in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

A straight reading of 1 Samuel 13:1 in the Masoretic text reads as follows: Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel. (ESV)

The age of Saul may also be rendered as "one year old". And Acts says he rules longer than two years. Some late manuscripts of the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) do contain the age.

Here is the corrected reading: Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years. (NIV)

lol ^

Well, I don't have a problem with KJV only believers. My boyfriend and his family are one. BUT. If they believe that others are satanic or they have issues with me reading from another translation, i get annoyed. No one *truly* knows the purest script or the one without error, because it was so long ago. We won't ever truly know the answer to that until we are speaking to God himself. So, that's my issue.

I really dislike arguing translations, especially since many languages don't even have 1 translation yet and English has like 20-30 different ones.

I like NASB cause it's my Dad's bible and I read that one first and NKJV. Can't stand The MESSage, Romans 8 "God went straight for the jugular". Not a fan of a lot of the "New Age" translations either like Contemporary. Why do we need so many in the last 50ish years? I know Filipino's and they read NKJV and English isn't even their first language so it's obviously not that the language is hard to understand. Plus the Holy Spirit guides you in all truth and helps you to understand what you are reading.

I have a few issues with saying that the KJV is the only true English translation. Like it has already been said, the KJV was not translated from the earliest, and therefore more reliable, texts. While there are not many significant differences throughout these texts, it brings the "the KJV was translated from the best Greek texts" argument into question, at least in my mind.

As for the thought that all other translations are satanic, or inferior to the KJV, I believe that as long as God is speaking to you through the study of your Bible, it doesn't matter what translation you have, as long as it is a reputable translation, such as the ESV, NASB, NIV, and many others. While there are translations that one should stay away from, the majority of mainstream English texts are alright.

I have no problem with the KJV, or anyone that says that it is the only Bible that they will read. I just don't like people telling others how God has to speak to them, and that He can't speak through anything else.