Ten Reasons Why I Do Not Use the King James Version of the Bible By Bret Lovitz of Grace Fellowship (www.gracefellowshipmh.org)
Pending my fellow Elders' blessing, this will be put on the church website...PB
Ten Reasons Why I Do Not Use the King James Version of the Bible
By Bret M. Lovitz, Pastor and Co-Elder of Grace Fellowship of Mtn. Home, ID.
Another one of those hot topics within professing Christian circles is which bible version Christians should use.
I used the King James Version for the first seventeen years of my almost twenty years of Christian life. During that time however, I was never “King James Only.” Even today, when I cite verses of holy writ from memory, it is almost always in the King James.
Having said that however, I also do not recommend or condone using just any bible version. I only recommend the more accurate and literal “word for word” translations, which is only several versions in my opinion.
I have the utmost respect for many Christians who have stuck with the King James Version. Some of them are sovereign grace/reformed Christians.
As with the other short articles in this “Ten Reasons” series, it is my hope and prayer that it will promote further consideration and study of the issue.
Ten Reasons Why I Do Not Use the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)
1. There are numerous archaic words and the version is not current enough. Jesus and the God-Inspired writers used language current and common for that day. God’s word should also do the same. The comments by some KJV Only people that Christians need to keep a KJV Bible and Strong’s Concordance with them, is silly in my opinion.
2. It is not a more literal and accurate translation than the NASB. There are times when I prefer the KJV translation of a verse of Holy Scripture over the NASB. However, I have come across more instances where the NASB had the better translation than the KJV. And I’m not just talking about the archaic words in the KJV.
3. In my opinion Dr. James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” (which I need to re-read again because it has been years since I read any of it) is the definitive work on this subject, and should convince any Christian who is earnestly and honestly dealing with the issue.
4. The KJV translators were not “Inspired” by God as were the writers of the Old and New Testaments, as some Hyper KJV Only Christians have asserted. .
5. The KJV translators used approximately 90% of the Tyndale New Testament translation when King James authorized the new version (which took about 50 years before it was widely accepted).
6. There have been several revisions since the original 1611 KJV, and there should be more. Interestingly, even when people come out with newer versions such as the KJV21 or the Modern KJV, many KJV “Onlies” still reject those versions even though they are based on the same manuscripts.
7. Pastors that use the KJV end up explaining the meaning of the archaic words anyway. If the KJV is all that should be used, then there should be no expounding and explanation on such words that have a different meaning than today, but only the reading of KJV Scripture. Yet there are, of course, explanations given of the old King James English that end up matching or meaning the same thing as the NASB or NKJV.
8. If the KJV is the only preserved version of God’s word then there could be no other translations for other countries and tongues. Some KJV “Onlies” say that such translations should only be from the KJV directly, but other reasons given in this article make that unreasonable.
9. The purpose of music in the local church is for worship and teaching. If the KJV is the only preserved version of God’s word, then why don’t KJV Only Churches only sing the KJV Scriptures? But most don’t, and rightfully so.
10. Many KJV “Onlies” claim that other versions have removed some of God’s word. Words such as “God” and “blood” that are in the KJV are sometimes not in other versions. Yet the KJV used manuscripts that were later than many used for some of the other versions (NASB for example). It cannot be proven that words such as these were removed. It could very well be that words such as these were added by the translators to try to make it clearer. When a bible version has “He” instead of God, you can still tell that God is being referred to when you look at the context.
I am not writing this to try to persuade Christians to forsake the KJV for the NKJV or NASB, but rather to explain mine and perhaps others’ conviction on why we do not use the KJV regularly. If your personal conviction is to use the KJV, that’s fine. Personally, I could use any of these three versions from the pulpit, and I do use all three of them [and more] for comparable study and preparation of the sermons. My wife still prefers the KJV even though she is not “KJV only.”
But the KJV is a translation. It is a good translation, and may be one of the best ones (although some would argue that the NASB is better). Only the original autographs that are not available to us are completely without error, even though the errors in the KJV, NKJV and NASB are minimal and do not affect any major doctrines. Yet, the fact that we have over 5,000 Greek and 7,000 Latin Manuscripts with such a high degree of accuracy is truly amazing and is sufficient evidence that God has preserved His word for us today. Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria!
Ten Reasons Why I Do Not Use the King James Version of the Bible
By Bret M. Lovitz, Pastor and Co-Elder of Grace Fellowship of Mtn. Home, ID.
Another one of those hot topics within professing Christian circles is which bible version Christians should use.
I used the King James Version for the first seventeen years of my almost twenty years of Christian life. During that time however, I was never “King James Only.” Even today, when I cite verses of holy writ from memory, it is almost always in the King James.
Having said that however, I also do not recommend or condone using just any bible version. I only recommend the more accurate and literal “word for word” translations, which is only several versions in my opinion.
I have the utmost respect for many Christians who have stuck with the King James Version. Some of them are sovereign grace/reformed Christians.
As with the other short articles in this “Ten Reasons” series, it is my hope and prayer that it will promote further consideration and study of the issue.
Ten Reasons Why I Do Not Use the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)
1. There are numerous archaic words and the version is not current enough. Jesus and the God-Inspired writers used language current and common for that day. God’s word should also do the same. The comments by some KJV Only people that Christians need to keep a KJV Bible and Strong’s Concordance with them, is silly in my opinion.
2. It is not a more literal and accurate translation than the NASB. There are times when I prefer the KJV translation of a verse of Holy Scripture over the NASB. However, I have come across more instances where the NASB had the better translation than the KJV. And I’m not just talking about the archaic words in the KJV.
3. In my opinion Dr. James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” (which I need to re-read again because it has been years since I read any of it) is the definitive work on this subject, and should convince any Christian who is earnestly and honestly dealing with the issue.
4. The KJV translators were not “Inspired” by God as were the writers of the Old and New Testaments, as some Hyper KJV Only Christians have asserted. .
5. The KJV translators used approximately 90% of the Tyndale New Testament translation when King James authorized the new version (which took about 50 years before it was widely accepted).
6. There have been several revisions since the original 1611 KJV, and there should be more. Interestingly, even when people come out with newer versions such as the KJV21 or the Modern KJV, many KJV “Onlies” still reject those versions even though they are based on the same manuscripts.
7. Pastors that use the KJV end up explaining the meaning of the archaic words anyway. If the KJV is all that should be used, then there should be no expounding and explanation on such words that have a different meaning than today, but only the reading of KJV Scripture. Yet there are, of course, explanations given of the old King James English that end up matching or meaning the same thing as the NASB or NKJV.
8. If the KJV is the only preserved version of God’s word then there could be no other translations for other countries and tongues. Some KJV “Onlies” say that such translations should only be from the KJV directly, but other reasons given in this article make that unreasonable.
9. The purpose of music in the local church is for worship and teaching. If the KJV is the only preserved version of God’s word, then why don’t KJV Only Churches only sing the KJV Scriptures? But most don’t, and rightfully so.
10. Many KJV “Onlies” claim that other versions have removed some of God’s word. Words such as “God” and “blood” that are in the KJV are sometimes not in other versions. Yet the KJV used manuscripts that were later than many used for some of the other versions (NASB for example). It cannot be proven that words such as these were removed. It could very well be that words such as these were added by the translators to try to make it clearer. When a bible version has “He” instead of God, you can still tell that God is being referred to when you look at the context.
I am not writing this to try to persuade Christians to forsake the KJV for the NKJV or NASB, but rather to explain mine and perhaps others’ conviction on why we do not use the KJV regularly. If your personal conviction is to use the KJV, that’s fine. Personally, I could use any of these three versions from the pulpit, and I do use all three of them [and more] for comparable study and preparation of the sermons. My wife still prefers the KJV even though she is not “KJV only.”
But the KJV is a translation. It is a good translation, and may be one of the best ones (although some would argue that the NASB is better). Only the original autographs that are not available to us are completely without error, even though the errors in the KJV, NKJV and NASB are minimal and do not affect any major doctrines. Yet, the fact that we have over 5,000 Greek and 7,000 Latin Manuscripts with such a high degree of accuracy is truly amazing and is sufficient evidence that God has preserved His word for us today. Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria!
Comments
Partly because the language changes.
The 2 are very similar in many respects, but overall the ESV is more readable--although the NASB is more readable than many claim it to be.
I do like the NKJV when I want something that sounds more peotic--especially the Psalms--but I do prefer the ESV and NASB over it by far.
As for thought for thought Bibles--they have their uses--but have more drawbacks--and there are places the NIV is very awkward--especialy when they seem to arbitrarily insert "He said", "She said", etc in the middle of quotes breaking up the flow of the thought. The device can work well in novels--especially for humour--but when it breaks up the Bible's message--it's distracting...
It is my intent to respond to your orginal response that I deleted. I have no problem with dealing the issue itself. But when some of the unfortunate personal comments start coming, that won't be tolerated. Especially when an allusion is being made that a person may not be saved just because they do not "see" that the KJV is the only preserved word of God. I also want to know who I'm dealing with, especially if it is someone I already know ;-). So this Blog will not longer accept anonymous posts.
I will be out of town until Nov. 4th, so please be patient. Thank you...Pastor Bret Lovitz
How can you not see that in these last days, especially with all the corruption from the 20th century, that you can use a new "bible" version from a much corrupted era.
The KJV has stood the test of time.
The world is lost and dead in their sins, being blinded by the god of this world. It is impossible for the lost man to understand the things of GOD.
You ought to see these things and not let the world dictate to you.
And this is coming from a young person old enough to be your son's age.
You get a liberal bible and you will have a worldy liberal doctrine, especially in bringing up a babe in Christ.
You have God's Word and you will have a strong foundation and produce giants for the LORD.
You know my name but I don't know you. I thought I had changed the setting so there would not be any anonymous posters :-).
Anyway, this is an old article that I have since modified. While you still may not agree with it, you can find it on my ministry website at www.ChristianBUM.com. I have moved from a "non KJV Only" position to a "Texus Receptus Preferred" position. The modified article goes into more detail, but the two biggest reasons are: 1) Biblical Unity in the Local and Universal Church; 2)Jesus and the NT writers spoke and wrote in a language understood for the day, and so should we. The Modern KJV and the 21st Century KJV are based on the Texus Receptus manuscripts. Many "KJV Only" Christians do a disservice to their position if they do not budge on using an updated KJV (that of course has already been updated numerous times. Most professing Christians don't use other versions because of the manuscript differences, but because they want to read the bible in todays language.
I hope this clarifies my position, and I hope you will reveal yourself to me :-). Soli Deo Gloria.