KJV & NKJV Are The Only Legitimate Bibles

[I Skorp I]

Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter?  

[Garland-Green]

I am going to leave you with a few links on the subject;

The NIV Bible... Not a reliable source?
Dr. James White Full Interview 'NWO Bible Versions'
"New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy
Take the NIV Challenge  

[D-BoyTheFighter]

While I do have NKJV at my church, and my NIV study Bible... another really good version of it is New American Standard Bible (NASB). It has a good score of accuracy and readability.  

[Lady Vizsla]

I never noticed any Scripture missing in the NLT. The English is more modern but I've compared it to the linear Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and haven't found it lacking. But the KJV is my favourite, I like olde English quite a lot.  

[Corvis Cross]

I Skorp I

Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter?

I used to think in a similar way, actually. It's pretty obvious that newer translations are missing texts in certain places where the KJV has them. However, there is an underlying assumption being made here: the KJV is made the standard and anything that does not comport with the KJV has "removed Scripture". How do you know that's the case, though?

As far as I understand, when the KJV was compiled, those who compiled it did not have access to the manuscript evidence that we do now. For (at least some) of the newer translations, the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have access to are made the standard, and because those do not contain the texts in question, the newer translations do not, either. The accusation, then, would be that those compiling the KJV added in texts from the much more limited manuscripts they had available to them and other sources that ultimately are not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts, hence these are texts added into God's Word in the KJV, not actual Scripture.

If that is the case, no Scripture is missing, but rather the KJV has extrabiblical text which newer translations remove, having no evidence for it in the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Garland seems to have posted some good resources on the topic. Dr. White is a good authority on this, it seems. If you're willing to, why not check out this debate on the topic?
_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0
_

It's certainly not exhaustive, but it's shorter (still long, but at least not as long) than the interview offered by Garland (I'd still suggest that interview, but it is quite long), being only 1 hour, 28 minutes and 25 seconds. This, being a debate, also would give you some interaction between someone who holds a KJV Only position and someone who doesn't, where they can ask each other questions, etc. It won't just be a one sided discussion, so it may help you learn a bit more about how the different positions fare when put under scrutiny.

If these things take too much time to watch in one sitting, you can always break them into pieces, too. Don't feel like you have to be overwhelmed and watch it all at once.  

[I Skorp I]

Micah Seven Eighteen

I Skorp I

Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter?

I used to think in a similar way, actually. It's pretty obvious that newer translations are missing texts in certain places where the KJV has them. However, there is an underlying assumption being made here: the KJV is made the standard and anything that does not comport with the KJV has "removed Scripture". How do you know that's the case, though?

As far as I understand, when the KJV was compiled, those who compiled it did not have access to the manuscript evidence that we do now. For (at least some) of the newer translations, the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have access to are made the standard, and because those do not contain the texts in question, the newer translations do not, either. The accusation, then, would be that those compiling the KJV added in texts from the much more limited manuscripts they had available to them and other sources that ultimately are not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts, hence these are texts added into God's Word in the KJV, not actual Scripture.

If that is the case, no Scripture is missing, but rather the KJV has extrabiblical text which newer translations remove, having no evidence for it in the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Garland seems to have posted some good resources on the topic. Dr. White is a good authority on this, it seems. If you're willing to, why not check out this debate on the topic?
_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0
_

It's certainly not exhaustive, but it's shorter (still long, but at least not as long) than the interview offered by Garland (I'd still suggest that interview, but it is quite long), being only 1 hour, 28 minutes and 25 seconds. This, being a debate, also would give you some interaction between someone who holds a KJV Only position and someone who doesn't, where they can ask each other questions, etc. It won't just be a one sided discussion, so it may help you learn a bit more about how the different positions fare when put under scrutiny.

If these things take too much time to watch in one sitting, you can always break them into pieces, too. Don't feel like you have to be overwhelmed and watch it all at once.

Nice! Thanks alot fellow brethren i'll def check it out smile  

[Corvis Cross]

I Skorp I

Micah Seven Eighteen

I Skorp I

Reason i state this is because reading other bibles like the NIV and NLT & countless others are missing scripture but yet people still flock to those bibles..why not just stick with the very first bible which is KJV or if you have a hard time reading it just go with NKJV. What are you guy's/gal's thoughts on the matter?

I used to think in a similar way, actually. It's pretty obvious that newer translations are missing texts in certain places where the KJV has them. However, there is an underlying assumption being made here: the KJV is made the standard and anything that does not comport with the KJV has "removed Scripture". How do you know that's the case, though?

As far as I understand, when the KJV was compiled, those who compiled it did not have access to the manuscript evidence that we do now. For (at least some) of the newer translations, the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have access to are made the standard, and because those do not contain the texts in question, the newer translations do not, either. The accusation, then, would be that those compiling the KJV added in texts from the much more limited manuscripts they had available to them and other sources that ultimately are not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts, hence these are texts added into God's Word in the KJV, not actual Scripture.

If that is the case, no Scripture is missing, but rather the KJV has extrabiblical text which newer translations remove, having no evidence for it in the oldest reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Garland seems to have posted some good resources on the topic. Dr. White is a good authority on this, it seems. If you're willing to, why not check out this debate on the topic?
_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0
_

It's certainly not exhaustive, but it's shorter (still long, but at least not as long) than the interview offered by Garland (I'd still suggest that interview, but it is quite long), being only 1 hour, 28 minutes and 25 seconds. This, being a debate, also would give you some interaction between someone who holds a KJV Only position and someone who doesn't, where they can ask each other questions, etc. It won't just be a one sided discussion, so it may help you learn a bit more about how the different positions fare when put under scrutiny.

If these things take too much time to watch in one sitting, you can always break them into pieces, too. Don't feel like you have to be overwhelmed and watch it all at once.

Nice! Thanks alot fellow brethren i'll def check it out smile

You are very welcome. I hope what we've given to you is useful.  

[I Skorp I]

Yes it has..thank's to all of you i have found out about Dr. James White and Hermeneutics and gained some knowledge about "KJV Onlyism"  

[Icerlain]

I really like KJV, in literature classes the professor usually use KJV as the standard version. I also really like the diction of this version.  

[Biblical_Counselor]

I use both the KJV and the NKJV as my personal bibles. But there are times when I am stuck on a word or want more clearity, I go to other versions.  

[Rysabi]

I was raised on King James. In fact, I wasn't even aware that there were other translations until my teenage years. My grandmother would have hit the floor if she saw me with anything else except King James. lol


Enjoy a meme, because this is basically my grandma. lol

I used the New Living Translation quite a bit when I had the physical copy. It got lost while moving. I didn't notice any drastic changes. It was just easier for me to understand, the meat of the word was still there. I was able to use it until I learned enough to fully understand King James. I still have my KJV and NKJV translations.

 

[Women Respecter]

I use the Douay-Rheims for Bible Study.
The Douay-Rheims is a direct translation from the Latin-Vulgate of St. Jerome from 300-400AD whom fought against the Arians. Which Christians used the latin vulgate for liturgy ever since then so about 1500 years.
Douay Rheims was published 50-100 years before the KJV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible