If you like the KJV please explain your ecclesiology.

[MoreCoffee]

If you like the KJV please explain your ecclesiology. Does your church have a bishop, elders, deacons, anything else?

 

[Lamb]

I'm not a KJV only person, but from the ones I've talked to, they think it's the true translation and point out errors in other translations to back them up. I think most of these people are Baptist but I could be wrong?

 

[tango]

If you like the KJV please explain your ecclesiology. Does your church have a bishop, elders, deacons, anything else?

I'm not sure how the two are related. I like the KJV because there are times I appreciate the language in it but I don't use it exclusively by any means.

It's not really relevant to my preferred Bible but my most recent church had some kind of bishop, we got rid of the elders and deacons and ended up with a slimmed down leadership structure that isn't working at all well, in my opinion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not sure how the two are related. I like the KJV because there are times I appreciate the language in it but I don't use it exclusively by any means.

It's not really relevant to my preferred Bible but my most recent church had some kind of bishop, we got rid of the elders and deacons and ended up with a slimmed down leadership structure that isn't working at all well, in my opinion.

I mentioned bishops because the KJV has three offices in its ecclesiology

1. bishop
2. elder (priest)
3. deacon

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not a KJV only person, but from the ones I've talked to, they think it's the true translation and point out errors in other translations to back them up. I think most of these people are Baptist but I could be wrong?

Most are Baptists and Baptists have a pastor, maybe some deacons, and rarely some elder(s) which are of the same rank as the pastor but under his authority.

 

[Castle Church]

I'm not a KJV only person, but from the ones I've talked to, they think it's the true translation and point out errors in other translations to back them up. I think most of these people are Baptist but I could be wrong?

They are nearly all Baptist, or Baptists that are pretending to be non-Denominational. Some are (interestingly) also Reformed Baptists.

 

[tango]

I mentioned bishops because the KJV has three offices in its ecclesiology

1. bishop
2. elder (priest)
3. deacon

Sure, I guess if a church specifically used the KJV it would make sense to check their offices against what the KJV teaches. I'm not sure how me liking the more formal structured language of the KJV relates to what offices my church uses.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I think that the 500-year-old English language of the KJV is an obstacle to it communicating the truth. A more-up-to-date translation like the English Standard Version reveals the Bible's history and teachings much better, because language changes. If you don't agree, the KJV is roughly similar to Shakespear's language, which has the same problem of the English language's changes for the last five centuries.

 

[SetFree]

You guys aren't really serious about the Baptist thing, I mean really!

I definitely am not a Baptist. I was raised in the Church of Christ, which I later found out it adhere's mostly to men's seminary doctrine called Preterism, which is just as bad as the false pre-trib rapture theory that began in 1830's Britain which many Baptists believe.

I am a KJV 'mainly' Bible student. And the reason is revealed to me by how modern Bible translations attempt to get away from the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts of the early Church, of which the Greek Textus Receptus originated from, and which the KJV translators used.

In 1881 two British scholars, Wescott and Hort, created a NEW Greek New Testament which is used in most newer English Bible translations after the 1880's. This is why there many passages in the new translations which do not agree with the KJV New Testament reading. Also, those newer modern Bible translations also use the Alexandrian manuscripts from the Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt which had doctrinal problems, and of which Wescott and Hort claimed were the oldest Greek NT manuscripts, but there's very few of them, and they don't have much wear which they would have, if widely used. The Greek NT manuscripts known as the Majority Text, because they make up the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts, over 2000+, go back to the early Christians at Antioch.

The KJV New Testament used the Greek Majority Texts, which Erasmus, et al translated into the Textus Receptus Greek NT text.

And another thing, showing how easy it is today to be deceived with using the wrong Bible translation, Thomas Nelson publishers of The New King James Bible allowed changes to the 'original' 1611 King James Version with letting translators bring in passages from Wescott and Hort's new 1881 Greek NT text, and the Alexandria text, of which the original KJV NEVER USED! I don't know about yal, but that only reveals the laziness today of some Bible scholars to be fooled by too many "new and improved" slogans, while they corrupt the original Word of God.

To learn more about this, see the following video documentary...

 

[SetFree]

I think that the 500-year-old English language of the KJV is an obstacle to it communicating the truth. A more-up-to-date translation like the English Standard Version reveals the Bible's history and teachings much better, because language changes. If you don't agree, the KJV is roughly similar to Shakespear's language, which has the same problem of the English language's changes for the last five centuries.

I disagree simply because most editions of the 1611 King James Version after the 1st Edition, that most KJV students have, is NO LONGER written in Old English. And occasional 'thee' or 'thou' just doesn't qualify as Old English. One should find a copy of the 1st Edition 1611 KJV Bible before they make comments against it that shows their ignorance about it.

So that saying about Old English as a reason to not use the KJV Bible is nothing but a myth, and often used by those pushing the corrupt modern Bible versions based on the Alexandrian NT manuscripts and Wescott and Hort's corrupt 1881 Greek NT text.

 

[SetFree]

I'm not a KJV only person, but from the ones I've talked to, they think it's the true translation and point out errors in other translations to back them up. I think most of these people are Baptist but I could be wrong?

I'm not a Baptist, and I believe the 1611 KJV is still the most accurate ENGLISH Bible translation to date. Yet I will not try and claim any translation is perfect though. The original manuscripts of God's Word are perfect.

One of the things the KJV translation keeps from the Bible manuscripts is a thing called alternation. We at times find a repeat of a verse, or section of verse, one or more times within the same Bible chapter. That apparently bothers some folks, but it shouldn't if they truly understand what that kind of thing is in God's Word. It is because those are Holy Spirit markings keeping the subject and object of coverage in a chapter in order. God's Word in the manuscripts is the ONLY literature known to man that does it.

Here's an example of alternation from Acts 2 about the cloven tongue of Pentecost. Notice how the outline of the subject of the cloven tongue alternates...

"tongues" (Greek glossa) - Acts 2:3
"tongues" (Greek glossa) - Acts 2:4
"language" (Greek dialektos) - Acts 2:6
"tongue" (Greek dialektos) - Acts 2:8
"tongues" (Greek glossa) - Acts 2:11
"tongue" (Greek glossa) - Acts 2:26


The order of alternation in the Greek is perfect, like:
a - glossa
a - glossa
... b - dialektos
... b - dialektos
a - glossa
a - glossa

God's Word does that kind of outline alternation of subject and object within the Bible Books individually, and each Chapter individually.



The above is taken from The Companion Bible, a KJV study Bible which the 19th century British Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger put together. The start of each Bible Book and Bible Chapter has that kind of subject and object outline showing the perfect outline alternation that occurs in the manuscripts.

That is important because it shows The Holy Spirit influence in the Scriptures, and modern Bible versions get further and further away from that with too much paraphrase and reference to other corruptions by men like Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from different manuscripts that were not in the majority, and do not show majority usage.