Reading John 9 For The First Time In The KJV

 “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” (John 9:35, KJV)

I grew up reading the NIV.  I've read John 9 before, which speaks of Jesus healing a man born blind. 

Here's a paraphrase with the main facts:  Jesus heals a man born blind.  The Pharissees question him and his family.  The blind man says to the Pharisees, "I've told you time and time again that it was Jesus who healed me, yet you won't listen!"  The Pharisees countered by saying, "This can't be the man, he's a sinner, he healed you on the Sabbath."  The blind man replies, "Come on man, he healed me, it's clear as my open eyes!  You know that God doesn't listen to sinners, but those who do His will.  If this Jesus wasn't godly, He could do nothing!"

Jesus then asks the blind man if he believes in the Son of Man (NIV) / Son of God (KJV).  The blind man asks him to point Him out, He does, and the blind man believes.

Jesus then says that he has come for judgment in this world, that the sighted might be blind, and the blind might be sighted.  Some of the Pharisees asked if that makes them blind.  Jesus replies that had they been blind, they would not be guilty of sin, but because of their claim of sight, they are still in sin.

So, I wanted to point out a couple differences between the NIV and KJV, and why it feels like reading the Bible for the first time.  I grew up hearing John 9:35 similarly as this:

35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

I then read the KJV, and it is rendered as this:

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” (John 9:35, KJV)

Son of Man vs. Son of God.  Now, both are one and the same, yet it's those subtle differences that makes Bible reading fresh for me.  This is not a claim that the KJV is superior, or that it's the only legitimate version.  This is just an observation that I wanted to share with everyone.

Why I Use The King James Version (It's Not Because Of KJV-Only)

Some people may ask why I use the King James Version in nearly all of my Scripture references.  

Firstly, let me tell you that it's not at all because of any adherence to KJV-Only teaching.  I'm going to say this right now, on the record:

I do not believe that the King James Version is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible.

So there, I am not KJV-Only at all.  To any and all fundamentalists who disagree with me, no need to break out Ephesians 5:11.  In your point of view, I am already exposed as practicing the works of darkness (and that I work for "evil" public education).  (I also expose the likes of David J. Stewart of jesus-is-savior.com for being a KJV-Only fundamentalist [they believe in the "essentials"* lie] heretic.)

Now, why do I use the KJV?

Firstly, it's public domain.  This is really helpful when quoting Scripture, because with newer versions, copyright law can get a little dicey.  Yes, I know that many versions (for example, the NIV) allows you to copy about 1,000 verses without infringement, as long as the quotation doesn't account for a majority or the entirety of a text, etc.  I'd rather use a version that's free from all restrictions like this, just to make things simple.

Secondly, on that note, it's universally known.  Since 1611, everyone, including non-believers, can recognize the word and sentence structure of many popular verses, such as John 3:16, even with words like "begotten" and "everlasting".

Thirdly, the translators use more of a "word for word" method instead of "thought for thought".  This is a personal preference for me, all seeing as I also use Strong's Dictionary and the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge to learn definitions of words and find connecting verses, the latter resource using the KJV.  All this available for free from e-Sword (not a plug by the way).

Now, I'm not at all saying that the KJV is perfect, no version is.  Nor am I saying that I understand every archaic English word in the KJV (I hop to other versions to find a more modern English word).  However, because of these three reasons, it's very useful to me in studying the Word of God and sharing my faith.

Now, to those, like David J. Stewart, who say that the KJV is the ONLY English Bible version you should use, consider the following:

Look at Isaiah 61:1-2 in the KJV.  It reads:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

(Isa 61:1-2)

Now look at Luke 4:18-19 in the KJV.  It reads:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

(Luk 4:18-19)

The version Jesus was reading from adds: "and recovering of sight to the blind", among other things.  Yet, no sin was committed. 

* To say that there are "essentials" and "non-essentials" of Scripture is a lie.  Are the elements in the Sermon on the Mount all non-essential?  Especially when Jesus mentions Hell, or not going to Heaven, in some of it? (see Matthew 5:20, 29-30, 6:15, 7:21-23)