Question for those who only use the KJV Bible (CC)

[Rene']

Wycliffe's bible was not used in translating the King James. The Bishop's Bible was the main reference' date=' and the translators were to refer to Tydale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible and Geneva when they agreed better with the text than the Bishop's.[/quote']I know that. :D I guess I did not make that point clear earlier? My apologies.

 

I made the point earlier about Wycliffe being the first English Bible translated by hand. Hope that makes sense.

 

Ah, got it. :001_smile: Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Rene']

We know that it is God's will for Mt. 24:14 to be fulfilled, and that it won't all be done with the KJV translation for obvious reasons. I am just sharing this to try and widen the perspective with which we consider this question of KJV only. I believe that the scene in heaven of the richness of every language being represented in worshipping God will be completely awe-inspiring...

 

Oh, and I agree that the poetry in the KJV is beautiful, BTW! And some may successfully argue that the KJV is the best translation in English. But to broaden the argument, we know that the KJV cannot be the best translation for people groups in a remote part of Russia, for example. And the expression of the gospel translations from this part of the world will be glorious and beautiful in heaven some day as part of that Revelation multitude that no one can number from every tribe.... praising God. AMEN!

I completely agree with you!!

 

Maybe I should phrase it this way - The King James Bible is the only Bible for ME. I trust it, I let it define my beliefs, and I don't believe there are contradictions. My husband and I have studied both sides of the argument, I do understand how some will study it further and come out on the opposite side.

 

It *would* make it easier to discuss doctrine and theology with others if all English speaking believers used the same Bible, but the fact is that they don't. But hey, even those who are KJO do not hold to the same beliefs. I do not believe man is born with a sin nature or that Adam's nature changed when he sinned, because the KJB does not say this anywhere, but most Christians do whether they are KJO or not.

 

However, the Gospel is present in ALL bibles, and God will make His truth known to those who seek Him. :001_smile:

[tex-mex]

the link in #92...if you read through the Q&A section of the link (also where the anti-intellectual comments were made).

 

And I believe I was agreeing with something that you and Rene' both posted about, which is why I quoted you.

:confused::confused::confused:

 

Forgive me... but I still have no idea why you are referring to that link in message #92. I had no part of that off-shoot postings nor replies. And it did appear (at least to me) that you were not in agreement with my posts and began a line of arguing with what I had shared. That is where the misunderstanding began.

[tex-mex]

I think of 'Uncle Cam' (Cameron Townsend), founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, who was told... "If your God is so great, why doesn't he speak my language?" And, of course, He does! During the time of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 10, the people of the whole earth that had had just one language and a common speech, became scattered over the face of the earth and the Lord confused their language so that they would not understand one another. But Revelation ch. 4 refers to the fact that, by the blood of the Lamb, men were purchased for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Mt. 24:14 states that this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

Wycliffe Bible Translators is working to translate the Bible to fulfill Mt. 24:14 and to let everyone know that God does speak their language. It is exciting to see that in heaven (according to Revelation 5) there will be people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation praising God. When I worked with WBT back in the '80's, there were about 3,000 languages left in the world that needed to be translated (much fewer lgs. left today). We know that it is God's will for Mt. 24:14 to be fulfilled, and that it won't all be done with the KJV translation for obvious reasons. I am just sharing this to try and widen the perspective with which we consider this question of KJV only. I believe that the scene in heaven of the richness of every language being represented in worshipping God will be completely awe-inspiring. Just think about how the Greeks have such a rich way of expressing the word, 'love', for example (compared with our 'bland' way of just one word that needs modifiers to explain the difference between loving God and loving ice cream :lol:). Or how we have just one word for 'snow' compared to Inuit languages that multiple different words, depending on if it is 'icy snow', 'fluffy snow', etc. etc. How can we think that there could only be one best translation? What extraordinary worship of God there will some day be, to take the best way to express each attribute of God using as our base every language in the world!

 

I grew up memorizing using the KJV only (and I did a lot of memorizing), but now I am happy if I remember any verses out of either the NIV or KJV :lol:.

 

Oh, and I agree that the poetry in the KJV is beautiful, BTW! And some may successfully argue that the KJV is the best translation in English. But to broaden the argument, we know that the KJV cannot be the best translation for people groups in a remote part of Russia, for example. And the expression of the gospel translations from this part of the world will be glorious and beautiful in heaven some day as part of that Revelation multitude that no one can number from every tribe.... praising God. AMEN!

What a kind and gracious post. Thank you for adding to the discussion with your perspective. :)

[milovany]

I had no part of that off-shoot postings nor replies.....

 

Just an FYI if you didn't know. There are three different ways to view the board. I don't see the different offshoots. It's all one long line of posts straight down the screen, so unless someone quotes, I don't necessarily know what someone is responding to. It's all one big conversation.

[Retired]

I just wanted to say that this is the most respectful conversation I have ever read about KJVO. We have some acquaintances that are definitely KJVU and insist anyone who uses any other version is going to hell. Preferring one version is one thing but tying the use of that version to one's salvation is so wrong. This thread has been such a nice contrast to that.

 

It rarely stays that way maybe the more aggressive posters are on vacation ;)

 

I think of 'Uncle Cam' (Cameron Townsend), founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, who was told... "If your God is so great, why doesn't he speak my language?" And, of course, He does! During the time of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 10, the people of the whole earth that had had just one language and a common speech, became scattered over the face of the earth and the Lord confused their language so that they would not understand one another. But Revelation ch. 4 refers to the fact that, by the blood of the Lamb, men were purchased for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Mt. 24:14 states that this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

Wycliffe Bible Translators is working to translate the Bible to fulfill Mt. 24:14 and to let everyone know that God does speak their language. It is exciting to see that in heaven (according to Revelation 5) there will be people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation praising God. When I worked with WBT back in the '80's, there were about 3,000 languages left in the world that needed to be translated (much fewer lgs. left today). We know that it is God's will for Mt. 24:14 to be fulfilled, and that it won't all be done with the KJV translation for obvious reasons. I am just sharing this to try and widen the perspective with which we consider this question of KJV only. I believe that the scene in heaven of the richness of every language being represented in worshipping God will be completely awe-inspiring. Just think about how the Greeks have such a rich way of expressing the word, 'love', for example (compared with our 'bland' way of just one word that needs modifiers to explain the difference between loving God and loving ice cream :lol:). Or how we have just one word for 'snow' compared to Inuit languages that multiple different words, depending on if it is 'icy snow', 'fluffy snow', etc. etc. How can we think that there could only be one best translation? What extraordinary worship of God there will some day be, to take the best way to express each attribute of God using as our base every language in the world!

 

I grew up memorizing using the KJV only (and I did a lot of memorizing), but now I am happy if I remember any verses out of either the NIV or KJV :lol:.

 

Oh, and I agree that the poetry in the KJV is beautiful, BTW! And some may successfully argue that the KJV is the best translation in English. But to broaden the argument, we know that the KJV cannot be the best translation for people groups in a remote part of Russia, for example. And the expression of the gospel translations from this part of the world will be glorious and beautiful in heaven some day as part of that Revelation multitude that no one can number from every tribe.... praising God. AMEN!

 

This is a great post. This is one of the many points in conversation I've had with KJO folks. I will say that the KJO is a point of tension in my dh's family. The only's accuse us of reading Satan's bibles and we are being deceived and going to hell. They wouldn't let there children attend a home school coop cause of it. They wouldn't let their children in my home unattended cause we are cult (use other translation). I just can't see anything but the devil it it but thats my opinion. I have said many times to them how can the "Authorized King James" be the only bible. What happens when you start translating to other language. Does that mean that all other beside the English speakers can't have the "authorized word of God"?

 

They have tried to convince me by showing the differences in the translations how other leave large portions, change meaning, etc. I have compared and usually the difference is a negative thought in the KJ and then NIV will say the same thing with a more positive sentence structure. The point is they don't change the meaning at all. I have read the NIV, NASB, NKJB. I don't consider the Message and stuff like that to actual be bibles. The point is that I learn the same things from each bible. There is no difference in what I get or learn from the scriptures. IMO

 

[Dustybug]

I can't believe this thread is still going! You guys are teaching me a lot and have enabled my DH and I to have some interesting discussions. Thank you all for sharing!

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The point is that I learn the same things from each bible. There is no difference in what I get or learn from the scriptures. IMO

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

:confused::confused::confused:

 

Forgive me... but I still have no idea why you are referring to that link in message #92. I had no part of that off-shoot postings nor replies. And it did appear (at least to me) that you were not in agreement with my posts and began a line of arguing with what I had shared. That is where the misunderstanding began.

 

Something you said helped prove a point for me irt the link. Basically, you misunderstood the entire point and intent of my post. It's okay though. I'm not going to sit here and keep trying to convince you that nothing was specifically directed at you.

 

Just an FYI if you didn't know. There are three different ways to view the board. I don't see the different offshoots. It's all one long line of posts straight down the screen, so unless someone quotes, I don't necessarily know what someone is responding to. It's all one big conversation.

Yes, it shows as one long conversation for me also.

[DiannaC]

The KJV was translated by the manuscripts that were available then. Since the 1600s archaeologists have found even older manuscripts & therefore some of the newer translations are more accurate than the KJV. We use the English Standard Version & love it. It is the closest English version to the original Greek & Hebrew & also written in the language we speak today. The only way to know for sure if it is translated correctly is to learn Greek & Hebrew!

[mommaduck]

nm...first time poster.

[Retired]

The KJV was translated by the manuscripts that were available then. Since the 1600s archaeologists have found even older manuscripts & therefore some of the newer translations are more accurate than the KJV. We use the English Standard Version & love it. It is the closest English version to the original Greek & Hebrew & also written in the language we speak today. The only way to know for sure if it is translated correctly is to learn Greek & Hebrew!

 

I totally agree. Its on my list as the next translation I will be reading. I've read KJ, NIV, New KJ all the way through a few times. I have actually tried to learn Greek and Hebrew years ago just to tell my BIL (the KJO minister) that I was reading the right bible. :tongue_smilie: I know longer dialog with them. We do meet at my MIL twice a year. I bought my FIL a New King James video bible one year and they went to check it out and dropped the thing like it was a satanic bible and started praying intervention over the home. I just don't get it.

[tex-mex]

Just an FYI if you didn't know. There are three different ways to view the board. I don't see the different offshoots. It's all one long line of posts straight down the screen, so unless someone quotes, I don't necessarily know what someone is responding to. It's all one big conversation.

Well, like I mentioned in my earlier posts that I am not reading this entire thread nor the off-shoots. In my opinion, the RC/EO views on the original KJV question by the OP were an off-shoot. But this is due to the fact I am not following every post. I only began reading the first 30+ messages of this thread if it helps.

 

When Mommaduck began to quote from my posts, I took it that she was not in agreement. (see below...)

Something you said helped prove a point for me irt the link. Basically, you misunderstood the entire point and intent of my post. It's okay though. I'm not going to sit here and keep trying to convince you that nothing was specifically directed at you.

 

 

Yes, it shows as one long conversation for me also.

No problem.

 

I am glad it got clarified. Please do not assume all of us have read every single post on this thread. But if you do see it from my perspective, I honestly had no clue to what you were referring to with the other person's post and link. Truthfully with a giant thread like this -- if the poster does not quote me, I skip it and follow only the quoted (directed at myself) messages... like this off-topic argument you and I had. Which could be considered an "off-shoot" if you will and not one large message in my mind. When I popped in on this thread and gave my 2 cents on the subject, I had only read the first few messages and not the entire thread. In my mind, I was addressing tntgoodwin and Dustybug in my message. And yes, it is like one large conversation with many people speaking at the same time. My apologies for trying to take your head off. ;)

Edited July 16, 2012 by tex-mex

[kolamum]

Just popping on to mark this so I can read later.

 

My story is a little different. I grew up in a strict KJV only type church. It wasn't strict rule wise, but that was a big deal KJV only. I was too young to remember the sermon on it.

 

When we moved away from that state I couldn't find a church with the same firm belief, in fact many times so many teachers/leaders used different versions I was utterly confused. I have since given myself permission to use a different version & I enjoy using the one I've selected for reading aloud to my children because of how seamlessly it generally ready, but I hate the Pslams & Proverbs in it. Weird, huh?

 

Funny thing about the church I mentioned in the start.. they are no FB & post lots of verses & things with quotes generally from the Holman Bible now. :lol: I didn't even know that particular version existed!!

[mommaduck]

Well, like I mentioned in my earlier posts that I am not reading this entire thread nor the off-shoots. In my opinion, the RC/EO views on the original KJV question by the OP were an off-shoot. But this is due to the fact I am not following every post. I only began reading the first 30+ messages of this thread if it helps.

 

When Mommaduck began to quote from my posts, I took it that she was not in agreement. (see below...)

 

No problem.

 

I am glad it got clarified. Please do not assume all of us have read every single post on this thread. But if you do see it from my perspective, I honestly had no clue to what you were referring to with the other person's post and link. Truthfully with a giant thread like this -- if the poster does not quote me, I skip it and follow only the quoted (directed at myself) messages... like this off-topic argument you and I had. Which could be considered an "off-shoot" if you will and not one large message in my mind. When I popped in on this thread and gave my 2 cents on the subject, I had only read the first few messages and not the entire thread. In my mind, I was addressing tntgoodwin and Dustybug in my message. And yes, it is like one large conversation with many people speaking at the same time. My apologies for trying to take your head off. ;)

Thank you. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough from the get go. I had absolutely no problem with what you had written and so didn't know why you thought I was disagreeing with you. I think I understand now. :grouphug:

 

Just as often as people are quoted because they are disagreed with, they are also quoted because they are agreed with, wrote something well, wrote something that another can take further, etc :)

Edited July 16, 2012 by mommaduck