King James Only

[lulalu]

nm

Edited December 9, 2017 by lolo

[milovany]

Leave it alone.  If a change of mind is to come about, it has to be God.  I might say something general about how not everyone agrees with that idea, but then leave it alone. 

[Bluegoat]

I would probably leave it on Facebook.

 

Other than that, it would really depend a lot on the person and where they are - depending on where they are coming from and their personality, it might be worthwhile to talk about it in person, in a non-confrontational way, and it might not.

[Slache]

I'm KJV only. The KJV was translated from a different text than most modern versions. The NASB was translated from both, hence the footnotes. I am not ignorant, nor am I a legalist, but I think that the KJV is translated from the Bible whereas other versions were translated from a corrupt version so I choose to read the KJV.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Do you ever engage the errors with King James Only believers or do you consider it a lost cause?

I honestly have a hard time wrapping my brain around how a person could possibly believe what KJVO purport. I have nothing against the version itself, just the thought process that it is the only reliable English version, and since English is the "main" language today it is sufficent and we need no more translations. As well as the ignorance over manuscript dating.

Anyways I have a friend always posting on fb how it is superior. And I recently learned her church (independent fundamentalist baptist) had a sermon series on how the KJV is the only true words of God!

So do you all engage the errors of this or let it go? I just feel it is destroying Christianity's unity and speaking against God's word.

I tend to hold my religious beliefs and respect the beliefs of others. Firm believer in the concept of the two way street, there.

 

Specifically regarding Facebook -- if somebody's hobby horse begins to get on my nerves, I simply unfollow them.

[DawnM]

If it was good enough for Paul........ :rolleyes:

[Slache]

If it was good enough for Paul........ :rolleyes:

I don't understand this post. Are there people who think Paul read the KJV? Say no, please.

[DawnM]

I don't understand this post. Are there people who think Paul read the KJV? Say no, please.

 

 

You haven't hung around enough KJO folks if you haven't heard that phrase before.

[Slache]

You haven't hung around enough KJO folks if you haven't heard that phrase before.

All of my close friends are KJV only. I guess there are different flavors.

[creekland]

To each our own.  If I want the freedom for my beliefs, I allow others the freedom for theirs.

 

IRL, I love discussing a huge variety of things with those who are open to discussion and enjoy it (pondering reasons, etc).  I don't debate.

[DawnM]

All of my close friends are KJV only. I guess there are different flavors.

 

Huh, I heard it in several KJV only circles.  Guess it is just the ones I have been a part of then.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I'd be biting my tongue, but I'd leave it alone.

[Slache]

Huh, I heard it in several KJV only circles. Guess it is just the ones I have been a part of then.

I've never met a large group of KJV onlies that I could get along with, but I have converted several with different reasoning. I disagree with much of what the KJV onlies say. Essentially we agree on the version, but for different reasons.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I'd be inclined to just pass the bean dip and probably assume that it's not likely that person ever tried to learn a foreign language. Anyone who has spent a few years learning a second language will realize that some things can be translated multiple ways. It would be very arrogant to assume one group got it 100% perfect four hundred years ago and that everyone since then has been wrong (even when the meaning of English words has changed).

 

ETA: For example, translating a word as "corn" rather than "grain" doesn't make sense. Corn was a new world crop. There is no reason that your average American today would think of "grain" in general when reading the word "corn."

[bolt.]

Most people who are already KJVO are very entrenched in that position, and I'm not likely to make headway or keep a friend if I started error picking.

 

However, as a Bible College Prof, if a student or aquantence approached me in that capacity (or registered in my class) I would engage them as long as I percieved in them a sincere desire to learn, and a respect for the info I was providing.

 

(If I thought they were just enjoying the debate, I wouldn't have much time for that.)

[Guest]

I can engage but rarely do.

[Chris in VA]

Bigger fish to fry.

[Heatherwith4]

I don't engage, but I expect them to respect my beliefs as well.

[Teannika]

Do you ever engage the errors with King James Only believers or do you consider it a lost cause?

 

I honestly have a hard time wrapping my brain around how a person could possibly believe what KJVO purport. I have nothing against the version itself, just the thought process that it is the only reliable English version, and since English is the "main" language today it is sufficent and we need no more translations. As well as the ignorance over manuscript dating.

 

Anyways I have a friend always posting on fb how it is superior. And I recently learned her church (independent fundamentalist baptist) had a sermon series on how the KJV is the only true words of God!

 

So do you all engage the errors of this or let it go? I just feel it is destroying Christianity's unity and speaking against God's word.

I am someone who became a King James only person. When I first started to research and learn about the issue I would share about it on facebook. I would share links, or post scriptures about God's word and preservation. I would try not to post too much on it at any one time though, and I also try to do that with any topic I'm enthusiastic about. I want to share and discuss what I'm learning, but without forcing it on others.

 

If you understand what the underlying convictions of a King James Bible believing person are, maybe it will help you to understand your friend and her/his posts. And also help you reason on those sub-topics. It does boil down to a few basic matters. These include what 'holy scripture' really is, who wrote the bible, preservation, who kept the words of God, reliable manuscripts, Vatican manuscripts vs Protestant, New Age influences, doctrinal changes, Satan corrupting the words of God since the beginning of time, and so on.

 

From my perspective in response to your last paragraph, I feel like the over 300 different English versions are causing hurt and confusion in the church. Not someone who is saying "Hey look, we have the words of God that we can totally trust and not ever have to doubt."

[Teannika]

Yes, I believe that the King James only movement is wrong. It's fine to prefer the King James Version of the Bible but to say that a person can only be saved by that version is heresy. There are so many things wrong with that movement.....

Many King James Bible believers do not believe that you can only be saved by using the KJB. (That doesn't even make sense.) I would say that the large majority of King James Bible believers still believe that you can be saved from a tract or from hearing the gospel etc.

 

So that's a generalised misrepresentation of the belief, even though there are always going to be people in any group who take things too far.

 

I believe that the real matter comes down to: "What is Holy Scripture?" And can any bible, no matter what it says, no matter what manuscripts it uses, no matter how many deletions or additions, be called Holy Scripture?

[Southern Ivy]

Do you ever engage the errors with King James Only believers or do you consider it a lost cause?

 

I honestly have a hard time wrapping my brain around how a person could possibly believe what KJVO purport. I have nothing against the version itself, just the thought process that it is the only reliable English version, and since English is the "main" language today it is sufficent and we need no more translations. As well as the ignorance over manuscript dating.

 

Anyways I have a friend always posting on fb how it is superior. And I recently learned her church (independent fundamentalist baptist) had a sermon series on how the KJV is the only true words of God!

 

So do you all engage the errors of this or let it go? I just feel it is destroying Christianity's unity and speaking against God's word.

I grew up IFB. Pretty typical to have sermons like that, in my experience. I never fully believed the whole KJV only spiel, even when I was young. 

Now, I just roll my eyes, read my ESV or NLT, and pass the bean dip. 

[poppy]

Really treacherous road to head down unless you enjoy good old Protestamt vs Catholic bantering.

[bolt.]

Now we get to see how many of us who claim we "don't usually engage" will actually manage to not engage (much). I wonder if my money is actually where my mouth is. 😜

[Retired]

I have family members that joined the king james only club.  They believed all other bibles are cult devil books.  They wouldn't even watch a bible on tape cause its not the right translation.  They even refused to touch it at a christams party when the gift was being passed around. 

 

I have debated those family members and prayed they would get out that cult.  There ideas  separated them from family and other Christian.  It was a cult.

 

Now prayers have been answered they got out of the church a few years ago.  THe family is back together.  My little nephew doesn't tell people their going to hell.  My niece and SIL are no longer trying to be the "perfect" bible wife.

They no longer act like I'm jezebel for reading other scripture.

 

I told them a long time ago.  The word of god was inspired and the only if you want authentic  bible then they both needed to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.   My BIL is a KJOnly preacher.   I attended service to watch the kids in plays through the years.  The church was covered KJO stuff.  The sermons always had something about how some Christian family problem was because they didn't use the right bible.   My favorite (sarcasm) sermon was the deacons son died in a car accident because the deacon' allowed a women to teach males in sunday school.  Then another was how America is going to hell and god is punishing us for using devils corrupted  version of scripture

 

Even modern language when transcribe can get many different meanings.

 

King James from my research was not a godly man but wanted to put some peace in his kingdom. 

 

Does the version sound poetic yes, is it perfect that's up to YOU personally interpreting  from the original manuscripts.

 

There are not many modern folks that do that.  

 

I just want to add that I am not calling all KJO people are cult member cause I don't know all of you personally and realize what I wrote last night was harsh. .  THe ones that I know IRL would fall under many people definition of a cult.  The them against the rest of world mentality.  They separated from the family which happen to mostly Christians. They said were the only true Christians not being deceived by false bibles.  They  talk about catholic like the pope was the antichrist.  

 

I do try to show grace and not judge other denomination.  We are all trying to live a Christian life and it will be different for each persons convictions.   I just really have a 20 year history with the KJO movement in my area

 

Sorry if I offended anyone

[Garga]

I'm not KJVO, but I do find that all the translations make unity tricky. I was raised in a church that used the KJV so the scriptures I know reflect that specific wording. The problem with different versions is that three different people may all be talking about the same scripture, but if they use three different versions they might not even realize it. Some of the wording on some of the versions is very different.

 

I do secretly wish we all used the same version so we're all on the same page...but I don't know which one we should all use and I know that's not really what I want either. This became a bit of an issue when I started having my kids memorize scripture. Did I have them memorize the KJV or ... what? I wanted them to be able to say a few words of a scripture and other Christians would know exactly what scripture they were referring to. It's not a huge deal, maybe. Or maybe it is. I don't know.

 

I don't think it's wrong to use other versions, especially since I chose not to have my kids memorize scripture in KJV, but I do think it makes unity trickier.

[HS Mom in NC]

I have a few sets of family members who attend KJVO churches.  Some are on board with all of that and others attend because they like the worship style of the church and they personally have a preference for KJV, not a conviction that it's superior in any way. One set thinks it's a better translation, but doesn't think other translations are "the devil's book" and such. So yes, there is a range of KJVO people out there.

I don't engage with it.  I've heard all about it from people who buy into it, but I certainly don't agree with them on it at all. 

[Guest]

 

Now we get to see how many of us who claim we "don't usually engage" will actually manage to not engage (much). I wonder if my money is actually where my mouth is. 😜[/quote

Maybe we can talk about our non-engagement. LOL. B

[Guest]

My dh says it is OK to engage but only in Elizabethan English.

 

He cracks me up. Even more than I crack me up.

 

Eta correct punctuation.

[Laura Corin]

My dh says it is OK to engage but only in Elizabethan English.

 

He cracks me up. Even more than I crack me up.

 

Eta correct punctuation.

 

Jacobean English?

[creekland]

I do secretly wish we all used the same version so we're all on the same page...

 

Well... if we're voting, I like ESV.   :coolgleamA:

 

I'm ok with almost any version actually.  If I'm really doing a study, I'll compare versions.

[MercyA]

I'm not KJV-only, but I trust it more than any other translation for the reasons mentioned by Slache and Teannika. The NASB is the only other version I use.

 

OP, if your friend's views bother you enough that you posted about it here, why not just talk to her about it? You both might learn something.

[Bluegoat]

I think this is why apophatic theology is really important - the fact is that even the original manuscripts (if we had such a thing) are not somehow "perfect" and could not be - all of them are trying to describe something which is unlimited in a limited human language.  There will have to be compromises and approximations.  We will need the community of the Church and prayer to understand.

 

Anyway - I like the KJV, it is what I use liturgically (well, except for the psalms) and for memorization.  And I think there is something to be said for some commonality in translations used by people, and the KJV has an important part n the development of the English language.  It is meant to be poetic, and poetry is vital for religion, which many modern translations seem to forget.

 

But - there can also be good reasons to choose a different translation, or in many cases, to use more than one.

[bolt.]

Generally speaking, one of the best ways to get a reasonable "sense of the Hebrew" (OT) or "sense of the Greek" (NT) -- without being at all capable in either language -- is to examine how various translations show similarities and differences in their results.

 

I think a variety of translations encourages a more nuanced understanding that is closer to the original. (If too many of my students are bringing the same translation to class, I encourage some of them to please bring another option if they have one.)

 

One translation (any of them) would not create "unity" -- it would just eliminate any (correct) impression that we might have about the limited-and-limiting nature of translations. We are a people whose scripture exists in languages we don't speak. We need to live like that's true, not hide from it.

 

KJV has its advantages. It's worth including. I like it for more than poetry -- but it's not all that we need.

[MyThreeSons]

I have tried a few times to engage my dh's family on this issue, but it's like beating my head against a wall. One of dh's cousins just unfriended me on FB because I disagreed with a comment he made, which I felt was based on a poor interpretation of Scripture due to KJV language issues. I tried to explain my position based on the ESV version. 

 

I find the KJV to be incredibly comforting at times. Psalm 23 jumps to mind -- it's just not the same in any other translation. But there are so many other verses that I never really understood because of the KJV language. 

[Amy in NH]

I've never heard of this brand of legalism. it doesn't even make sense (like any legalism ever does?)? If you're so concerned about language purity, wouldn't you go for the original language only and NO translation, like the Quran?

[Slache]

I've never heard of this brand of legalism. it doesn't even make sense (like any legalism ever does?)? If you're so concerned about language purity, wouldn't you go for the original language only and NO translation, like the Quran?

I've heard it said that the KJV was translated by God, that that's how He chose to preserve His word. If I believed this I would choose the KJV over the Greek so that I could understand it better.

[Professormom]

I don't engage because I often find that if someone is adamantly insisting on KJV only, they also often hold other views that I find very legalistic. (Though I would be careful to acknowledge that there are plenty of people who do not fall into this group, like Slache :waving: )

 

This touches a nerve right now because we are dealing with this in one of our groups. One person, who is very KJV-only, for lack of a better term, has gotten very vocal about other Christian faiths being "cults" and sending emails with links to "sources" that basically exist to promote conspiracy theories and attack other Christians as heretics. I have run into a lot of people who fit into this "type" and I no longer engage. I find that they use techniques very similar to MLM companies, very circular reasoning, as well as using ALOT of proof texting. The ironic thing is that they really want you to "know" that they get their understanding through study, however, when confronted with someone who has a phd in ancient Hebrew or something that gives study additional depth, they write off the other person's knowledge. Their study trumps everyone else's study. "Well, a degree doesn't matter." Sorry, but it does. It doesn't mean that someone with a degree gets an automatic pass to be right, but they have done a great deal of work. I would love to tell them that it might be worthwhile to stop talking for a bit and listen with an intent to learn. However, dialogue isn't really the goal.

 

And I think that is one of the reasons that engaging may not be all that productive. We have different goals. My faith doesn't completely hinge on one single interpretation of the Bible. I completely agree with what Bolt said above. I think the different versions give us a more clear picture because of the nuances. My goal is just to talk. Often, a KJV only (again, for lack of a better term-I am NOT referring to every KJV person) may have the primary goal of converting the listener to their chosen version.

 

At this stage in my own life, discussions with a certain type of person just aren't useful to me. My time is better spent elsewhere.

 

I also don't come into most conversations to be insulted or to have it insinuated that I (or teachers that I learn from) are heretics or apostates, whether it is for the Bible version I use or how communion is administered in our church. I believe those terms are being thrown around far too loosely in more fundamentalist churches (again for lack of a more concise term.) Those are harsh and serious accusations that aren't worth taking the time to respond to. (But, that is another topic:-)

 

Eta: I just wanted to clarify that I think the KJV is beautiful and that God's hand was on it, and I often read it for inspiration. I use an ESV for study. Once in a while, I will read a paraphrase because I want to look at something from another perspective. I love being in nature. I read the works of wise people who have gone before me, and I learn from others around me. I love that God has reached out to us in many ways to reveal Himself.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I think this is why apophatic theology is really important - the fact is that even the original manuscripts (if we had such a thing) are not somehow "perfect" and could not be - all of them are trying to describe something which is unlimited in a limited human language.  There will have to be compromises and approximations.  We will need the community of the Church and prayer to understand.

 

Anyway - I like the KJV, it is what I use liturgically (well, except for the psalms) and for memorization.  And I think there is something to be said for some commonality in translations used by people, and the KJV has an important part n the development of the English language.  It is meant to be poetic, and poetry is vital for religion, which many modern translations seem to forget.

 

But - there can also be good reasons to choose a different translation, or in many cases, to use more than one.

 

The bolded, yes, yes, yes.

[Bluegoat]

Generally speaking, one of the best ways to get a reasonable "sense of the Hebrew" (OT) or "sense of the Greek" (NT) -- without being at all capable in either language -- is to examine how various translations show similarities and differences in their results.

 

I think a variety of translations encourages a more nuanced understanding that is closer to the original. (If too many of my students are bringing the same translation to class, I encourage some of them to please bring another option if they have one.)

 

One translation (any of them) would not create "unity" -- it would just eliminate any (correct) impression that we might have about the limited-and-limiting nature of translations. We are a people whose scripture exists in languages we don't speak. We need to live like that's true, not hide from it.

 

KJV has its advantages. It's worth including. I like it for more than poetry -- but it's not all that we need.

 

If you mean theological unity, I agree.  But that isn't the only kind of unity.  There is a good reason for example that many churches want the liturgical translation to be the same throughout all those who speak the same language. 

 

Even for memorization purposes, using many different translations can make it harder to hold one in mind for many people.  And when people have the same one in mind, it creates a powerful common language.  So it's one think to think of unity in terms of a bunch of individuals, and another to think in terms of community life.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've never heard of this brand of legalism. it doesn't even make sense (like any legalism ever does?)? If you're so concerned about language purity, wouldn't you go for the original language only and NO translation, like the Quran?

Many pastors, including my husband, do go to the Greek or Hebrew and prepare from that.  Most of the Greek text that the KJV comes from is the same as the other texts used for other translations.  It doesn't require King James English to translate it into English.  Now, there are textual differences, some small and some significant.  But a pastor who prepares from the original languages looks at those textual differences and makes decisions based on those.  We don't tend to always side on the Textus Receptus (which is what the KJV uses).  

 

To answer the question in the OP - I tend to look for those commonalities I have with people.  Since what version of Bible is used isn't important in most cases, it usually gets ignored.  In those cases where the other person doesn't extend the same courtesy to me (there are places where I would be shunned or worse for not using King James only), I do not engage at all.  

[Bluegoat]

I've never heard of this brand of legalism. it doesn't even make sense (like any legalism ever does?)? If you're so concerned about language purity, wouldn't you go for the original language only and NO translation, like the Quran?

 

This has been something of a difference in the approach that Islam and Christianity have historically taken to their texts, and it points to a difference in their understanding of what the text is, how it came to be, and what it can do.

 

Though it would probably be impossible anyway in the Christian case - there isn't really an "original" text, even in the Greek and Hebrew. 

[Lecka]

I do not have any friends who are King James Only, but my ILs are King James Only.  

 

My husband was raised that way, but he did not marry someone who shared that set of beliefs.  He does not care too much.  

 

I feel like for us ------ my ILs DO care about it very much.  They really do care.  It is really not what they wish was the case for their son and for their grandchildren.  

 

But, is it more important to them to make a stink about King James Only, or is it more important to them to embrace me as their DIL and their son and grandchildren, even though I do not have that same view, and even though my husband was not raised to marry someone like me?  

 

Well, happily my ILs are taking the higher road and choosing a value of Christian love and acceptance over a value of King James Only. 

 

Since they are respectful of me, then I am respectful of them.  That is honestly how I feel.  I feel like they were respectful to me, when I honestly did not know how I would be received by them on some things.  

 

So ----- I am on the side of "let it lie."  Unless your friend is on the young side, very sheltered, not exposed to other mainstream ways of thinking, etc., and that is very possible if your friend IS in that situation...... well, your friend most likely knows both sides (on some level) and has made her choice.

 

If my ILs will do that courtesy to me, the least I can do is to do it to them.  

 

If your friend has done you the courtesy of not bringing it up to you, maybe you can do her that same courtesy. 

 

If she might just assume that you agree with her, unless you bring up that you have a different belief, then that is a different story.  You don't really know if she will still want to be friends with you or not, if she might be that way.  But she could be thinking that about you, too, what if she is worried you would be the one to pull back from the friendship over this different opinion.

 

I do not have this with any friends, though.  I am not friends with anyone who is King James Only, as far as I know.  

 

For me, it is my ILs, and we both want to have a good relationship with each other, even though this and some other things are potential flashpoints between us.  We know it and we don't want to go there.  We want to be civil and live out the Christian values we hold in agreement.... that is more important in a DIL/MIL/FIL situation than a Bible translation.  I don't know if it would be the same for a friend situation.  

 

I can also say, my husband has made it clear to his mom that I am a saved Christian even though we have a slight disagreement in doctrine.  There is just no purpose to it.  It hurt my feelings and i continue on in my belief in my phrasing (as it is a difference of phrasing only).  But my MIL is a big person and she is a gracious person in this.  It would honestly hurt me if she rejected me over a tiny doctrinal matter.  

 

My husband has been very hurt by a lot of rejections and he is really someone who thinks the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church he went to has a lot of cult-like features.

 

But we are all adults.  There is no need for me (or us) to hurt them, if they are going out of their way not to hurt us.  

 

With a little bit of "oops, my husband has married me, and opps, I am not one of the approved girls and we were not chaperoned by deacons" and that kind of thing.  But it is like -- I am still a Christian, i am a good wife, and I a good mother.  At a certain point that is good enough for them, even though I am not what they wished, and they did a lot to steer my husband towards a righteous, Godly woman of their own model.  

 

But at a certain point ---- we want to get along, so we get along.  This means we do not talk about different translations of the Bible, because if we did, then we wouldn't get along.  I know their side.  They know my side.  We are not changing.  We want to get along.  So ----- that is basically a "let it go" situation.  

[Violet Crown]

I think this is why apophatic theology is really important - the fact is that even the original manuscripts (if we had such a thing) are not somehow "perfect" and could not be - all of them are trying to describe something which is unlimited in a limited human language. There will have to be compromises and approximations. We will need the community of the Church and prayer to understand.

 

Anyway - I like the KJV, it is what I use liturgically (well, except for the psalms) and for memorization. And I think there is something to be said for some commonality in translations used by people, and the KJV has an important part n the development of the English language. It is meant to be poetic, and poetry is vital for religion, which many modern translations seem to forget.

 

But - there can also be good reasons to choose a different translation, or in many cases, to use more than one.

This. I like it and use it for the same reasons (I have the Oxford one with the Deuterocanons). My church is saddled with the horrific NAB, or for the Trads, the clunky Douay. The KJV is beautiful, memorizable, and an integral part of English literary tradition.

[Jasperstone]

This has been something of a difference in the approach that Islam and Christianity have historically taken to their texts, and it points to a difference in their understanding of what the text is, how it came to be, and what it can do.

 

Though it would probably be impossible anyway in the Christian case - there isn't really an "original" text, even in the Greek and Hebrew.

That's right, so we need to trust that God has kept His Words pure for us.

 

If I didn't believe that He did, I wouldn't bother reading the Bible, as I'm not about to go through the Greek and Hebrew to understand it. Shocking, hey? But it's true for me.

 

The KJV says that He will keep the Word for us..... and as He is God, then I can trust that it's possible to have a version that is pure and correct and kept for us etc...

 

I used to be anti KJV, as I too used to think only legalistic Christians use it.

 

Hey, I can't be *that* legalistic- did anyone read my post in the gambling thread? ;-)

[JumpyTheFrog]

The KJV says that He will keep the Word for us

 

I am not sure which verse you are referencing. In any case, the Word of God is Jesus. The Bible contains many of God's words, but *the Word* is Jesus.

[TX Native]

What about New King James Version? Are KJVO people against that? To my understanding the removing of thee(s) and thou(s) is the main change. Can one be a Christian w/o the thee(s) and thou(s)? Joking on the last question, but completely curious on the 1st 2 questions.

 

Also, being sarcastic here, what about all the versions of the Bible translated into Mandarin, Spanish, French, Italian, Arabic, and the multiple other languages to countless minority groups and rural mountain people throughout the world? I am so sorry if their scripture wasn't translated ftom KJV and thus they don't have the right Word of God.

 

I never understood KJV only. I understand liking KJV or NKJV. I don't see huge discrepancies of knowing what God is trying to communicate through the Bible between KJV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV. I am sure other versions are fine too, the listed ones are the only ones I have read consistently to compare. I guess there are a few modern versions that have changed scripture enough to be off from the original Greek or Hebrew meanings so much so that they are contrary to the original documents, but I don't have experience with any to judge.

 

ETA in answer to the original question. I don't engage people in debate or correction of narrow minded. If someone is convinced someone is going eternally south when they die (for millions of other reasons besides using something other than KJV), they are convinced and I know it would be a loosing battle. It reminds me of the lame joke, "In heaven everyone needs to be especially quiet by the room door of the _______(insert narrow minded denomination of choice), because they think they are the only ones there."

[Seasider]

I've heard it said that the KJV was translated by God, that that's how He chose to preserve His word. If I believed this I would choose the KJV over the Greek so that I could understand it better.

So can we assume there are non-English translations, also "approved by God," for each of the hundreds (thousands?) of language groups in the world? Or are you just destined to sin if you're of another language of origin?

 

(Really not trying to sound sassy, just hashing out the logic here.)

[Slache]

What about New King James Version? Are KJVO people against that? To my understanding the removing of thee(s) and thou(s) is the main change.

1. Yes.

2. This is not true.

 

So can we assume there are non-English translations, also "approved by God," for each of the hundreds (thousands?) of language groups in the world? Or are you just destined to sin if you're of another language of origin?

 

(Really not trying to sound sassy, just hashing out the logic here.)

I don't know if you're asking me or not, but I don't actually believe this. I think there are translations of the word of God in many languages, but the inspired, perfect, whole word of God exists in Hebrew and Greek alone. 

[Kim in Appalachia]

I don't understand this post. Are there people who think Paul read the KJV? Say no, please.

 

 

Yes, there are.  There are people who believe the KJV is the way it was spoken by Jesus himself.  I wish I was kidding.  When you hear that for the first time, it's hard not to just be in complete shock, and then not say how completely stupid that person must be. 

[bolt.]

That's right, so we need to trust that God has kept His Words pure for us.

 

If I didn't believe that He did, I wouldn't bother reading the Bible, as I'm not about to go through the Greek and Hebrew to understand it. Shocking, hey? But it's true for me.

 

The KJV says that He will keep the Word for us..... and as He is God, then I can trust that it's possible to have a version that is pure and correct and kept for us etc...

 

I used to be anti KJV, as I too used to think only legalistic Christians use it.

 

Hey, I can't be *that* legalistic- did anyone read my post in the gambling thread? ;-)

I don't think God has promised to "keep his words pure for us" -- and I don't think that he has 'kept them'. Plus, if he had, why is it the special privilidge of English-speakers only? If it was a promise, wouldn't it be a promise to believers in Papua New Ginea too? Where are their perfectly pure translations?

 

If you didn't believe it was perfectly pure you'd ignore it? Even if translations were adequate, that's not enough? And if we say adequate translation is not enough, Greek or Hebrew would simply be too hard, and you'd do without the word of God entirely -- even if you thought that a few perfectly ordinary online courses courses could get you access to God's own words?

 

Yep. Shocking.

 

You don't have to be a legalist... But that's simply not a logical approach. (1) believes in inspired scripture as the word of God, (2) believes in inspired flawless translation, (3) would willingly completely ignore (1) if God did grant the shortcut of (2).

 

(I don't believe in inspired flawless translation. I believe in adequate human translation, plus the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the role of the community of the church in translation and interpretation. (Which still yields uncertain results and matters for opinion from time to time.) And I bothered to learn both Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't rocket science... And my translations aren't flawless.)