King James Only

[Seasider]

1. Yes.

2. This is not true.

 

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.

Not so much asking you, personally, just responding to the statement that the KJV is the only true translation, per God.

[TX Native]

But don't other versions besides KJV have a Hebrew or Greek translation? And, side track, what is the terribleness of choosing NKJV over KJV? Besides the thee's and thou's and maybe an updated word to convey today's meaning here and there, how would NKJV radically conflict with KJV? Feel free not to answer if it is too OT.

[Slache]

But don't other versions besides KJV have a Hebrew or Greek translation? And, side track, what is the terribleness of choosing NKJV over KJV? Besides the thee's and thou's and maybe an updated word to convey today's meaning here and there, how would NKJV radically conflict with KJV? Feel free not to answer if it is too OT.

They are derived from two different texts. One has more passages than the other. Many things are worded differently.

[TX Native]

Nm, I got a pm to get questions answered without going OT, thanks. Maybe I should change my answer that I do engage in these conversations, Iol

[lulalu]

Wow! Didnt expect so many responses.

I'll answer a few questions that came up.

 

This person has changed churches since the last time we were home in the states. Twice now she has brought it up in person in a very condesending way. Not approval of the study and work my husband does. All based on what her pastor has taught.

 

My husband and I are beginning to work on a translation team for several other languages. He still has some schooling to finish first, but next we move back (dec) he will begin work. Along side our other work overseas. She has said since the original manuscripts are "corrupted" we are sinning and that English is the main language of the world. She has no second language knowledge and doesnt know how to interpret. Nor any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

 

So this issue feels more personal and attack like. Since she brought it up we gave her the truthful facts over manuscripts, history, oral traditions, preservation, and even compared historical pieces all how amazing God was able to keepHis words! Now she keeps putting on fb specific "issues" between versions.

 

So more just wondering if you address the specific errors to give history and facts. Example being the fact that KJV says Holy Ghost. Or that KJV uses the word unicorn.

[lulalu]

Oh and talking of unity meaning more that Jesus prayed for all believers to have unity. We will never have unity in all areas!

 

Maybe I am only able to see the elitist attitude from this ifb church and I hope not all are like it.

 

Her children have made bold statements about who is going to hell not based on Scripture! And these things are preached. All extra biblical rules. This attitude does not build up or bring unity but divides based on a us vs them. We wear skirts we read kjvo we etc. Not a heart of humility and unity.

[Amy in NH]

You could give her this tidbit, for starters:

 

Most Widely Spoken Languages in the World

Language ¹ Approx. number of speakers

1. Chinese ² 1,197,000,000

2. Spanish 414,000,000

3. English 335,000,000

4. Hindi 260,000,000

 

6 more rows

Most Widely Spoken Languages in the World - Infoplease

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0775272.html

 

 

Shouldn't the Bible be in Chinese?

[bolt.]

You could give her this tidbit, for starters:

 

Most Widely Spoken Languages in the World

 

Language ¹ Approx. number of speakers

1. Chinese ² 1,197,000,000

2. Spanish 414,000,000

3. English 335,000,000

4. Hindi 260,000,000

 

6 more rows

Most Widely Spoken Languages in the World - Infoplease

 

 

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0775272.html

 

 

Shouldn't the Bible be in Chinese?

Of course it should... But, ethnocentrism (expressed through white privilidge) is a strong undercurrent in the English speaking world.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Lolo - I have a feeling that you might be dropped as a friend at some point.  She sounds like she (and probably her church) is very "my way is the only way" about everything and you will soon be branded an outsider and not a suitable friend.  (I'm predicting this as someone who has gone through this many times.  As the branded heretic friend who  gets dropped.)

[Seasider]

Lolo - I have a feeling that you might be dropped as a friend at some point.  She sounds like she (and probably her church) is very "my way is the only way" about everything and you will soon be branded an outsider and not a suitable friend.  (I'm predicting this as someone who has gone through this many times.  As the branded heretic friend who  gets dropped.)

 

Agree. At this point I would personally unfollow her so I wouldn't be bothered by her posts. Please do not let her opinions shake you from your goals. 

[Katy]

I never got into it on FB over bible translations.

 

I have gotten into it in person with Southern Baptist relatives.  Who didn't know that Jesus didn't speak English, and that English as we know it didn't exist 2,000 years ago, or that Aramaic is essentially a dead language (I know there are small Syrian groups that speak it, or at least there were before ISIS).

 

That said, when my church Sunday School class wanted a basic overview of the Old Testament I was struggling to find the reasons God did certain things.  The translations I found made God seem angry, judgmental, cruel, and even hateful at times.  I was asked questions about God's motivations. I knew answers, but as they were from childhood I couldn't back them up with scripture.  God as portrayed in the newer translations was NOT the God I knew as a child.  I started going through all the Bibles I'd had until I finally resorted to KJV.  Surprisingly, there was the loving God I knew. There were the explanations I'd been asked for.  I'd read numerous newer translations and never noticed the differences in the way the OT God is portrayed until I was in that class and was asked why God would react that way (to Cain, to the tower of Babel, to Noah, to half a dozen other situations).  KJV is still my third most likely to be the one reached for, but I understand why people prefer it now.

[Seasider]

Katy, can you share some specific verse or passage examples?

[Jasperstone]

I'm just going on past experience with my bible reading. I couldn't be bothered as every version was different, so I didn't hold them in high regard etc... And to have to go to the Greek or Hebrew was no better than listening to someone's else's interpretation anyway.

 

I knew enough bible to be saved, so I was satisfied with that. If that's shocking to you then so be it... it's the truth and I'm not going to white-wash it into something it's not.

 

 

Regarding God's promises that He will preserve His Words-

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

 

God says you shall not add, or take any of them away. What do modern bibles do?

 

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 

(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

 

He says His Words are pure here-

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

(Proverbs 30:5-6)

 

His words will never pass away-

 

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

 

God will also curse those who change His Words-

 

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

 

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.)

[Kiara.I]

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. 

 

Yup.  Yup, yup, yup.

 

I was speaking to a (much older) woman one time, who said she was looking for a church.  I suggested one in her area.  She asked if they used KJV.  That's fine, I thought.  KJV is what she would have been brought up with, it's comforting to have a familiar translation, no problem.  "No, sorry.  They tend to use NIV."

 

"They're changing the words of Jesus!"

 

:confused1:

 

I bit my tongue.  But what *almost* came out was, "You know he spoke Aramaic, right???"

[Laura Corin]

What I don't quite understand is: why the KJV?  Why not Tyndale's? Coverdale's?  John Rogers'?  Or the Geneva Bible?

 

The phrases taken from previous versions are quite striking:

 

http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html

[Hikin' Mama]

They are derived from two different texts. One has more passages than the other. Many things are worded differently.

I didn't know this. Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm especially interested in which one has more passages and where they are. Thank you. :)

[creekland]

So this issue feels more personal and attack like. Since she brought it up we gave her the truthful facts over manuscripts, history, oral traditions, preservation, and even compared historical pieces all how amazing God was able to keepHis words! Now she keeps putting on fb specific "issues" between versions.

 

So more just wondering if you address the specific errors to give history and facts. Example being the fact that KJV says Holy Ghost. Or that KJV uses the word unicorn.

 

The most I would do would be one line bits now and then.  (Ghost and Spirit are the same thing.  Jesus spoke Aramaic.  The OT was written in Hebrew and no one is totally sure what a unicorn was.)  Otherwise, my firm belief is that one is wasting time debating someone with a closed mind.  (This, of course, isn't the only closed mind thing out there.  That can be anything from diet to best TV shows to _____.)  I just fall back on simple responses like "I see it differently."  Humans are never unified in everything, Christians or otherwise.

 

I don't choose my friends based upon what they believe (about anything).  I just don't get bothered by differences in beliefs even if others have a tough time getting off a topic.  We're all free to believe as we want IMO.  There is usually plenty of info out there to consider when forming our beliefs.  

 

If/when I'm in a situation where others are open to hearing why I believe/choose as I do, then I don't mind sharing/discussing (no need for "conversion" to unity), but I don't do it to be attacked ("you're so wrong!!!).  I read those and ignore them.  What can be fun (for me) is getting together with folks who understand the unknown aspects about many topics and we ponder some of the deeper "what ifs" looking down many paths.  Not everyone enjoys doing that though.  Most want some sort of definitive "right" answer.

[bolt.]

I'm just going on past experience with my bible reading. I couldn't be bothered as every version was different, so I didn't hold them in high regard etc... And to have to go to the Greek or Hebrew was no better than listening to someone's else's interpretation anyway.

 

I knew enough bible to be saved, so I was satisfied with that. If that's shocking to you then so be it... it's the truth and I'm not going to white-wash it into something it's not.

 

 

Regarding God's promises that He will preserve His Words-

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

 

God says you shall not add, or take any of them away. What do modern bibles do?

 

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

 

He says His Words are pure here-

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

(Proverbs 30:5-6)

 

His words will never pass away-

 

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

 

God will also curse those who change His Words-

 

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

 

 

And now everyone can watch me "not engage" all those specific "issues"...

[Professormom]

If/when I'm in a situation where others are open to hearing why I believe/choose as I do, then I don't mind sharing discussing (no need for "conversion" to unity), but I don't do it to be attacked ("you're so wrong!!!). I read those and ignore them. What can be fun (for me) is getting together with folks who understand the unknown aspects about many topics and we ponder some of the deeper "what ifs" looking down many paths. Not everyone enjoys doing that though. Most want some sort of definitive "right" answer.

Well said.

[Katy]

Katy, can you share some specific verse or passage examples?

 

Other than the passages referenced above?  Just read through Genesis 6-11 (Noah through the Tower of Babel) in any modern translation, and whenever God says or does something, ask yourself why.  Are the reasons given that God is angry?  Then compare to KJV or NKJV.  It's much easier to extrapolate love (perhaps tough love, but still love) rather than anger and vengeance in the KJV or NKJV translation. But don't believe me.  It seemed ridiculous to me until I realized it myself.  It should take about an hour.

 

And then comes the question, if NIV and other "newer" translations are in fact translated from "older" documents, then what are we missing?  Did those who translated KJV add love to God's motives to boost faith in protestants reading scripture at the time, is it something poetic that was lost in newer translations, or is there something mystical about it along the lines of those translators who knew and love God added the love they felt from Him, whereas those who love language but not God don't feel the same love?  I've never researched or even prayed about that, but I do find it to be an interesting question.

[Katy]

What I don't quite understand is: why the KJV?  Why not Tyndale's? Coverdale's?  John Rogers'?  Or the Geneva Bible?

 

The phrases taken from previous versions are quite striking:

 

http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html

 

If you ask, many don't know Jesus didn't speak English.  I wish I were kidding.

 

The real reason is probably that the protestants who started their church used KJV, and so their tradition is KJV.

 

Also, for less pure reasons, KJV is harder to understand and so they are less likely to be challenged by those who aren't educated enough to know Jesus didn't speak English.

[Chris in VA]

God will also curse those who change His Words-

 

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

 

Ummm...so this would make ANY translation wrong, wouldn't it? :confused1:

[Laura Corin]

If you ask, many don't know Jesus didn't speak English.  I wish I were kidding.

 

 

I believe you, but I still can't wrap my head around this.

[FO4UR]

Wow! Didnt expect so many responses.

I'll answer a few questions that came up.

 

This person has changed churches since the last time we were home in the states. Twice now she has brought it up in person in a very condesending way. Not approval of the study and work my husband does. All based on what her pastor has taught.

 

My husband and I are beginning to work on a translation team for several other languages. He still has some schooling to finish first, but next we move back (dec) he will begin work. Along side our other work overseas. She has said since the original manuscripts are "corrupted" we are sinning and that English is the main language of the world. She has no second language knowledge and doesnt know how to interpret. Nor any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

 

So this issue feels more personal and attack like. Since she brought it up we gave her the truthful facts over manuscripts, history, oral traditions, preservation, and even compared historical pieces all how amazing God was able to keepHis words! Now she keeps putting on fb specific "issues" between versions.

 

So more just wondering if you address the specific errors to give history and facts. Example being the fact that KJV says Holy Ghost. Or that KJV uses the word unicorn.

 

 

She speaks out of ignorance.  Use the unfollow feature to ignore her on fb.

 

In my opinion, the push for KJV only often comes from a desire to "shepherd" a flock who cannot read and comprehend the text that they claim to follow, therefore they must trust a "Man of God" to interpret it for them, and therefore the pastor has complete control over the congregation.  Then he can heap all sorts of ideas and rules without any accountability. 

 

 

In my experience, you are not able to help this woman at this point. Her mind is made up, and no amount of factual information will change that. Ignore, unfriend, and pray for her from afar.

[Teannika]

And then comes the question, if NIV and other "newer" translations are in fact translated from "older" documents, then what are we missing? Did those who translated KJV add love to God's motives to boost faith in protestants reading scripture at the time, is it something poetic that was lost in newer translations, or is there something mystical about it along the lines of those translators who knew and love God added the love they felt from Him, whereas those who love language but not God don't feel the same love? I've never researched or even prayed about that, but I do find it to be an interesting question.

 

The King James Bible is a word for word translation for transparency and accuracy. The goal of the translators in the preface was to make one final copy in English, a polished copy. They did not make it to market it for selling purposes like the modern bibles, but their goal was to remain true to the words of God, and make them available for the common person.

 

Quote from King James Bible Preface from the Translators: 'Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.'

 

The King James Bible comes from what is called Majority Text. Majority text is using the over 5000 manuscripts and fragments and comparing them. This way they can compare and see copyist errors where they have occurred (which you would expect to happen on occasion), as the majority of the text will still remain in agreement. It's an easy way to rule out errors.

 

All modern English Bibles use what is touted as the "oldest and best" manuscripts. The differences that you'll find between them and the king James bible is because of these two old manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Now they are usually happy to remind us of how superior these two manuscripts are because they are "old" and the "best", however we aren't often told that they actually disagree between themselves more than they agree. So how's that for "reliable". They also have a lot of markings in them, things crossed out, written over three times, spaces left for missing text etc.

 

Paul told us to be careful of those who corrupt the word of God (2 Cor 2:17). It has been happening for a very long time now, and it was the same in his day. Just because something is a manuscript, doesn't mean it is automatically legit and hasn't been tampered with.

 

So when you are trusting a modern English Bible you are essentially trusting two Catholic documents to determine what scripture originally said in the Greek in the New Testament.

 

(Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was talking New Testament. Old Testament is another story. The Jews won't touch the Old Testament manuscripts that modern English versions use because they have a nazi relationship. So again, there is a debate about which stream of Old Testament manuscripts are the correct ones.)

 

Apologies that I'm not specificly answering your question on love. My focus was on giving a quick overview on why there is such a difference between the bibles and the two streams of manuscripts. There are many doctrinal differences that result, and there is a different feeling or vibe as you have pointed out.

[KungFuPanda]

I know a priest who keeps a KJV by his bedside for personal reading. He 'uses' a different translation, of course. He actually worked on one of the more recent translations and feels it is 'better.' However, he feels that the KJV has the 'poetry' that the better translations have lost. You've gotta love a language geek!

[Slache]

I didn't know this. Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm especially interested in which one has more passages and where they are. Thank you. :)

The King James is from the Byzantine Texts, the newer ones are from The Alexandrian Transcripts. The NASB pulls from both and has footnotes explaining the difference. I'll pm you with what I have, but I don't have the list of verses that aren't in the Alexandrian Transcripts.

[Slache]

I didn't know this. Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm especially interested in which one has more passages and where they are. Thank you. :)

I'm having trouble PMing you. Would mind PMing me first? 

[MercyA]

I didn't know this. Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm especially interested in which one has more passages and where they are. Thank you. :)

 

Here are tables listing some missing passages in modern Bible translations:

 

av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

www.bloomingdalebiblechurch.net/lists/List%20of%20Bible%20verses%20totally%20omitted.html

 

(Disclaimer: I don't endorse these particular sites and don't know much about them. I remembered charts I'd seen in the past and found these similar ones with a quick Google search.  :) )

[Hikin' Mama]

I'm having trouble PMing you. Would mind PMing me first?

PM'd you. :)

[Hikin' Mama]

Here are tables listing some missing passages in modern Bible translations:

 

av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

www.bloomingdalebiblechurch.net/lists/List%20of%20Bible%20verses%20totally%20omitted.html

 

(Disclaimer: I don't endorse these particular sites and don't know much about them. I remembered charts I'd seen in the past and found these similar ones with a quick Google search. :) )

Thank you! I'll check these out.

[Greta]

I know this thread kind of died out, but I thought I'd mention that I was in a Christian bookstore recently, and saw this title on the clearance rack: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-King-James-Version/dp/0785251758 This thread inspired me to buy it, even though it's about the NKJV. And then that reminded me that quite some time ago, I had purchased this book, but never read it: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-King-James-Bible-Celebrating-ebook/dp/B004IEAJMI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447642661&sr=1-1&keywords=legacy+king+james+bible I'm not quite finished yet with this latter one, but it's been a particularly interesting read. And it has motivated me to decide that while the NKJV is *wonderful*, truly, for reading and study, I think we (daughter and I) will do our memory work from the original KJV. It really is a beautiful, compelling, powerful translation.

[FaithManor]

There are about one million words in the English language. There are about 5 million in Greek. Don't start me on the verbs. We simply do not have verb tenses that equal all of the Greek nuances.

 

So what I say, if someone is open, if you aren't fluent in ancient Greek and reading the NT in Greek and the OT in Arabic and Hebrew then basically, you are dealing with a lot less accuracy no matter what translation it is.

 

But that is only if they are open. Otherwise, I run away from these discussions because they tend to be fraught with emotion and not end well.

 

I wish I was kidding, but there is a pastor in this area who teaches that the apostles spoke in English at Pentecost and the NT was inspired in English and written English. He preaches that God has always spoken English, and he believes that Adam and Eve spoke English.  I just can't reason with that, so I avoid him.

[FaithManor]

Oops, didn't realize that ya'll had let this die out. Sorry!

[Cammie]

So when you are trusting a modern English Bible you are essentially trusting two Catholic documents to determine what scripture originally said in the Greek in the New Testament.

 

(Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was talking New Testament. Old Testament is another story. The Jews won't touch the Old Testament manuscripts that modern English versions use because they have a nazi relationship. So again, there is a debate about which stream of Old Testament manuscripts are the correct ones.)

 

 

I found this conversation very interesting as it is completely outside my scope of reference.

 

However, I found the above comments confusing.

 

First, does it all really boil down to anti-Catholic sentiment?  If so, then I think that needs to be specifically addressed.  I don't think the fact that people are trusting "Catholic documents" would be a problem for most mainstream Protestants who understand that we all are Christians and seek to understand the same words.

 

Also, what do you mean by a "Nazi relationship?"  Was that a typo??

[Guest]

 

First, does it all really boil down to anti-Catholic sentiment? If so, then I think that needs to be specifically addressed. I don't think the fact that people are trusting "Catholic documents" would be a problem for most mainstream Protestants who understand that we all are Christians and seek to understand the same words.

 

A lot of the problem is that people don't know church history. I ran across this on another board today: how can Reformed people like St. Augustine when he was a Catholic?"

 

Ummm...there was only one church for the first 1000 years...and while Orthodox and Catholics dispute which it was, Augustine couldn't have BEEN a Protestant.

 

The Church preserved the scriptures, and even determined what would be considered scripture, long before the Protestant Reformation...so of *course* it is a Catholic (or Orthodox) source.

[Slache]

I found this conversation very interesting as it is completely outside my scope of reference.

 

However, I found the above comments confusing.

 

First, does it all really boil down to anti-Catholic sentiment?  If so, then I think that needs to be specifically addressed.  I don't think the fact that people are trusting "Catholic documents" would be a problem for most mainstream Protestants who understand that we all are Christians and seek to understand the same words.

 

Also, what do you mean by a "Nazi relationship?"  Was that a typo??

 

adequately explains why many protestants don't trust the Catholic church. This is a very sensitive topic, so please understand that I'm not blowing you off, just trying to avoid an argument.

[Greta]

I feel like I should clarify that the book I mentioned above, The Legacy of the King James Bible, is about the literary and cultural value of the translation. It's not a sectarian or denominational treatise at all.

 

I apologize if this wasn't the correct place for me to post about it (since I resurrected the thread). Since this thread was what prompted/reminded me to read it, it seemed appropriate at the time! :) But I certainly did not mean to sound argumentative. And I just want to be clear that I have tremendous respect and admiration for the Catholic church, so my growing appreciation for the KJV is not at all about any anti-Catholic sentiments.

 

And I continue to be stunned by the stories of people thinking that Jesus and the apostles spoke English. Honestly, I would have thought that was a joke until this thread. I had no idea people really believed that.

[Slache]

I feel like I should clarify that the book I mentioned above, The Legacy of the King James Bible, is about the literary and cultural value of the translation. It's not a sectarian or denominational treatise at all.

 

I apologize if this wasn't the correct place for me to post about it (since I resurrected the thread). Since this thread was what prompted/reminded me to read it, it seemed appropriate at the time! :) But I certainly did not mean to stir up an argument. And I just want to be clear that I have tremendous respect and admiration for the Catholic church.

 

And I continue to be stunned by the stories of people thinking that Jesus and the apostles spoke English. Honestly, I would have thought that was a joke until this thread. I had no idea people really believed that.

No apologies. I think it looks interesting. :)

There are about one million words in the English language. There are about 5 million in Greek. Don't start me on the verbs. We simply do not have verb tenses that equal all of the Greek nuances.

 

 

While I take your point, and it is basically impossible to count how many words there are in any language, there is no way there are 5 million noninflected words in ancient Greek.  The most complete ancient Greek dictionary has about 2,000 pages, and about 30 words per page.

[Greta]

No apologies. I think it looks interesting. :)

Thanks! :) It is a really interesting book! At least, to me. ;) The author argues that the translation is so beautiful because it was accomplished during the "golden age" of the English language, and because the translators strove so very much for accuracy, thus preserving the beauty and majesty of the original texts. He covers a variety of sub-topics of course, but one little thing that intrigued me was when he pointed out the difference between the modern translators who use adjective-noun form, whereas the KJV has a more frequent use of a noun-of-noun form. For example, "a strong man" versus "a man of strength". The latter sounds more impressive, and it's apparently truer to the original languages as well. Just such a little thing, but it makes a difference!

[Bluegoat]

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 would consider that a fairly similar approach to the one the Muslims have, TBH, just extended across several languages.  So not really the way Christians historically have handled it.  I think confusing the Word with the word is to the point - Scripture itself is not divine, there are no words or language that can contain God. 

[Bluegoat]

A lot of the problem is that people don't know church history. I ran across this on another board today: how can Reformed people like St. Augustine when he was a Catholic?"

 

Ummm...there was only one church for the first 1000 years...and while Orthodox and Catholics dispute which it was, Augustine couldn't have BEEN a Protestant.

 

The Church preserved the scriptures, and even determined what would be considered scripture, long before the Protestant Reformation...so of *course* it is a Catholic (or Orthodox) source.

 

Lutherans often call themselves Evangelical Catholics.  They don't consider themselves to be part of a different Church than St Augustine.

[creekland]

Only one church for the first 1000 years?   So when I read Acts and see all the church planting and conflict of thoughts going on (even among disciples) then, and when I read the Letters from Paul, Peter, John, & James that address controversy of thought in the various churches, and when I know there were letters they, themselves, refer to, but we don't have... I'm somehow supposed to believe they truly addressed it all and came to one conclusion that everyone believed for the first 1000 years?

 

That stretches my belief far more than any of God's miracles.  If anything, the NT (and OT) show me just how human people in those days were - very similar to us, just without the gas engine or electricity.  God loved them - even in/with their attempts to understand.  I'm positive He does the same for us.

[Bluegoat]

Only one church for the first 1000 years?   So when I read Acts and see all the church planting and conflict of thoughts going on (even among disciples) then, and when I read the Letters from Paul, Peter, John, & James that address controversy of thought in the various churches, and when I know there were letters they, themselves, refer to, but we don't have... I'm somehow supposed to believe they truly addressed it all and came to one conclusion that everyone believed for the first 1000 years?

 

That stretches my belief far more than any of God's miracles.  If anything, the NT (and OT) show me just how human people in those days were - very similar to us, just without the gas engine or electricity.  God loved them - even in/with their attempts to understand.  I'm positive He does the same for us.

 

One Church, many churches.  Those people all considered themselves to be part of the same Body.  I don't think that is particularly controversial, you can see they talk about it that way in the earliest Christian documents.

[creekland]

One Church, many churches.  Those people all considered themselves to be part of the same Body.  I don't think that is particularly controversial, you can see they talk about it that way in the earliest Christian documents.

 

But even like now, most of us can worship with one faith - one name - and still have differing thoughts about many areas.  It was the same then.  It doesn't have to be one denomination.

[Bluegoat]

But even like now, most of us can worship with one faith - one name - and still have differing thoughts about many areas.  It was the same then.  It doesn't have to be one denomination.

No, it wasn't the same, whether or not you think denominations now are a good thing or a sad fact.  They had no concept of different denominations.  They were part of one organizational body.  When there was a serious controversy, they worked it out organizationally, not as separate groups.

[bolt.]

No, it wasn't the same, whether or not you think denominations now are a good thing or a sad fact. They had no concept of different denominations. They were part of one organizational body. When there was a serious controversy, they worked it out organizationally, not as separate groups.

That's not consistent with my understanding of the early church. I see strong evidence (both within the NT and from the study of history) that it would be more accurate to characterize the earliest stages as 'loosely organized' through personal interconnections and loyalties. There were respected leaders, but seem to have functioned without a sense of 'being an organization' or 'working things out organizationally'. Rather, we see leaders working things out inter-personally, and encouraging their protégées and local leaders to do the same.

 

The sense of unity was much more focused on the transmission gospel message and the presence of the Spirit -- rather than anything we would interpret as organization.

[Bluegoat]

That's not consistent with my understanding of the early church. I see strong evidence (both within the NT and from the study of history) that it would be more accurate to characterize the earliest stages as 'loosely organized' through personal interconnections and loyalties. There were respected leaders, but seem to have functioned without a sense of 'being an organization' or 'working things out organizationally'. Rather, we see leaders working things out inter-personally, and encouraging their protégées and local leaders to do the same.

 

The sense of unity was much more focused on the transmission gospel message and the presence of the Spirit -- rather than anything we would interpret as organization.

 

I would interpret that as an organization and it doesn't look anything like separate denominational groups with independent decision making processes. Informal organizations however typically have a limited size profile.

 

[milovany]

That stretches my belief far more than any of God's miracles ...

 

Which is actually what drew me right into the arms of that early church. Which says nothing about other churches out there, just that I wanted to be a part of the early church that still exists today, carrying with it an amazing amount of unity considering that 2000+ years have passed (not perfect unity -- old vs. new calendar, ugh -- but no doctrinal changes and what I consider a miraculous amount of consistency and unity).