King James Only

[milovany]

Yes I do believe in sanctification as an ongoing process until I die. But being sanctified does not affect my salvation, it affects my relationship with God, it affects what will happen when I end up at the judgment seat of Christ. This would be a discussion on standing and state. Sanctification and Justification are two different things.

 

I want to keep reading the thread, but this made make think.  If taken to a logical conclusion, the results must include the following:  A man could pray a sincere "salvation prayer" at some point in his life, but then struggle with sanctification. He's saved, but not yet sanctified. He goes to church, but is constantly angry at home.  He studies the Bible and prays, but cheats on his taxes significantly more every year. He has a lovely family and seemingly is doing okay for several years, but he secretly struggles with pornography and it only gets worse over time. He never admits wrongdoing, although he feels sorry sometimes when he prays. He eventually meets an online someone and has an affair. One day, he dies in a car accident on the way to a hotel meet up. Do you really think he has less to fear at the judgment seat of Christ than a man who was baptized as an infant (which to him was the "born again" experience), who grew up in a liturgical church, who made his his faith his own as he came into adulthood, who regularly "receives Christ" (the Eucharist) throughout his life, who marries and raises a lovely family, or doesn't 't marry and serves God with all he has, who is tempted by pornography but overcomes, who regularly notices and confesses both his inner and outer sins (especially the inner ones because that involves the heart), and then dies in a car accident on his way to help a homeless family?

 

A high contrast of examples, I know, although pretty plausible and quite possible at the same time. This is what OSAS must lead one to stand for.  And that's not something I could get behind. What I can get behind is someone so loving God for all He is and does, that s/he wants (and pursues) God throughout their lives, in order to become united with Him.  We need to give God so much for all He's done, is doing, and will do, for us. 

 

A good point was made above.  To believe we're "being saved" isn't "works salvation" meaning the work is being done by the person.  Someone is working, but it's not the person. It's God. He worked to provide for our salvation at the Cross ("I was saved"), He works to draw us to him throughout our lives, providing the tools that lead us to repentance ("I am being saved"), and at the end of our lives, He works to bring us home to Him ("I will be saved"). 

 

I hope this came out with the tenderness and thoughtfulness that was intended. 

[TechWife]

I understand that. But we are coming from a "Christian" context which is recognising where God's word went and how it has travelled throughout the world in history. Think about how many missionaries went out into the world when the King James bible came on the scene and was given to the common people. There is a trail to follow. Follow other completed bibles in their language too. But take note of which manuscripts they are coming from.

 

There is nothing in the statement I made that is not compatible with Christianity. It is a big world out there. To focus on one particular culture, in this case the culture that is literate in the English language, is ethnocentric. Missionaries were "going out into the world" for centuries before the KJV was translated. They spoke in many different languages. Some of them wrote in many different languages as well.  

[TechWife]

 

 

A good point was made above.  To believe we're "being saved" isn't "works salvation" meaning the work is being done by the person.  Someone is working, but it's not the person. It's God. He worked to provide for our salvation at the Cross ("I was saved"), He works to draw us to him throughout our lives, providing the tools that lead us to repentance ("I am being saved"), and at the end of our lives, He works to bring us home to Him ("I will be saved"). 

 

 

This is very well put. Thanks for stating this so eloquently. 

[Teannika]

I want to keep reading the thread, but this made make think. If taken to a logical conclusion, the results must include the following: A man could pray a sincere "salvation prayer" at some point in his life, but then struggle with sanctification. He's saved, but not sanctified. He went to church, but was constantly angry at home. He studied the Bible and prayed, but cheated on his taxes significantly more every year. He had a lovely family and seemingly was doing okay for several years, except he secretly struggled with pornography and it only got worse over time. He never admitted wrongdoing, although he felt sorry sometimes when he prayed. He eventually met an online someone and had an affair. One day, he died in a car accident on the way to a hotel meet up. Do you really think he has less to fear at the judgment seat of Christ than a man who was baptized as an infant (which to him was the "born again" experience), who grew up in a liturgical church, who made his his faith his own as he came into adulthood, who regularly "received Christ" (the Eucharist) throughout his life, who married and raised a lovely family, or didn't marry and served God with all he had, who was tempted by pornography but overcame, who regularly noticed and confessed both his inner and outer sins (especially the inner ones because that's the heart), and then died in a car accident on his way to help a homeless family (with the car above being the one with which he collided)?

 

A high contrast of examples, I know, although pretty plausible and quite possible at the same time. This is what OSAS must lead one to stand for. And that's not something I could get behind. What I can get behind is someone so loving God for all He is and does, and wanting (and working) throughout their lives to become united with Him. We need to give God so much for all He's done, is doing, and will do, for us.

 

A good point was made above. To believe we're "being saved" isn't "works salvation" meaning the work is being done by the person. Someone is working, but it's not the person. It's God. He worked to provide for our salvation at the Cross ("I was saved"), He works to draw us to him throughout our lives, providing the tools that lead us to repentance ("I am being saved"), and at the end of our lives, He works to bring us home to Him ("I will be saved").

 

I hope this came out with the tenderness and thoughtfulness that was intended.

 

My understanding is that all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6). We are all sinners and if we are going about trying to create our own righteousness this won't cut it with God. (Romans 10:3).

 

The Judgement Seat of Christ is for those who have been truly born again and who are a new creature in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). The Great White Throne judgement is for non-believers.

 

A person is justified if they have trusted on the finished work of Christ on the cross. That his blood covers all of their sin, past, present and future. Yes they may end up like the first man in your example, but their sin was washed away, completely done away with, so that they make it to heaven. Sadly though, this man will be ashamed at the judgement seat and recieve no rewards.

[Teannika]

There is nothing in the statement I made that is not compatible with Christianity. It is a big world out there. To focus on one particular culture, in this case the culture that is literate in the English language, is ethnocentric. Missionaries were "going out into the world" for centuries before the KJV was translated. They spoke in many different languages. Some of them wrote in many different languages as well.

 

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with God's word being limited and only being truly available in the "original languages."

[milovany]

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with God's word being limited and only being truly available in the "original languages."

 

I disagree with God being limited to the words in a book.  ;)  Such that an argument erupts 1500-2000 years after Christ as to which words are the real words God meant and we have to figure it out to really know God and receive salvation. 

[TechWife]

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with God's word being limited and only being truly available in the "original languages."

 

I don't believe anyone has taken that position in this thread. I certainly haven't. God's word is available in a variety of languages. Some languages, English included, have the privilege of having more than one accurate translation from the original languages. 

[milovany]

A person is justified if they have trusted on the finished work of Christ on the cross. That his blood covers all of their sin, past, present and future. Yes they may end up like the first man in your example, but their sin was washed away, completely done away with, so that they make it to heaven....

 

And what of the other man? 

 

I actually don't presume to know what happens to either of them; it's just an example made to truly consider our beliefs and how they play out in reality. 

[Teannika]

I don't believe anyone has taken that position in this thread. I certainly haven't. God's word is available in a variety of languages. Some languages, English included, have the privilege of having more than one accurate translation from the original languages.

 

How can these English translations be accurate if they have different verses and if they disagree with each other? For accuracy I would be looking for the meaning to be match up and say the same thing and be in agreement. When Westcott and Hort created their Greek text they were Catholic sympathisers and their text reflected their beliefs. They chose to use manuscripts that weren't in agreement even with each other, texts that the King James translators recognised as obviously being corrupted. Their Greek text had made over 5000 changes to the King James Bible. How can things that are different be the same and be equal and accurate?

[Teannika]

And what of the other man?

 

I actually don't presume to know what happens to either of them; it's just an example made to truly consider our beliefs and how they play out in reality.

 

Has he trusted on the completed work of Christ? Does he believe that Jesus' blood is enough to wash away all of his sins, and that nothing he can do will add to it or save him besides trusting on this one fact?

 

If yes, he is saved and will go to be with the Lord.

 

If he is trusting that someone made him "born again" when he was a child he will not.

[milovany]

Has he trusted on the completed work of Christ? Does he believe that Jesus' blood is enough to wash away all of his sins, and that nothing he can do will add to it or save him besides trusting on this one fact?

 

If yes, he is saved and will go to be with the Lord.

 

If he is trusting that someone made him "born again" when he was a child he will not.

 

:(

[TechWife]

My understanding is that all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6). We are all sinners and if we are going about trying to create our own righteousness this won't cut it with God. (Romans 10:3).

 

The Judgement Seat of Christ is for those who have been truly born again and who are a new creature in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). The Great White Throne judgement is for non-believers.

 

A person is justified if they have trusted on the finished work of Christ on the cross. That his blood covers all of their sin, past, present and future. Yes they may end up like the first man in your example, but their sin was washed away, completely done away with, so that they make it to heaven. Sadly though, this man will be ashamed at the judgement seat and recieve no rewards.

 

Teannika, 

 

You are mixing up two very different things. Justification and sanctification are different. Justification is our legal standing before God - our sin is forgiven, Christ's righteousness belongs to us and we are declared righteous in His sight because Christ has paid our debt of sin on our behalf. Justification is entirely the work of God and it cannot be undone and it is not something we could ever hope to accomplish.  Sanctification is the growth of our faith over time. It has a beginning (when we become believers) and is ongoing throughout our earthly life. It is progressive - as we grow in our faith, we become more mature in our faith as we continually yield ourselves to Christ and forsake our sin. Sanctification is the work of God, but it requires our cooperation in that we are the ones who have to do the yielding. We really on God to sanctify us because we can't do it ourselves, but at the same time, we have to actively obey God in order to grow in faith. For example, we are to "strive" for holiness (Hebrews 12:14), to "abstain from immorality" (2 Cor 6:18), to "make every effort" to grow in godliness (2 Peter 1:5). This means that sanctification is work - we actively make choices and carry them out. As we do so, we are sanctified. Because we are flawed human beings, we won't be perfect, therefore we will not be fully sanctified until we are in heaven with Christ. 

[Teannika]

I disagree with God being limited to the words in a book. ;) Such that an argument erupts 1500-2000 years after Christ as to which words are the real words God meant and we have to figure it out to really know God and receive salvation.

 

We don't need to figure it out for salvation.

We do need to figure it out to avoid being deceived.

[Teannika]

Teannika,

 

You are mixing up two very different things. Justification and sanctification are different. Justification is our legal standing before God - our sin is forgiven, Christ's righteousness belongs to us and we are declared righteous in His sight because Christ has paid our debt of sin on our behalf. Justification is entirely the work of God and it cannot be undone and it is not something we could ever hope to accomplish. Sanctification is the growth of our faith over time. It has a beginning (when we become believers) and is ongoing throughout our earthly life. It is progressive - as we grow in our faith, we become more mature in our faith as we continually yield ourselves to Christ and forsake our sin. Sanctification is the work of God, but it requires our cooperation in that we are the ones who have to do the yielding. We really on God to sanctify us because we can't do it ourselves, but at the same time, we have to actively obey God in order to grow in faith. For example, we are to "strive" for holiness (Hebrews 12:14), to "abstain from immorality" (2 Cor 6:18), to "make every effort" to grow in godliness (2 Peter 1:5). This means that sanctification is work - we actively make choices and carry them out. As we do so, we are sanctified. Because we are flawed human beings, we won't be perfect, therefore we will not be fully sanctified until we are in heaven with Christ.

 

I agree. I'm not sure what I have said differently?

[TechWife]

How can these English translations be accurate if they have different verses and if they disagree with each other? For accuracy I would be looking for the meaning to be match up and say the same thing and be in agreement. When Westcott and Hort created their Greek text they were Catholic sympathisers and their text reflected their beliefs. They chose to use manuscripts that weren't in agreement even with each other, texts that the King James translators recognised as obviously being corrupted. Their Greek text had made over 5000 changes to the King James Bible. How can things that are different be the same and be equal and accurate?

 

I don't think you understand how Bible translation works. 

 

You seem to think that all translations come from the work of Hortt and Westcott. They do not. For example, the New American Standard Bible was translated from Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA, lexicography and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as  Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE.

 

Generally speaking, yes, good Bible translators look at many different editions of the original text (languages) and reach a consensus when there are differences. They work as a group and years of study go into each version, as with the KJV. The translators of the KJV were no more or less gifted than the translators of any other accurate translation - all are equal before God. 

[mommaduck]

I understand that. But we are coming from a "Christian" context which is recognising where God's word went and how it has travelled throughout the world in history. Think about how many missionaries went out into the world when the King James bible came on the scene and was given to the common people. There is a trail to follow. Follow other completed bibles in their language too. But take note of which manuscripts they are coming from.

Missionaries that went out and tried to convert people that were already Christian as well as not.

[Cammie]

So what would be considered the universal language of our time?

We are moving toward becoming a one world, united world system, having one language makes sense for ease of communication between the nations.

If I am incorrect in thinking that most nationalities choose to learn English as their second language then what do they choose instead?

 

 

It depends on the historical background of the country for the most part.

 

In India often people learn their mother tongue first and Hindi second (because that is more of a national language than a regional languge).  Only the highly educated and more urban would learn English beyond the basic ABCs.

 

English opens doors, no doubt.  However, people are VERY attached to their own mother tongues so I think your idea that we are moving towards one world language is VERY wrong.

[mommaduck]

I don't think you understand how Bible translation works.

 

You seem to think that all translations come from the work of Hortt and Westcott. They do not. For example, the New American Standard Bible was translated from Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA, lexicography and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE.

 

Generally speaking, yes, good Bible translators look at many different editions of the original text (languages) and reach a consensus when there are differences. They work as a group and years of study go into each version, as with the KJV. The translators of the KJV were no more or less gifted than the translators of any other accurate translation - all are equal before God.

They are ALL open to prejudices and textual errors, even the KJV. Comparisons are understanding of the contexts and culture of languages is good. Ironically, I think English is the only language where we have this debate, or at the very least the language that we have it there most heatedly. *le sigh*

[Cammie]

Again, I find this discussion so fascinating.

 

I have never really understood those people who feel they have found the "one true" anything. 

 

This discussion about the translation of a document (or set of documents) over centuries and the idea that there might be one perfect translation that has somehow managed to avoid any mistake or mistranslation just is mind boggling.

 

I am a Christian.  I don't need a "perfect" text to understand that I am supposed to love my neighbor, help the poor, reach out to the oppressed.

 

I know that everyone approaches their own faith differently.  Thank you for opening my eyes to this particular aspect of the approach to Christian faith.

[Teannika]

I don't think you understand how Bible translation works.

 

You seem to think that all translations come from the work of Hortt and Westcott. They do not. For example, the New American Standard Bible was translated from Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA, lexicography and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE.

 

Generally speaking, yes, good Bible translators look at many different editions of the original text (languages) and reach a consensus when there are differences. They work as a group and years of study go into each version, as with the KJV. The translators of the KJV were no more or less gifted than the translators of any other accurate translation - all are equal before God.

I am speaking in a generalised way, yes. Because most people are not aware of why it is the KJV vs other Modern English Bibles. And when the major differences started to appear from what the KJV said.

 

When speaking early English translations, for example, if you compare the Geneva to the King James, if you read them together they are pretty close and in agreement for the most part. But if you compare a King James Bible to say the NIV you will start to see major differences in what the text says.

 

I mentioned what is not good about the BH upthread. But I don't know much about the NTG for the NASB. I'd have to look into that.

 

I understand streams of manuscripts, that is what I have been discussing. It is coming across to me that generally Christians just accept that there should be big differences in what the text of different English bibles say and all will still be correct. It doesn't seem to matter if the changes that are made are recent or not. Or by whom they are made and what those people believed.

 

My main point and what I am arguing for, is that if someone wants a Catholic bible then use one. But if you don't want one, then research the manuscripts and choose your bible from there.

 

For example people switch from reading the KJV to reading the New King James Version, without realising that the changes that the NKJV makes is not just updating the language but it also aligns with Vatican manuscripts.

[Teannika]

It depends on the historical background of the country for the most part.

 

In India often people learn their mother tongue first and Hindi second (because that is more of a national language than a regional languge). Only the highly educated and more urban would learn English beyond the basic ABCs.

 

English opens doors, no doubt. However, people are VERY attached to their own mother tongues so I think your idea that we are moving towards one world language is VERY wrong.

Prophetic understanding comes into play here. For those who believe in a coming One World Order like I do, a common language for the nations to communicate with between each other makes sense and is necessary. I believe we are seeing the beginning of this today.

 

I'm not arguing that all other languages will die out.

[Cammie]

 

My main point and what I am arguing for, is that if someone wants a Catholic bible then use one. But if you don't want one, then research the manuscripts and choose your bible from there.

 

Again, forgive my ignorance...but how can you avoid the early Christian church's influence?  If you want a "Protestant" bible, then are you not committing the same mistakes you say other translations committed?  Translating with a slant towards one way of approaching Christianity?

[Teannika]

They are ALL open to prejudices and textual errors, even the KJV. Comparisons are understanding of the contexts and culture of languages is good. Ironically, I think English is the only language where we have this debate, or at the very least the language that we have it there most heatedly. *le sigh*

There are many other Christians in non-English speaking countries who seek to know what are the preserved words of God and genuinely wish to know which bible to use.

 

I'd say that because we have over 300 English versions we need a lot of direction on what to trust, so lots of discussion follows.

[Cammie]

Prophetic understanding comes into play here. For those who believe in a coming One World Order like I do, a common language for the nations to communicate with between each other makes sense and is necessary. I believe we are seeing the beginning of this today.

 

I'm not arguing that all other languages will die out.

 

Then I think it is simply wishful thinking that it will be a languag that you already know.

 

I  think more likely technology will come into play (sort of like what Uhuru had on Star Trek) to help us with real time translations of conversations (ok more like Dr. Who) so that everyone can understand each other without everyone speaking the same language.

 

But who knows...anything can happen!

[Teannika]

Again, forgive my ignorance...but how can you avoid the early Christian church's influence? If you want a "Protestant" bible, then are you not committing the same mistakes you say other translations committed? Translating with a slant towards one way of approaching Christianity?

I am going to take a guess, but my guess is that my understanding of what the early Christian church looked like is different to your understanding.

 

Regarding the manuscripts I believe that they were copied many times over and spread throughout local churches, and spread throughout the world. (The holy scriptures were already in Britain in the first century, and very close to the time of Christ.) I believe that as the gospel went throughout the world the scriptures were translated into those languages and went too. The scriptures were never confined to one small group looking after and protecting "the originals."

 

So I don't believe that "one church" took care of one set of manuscripts and preserved them perfectly through time.

 

The King James Bible translators were not producing a bible to sell and profit from. Their intent was not to change God's words (see the 'Translators to the Reader' letter.). This is why they used a majority text approach, and a word for word translation approach. They were not changing the words of scripture to suit their beliefs. Although they did reject certain manuscripts as being corrupt. Their work is transparent in nature and early manuscripts in various languages that weren't held by the Catholic Church support the readings.

[need2read]

Teannika wrote: "I am speaking in a generalised way, yes. Because most people are not aware of why it is the KJV vs other Modern English Bibles. And when the major differences started to appear from what the KJV said.

 

When speaking early English translations, for example, if you compare the Geneva to the King James, if you read them together they are pretty close and in agreement for the most part. But if you compare a King James Bible to say the NIV you will start to see major differences in what the text says." (Sorry, the quote function wont work on my phone)

 

 

It is pretty extreme to say that it is the KJV vs all other modern English Bibles. The KJV is a very good translation, but so are many other modern translations. For example, I really like the ESV. It has the form and flow of the KJV but updates the vocabulary. I also like the NASB and the NIV. They are all good translations. Yes, there are some differences because some are word-for-word translations (the KJV, ESV) and some are thought-for-thought (NIV). It doesn't change the meaning.

 

I grew up in a church that used the KJV but my family used the NIV at home. I have read and memorized both extensively and I have never found any disagreements or changes. The actual words may be slightly different but the meaning is the same and that is what makes a good translation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Teannika]

Are people here aware of what the Catholic Church did because of translators trying to get the scriptures into the common language of the people?

 

Research what happened to the translator Wycliffe.

 

This is a quick cut and paste from wiki -

 

'The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings. The Council decreed Wycliffe's works should be burned and his remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[20] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.'

 

So years later after he had already been deemed a heretic and martyred, they dig up his bones to have another go at him. Historical details like this show that there always has been, and will continue to be, a war on God's words.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Prophetic understanding comes into play here. For those who believe in a coming One World Order like I do, a common language for the nations to communicate with between each other makes sense and is necessary. I believe we are seeing the beginning of this today.

 

I'm not arguing that all other languages will die out.

 

But as has been explained, we aren't seeing a transition to one language.  You saying there is one doesn't make it so.  While many (especially in the business world) in other countries pick up English as a second language, many in the U.S. do exactly the same thing and have for some time.

[Cammie]

I am going to take a guess, but my guess is that my understanding of what the early Christian church looked like is different to your understanding.

 

Regarding the manuscripts I believe that they were copied many times over and spread throughout local churches, and spread throughout the world. (The holy scriptures were already in Britain in the first century, and very close to the time of Christ.) I believe that as the gospel went throughout the world the scriptures were translated into those languages and went too. The scriptures were never confined to one small group looking after and protecting "the originals."

 

So I don't believe that "one church" took care of one set of manuscripts and preserved them perfectly through time.

 

The King James Bible translators were not producing a bible to sell and profit from. Their intent was not to change God's words (see the 'Translators to the Reader' letter.). This is why they used a majority text approach, and a word for word translation approach. They were not changing the words of scripture to suit their beliefs. Although they did reject certain manuscripts as being corrupt. Their work is transparent in nature and early manuscripts in various languages that weren't held by the Catholic Church support the readings.

 

Oh, I agree with you.  I believe they were copied many times and spread throughout local churches - that is the early Christian church I am talking about.

 

I don't believe there is one pure text that was untouched and "original."

 

What I have trouble accepting is that one group of translators (the KJV translators) had a better, deeper, more profound understanding of the word of God than ALL THE OTHER translators throughout history and that when they made their textual analysis they did so in a way that resulted in a more perfect text.

 

After reading this thread I myself did a little research about this issue of KJV only.  Very interesting to see the division amongst Evangelicals regarding this issue.

[need2read]

Teannika wrote "Are people here aware of what the Catholic Church did because of translators trying to get the scriptures into the common language of the people?

 

Research what happened to the translator Wycliffe.

 

This is a quick cut and paste from wiki -

 

'The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings. The Council decreed Wycliffe's works should be burned and his remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[20] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.'

 

So years later after he had already been deemed a heretic and martyred, they dig up his bones to have another go at him. Historical details like this show that there always has been, and will continue to be, a war on God's words."

 

 

I am sure that we are all aware. I have two questions:

 

1. How is that relevant to whether or not modern English translations other than the KJV are good translations?

 

2. What is the difference between the Catholic Church trying the prevent the Scriptures being translated into common languages and the KJV only position which restricts access to the Scriptures unless you can read and understand the KJV?

 

Also, do you realize that there were many Reformers who were translating the Bible into other languages, because English was only the common language of English people. You seem to be assuming that all of the common people in 1611 were English speakers. Is Martin Luther's German Bible inferior because it is not the KJV?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Teannika]

Teannika wrote: "I am speaking in a generalised way, yes. Because most people are not aware of why it is the KJV vs other Modern English Bibles. And when the major differences started to appear from what the KJV said.

 

When speaking early English translations, for example, if you compare the Geneva to the King James, if you read them together they are pretty close and in agreement for the most part. But if you compare a King James Bible to say the NIV you will start to see major differences in what the text says." (Sorry, the quote function wont work on my phone)

 

 

It is pretty extreme to say that it is the KJV vs all other modern English Bibles. The KJV is a very good translation, but so are many other modern translations. For example, I really like the ESV. It has the form and flow of the KJV but updates the vocabulary. I also like the NASB and the NIV. They are all good translations. Yes, there are some differences because some are word-for-word translations (the KJV, ESV) and some are thought-for-thought (NIV). It doesn't change the meaning.

 

I grew up in a church that used the KJV but my family used the NIV at home. I have read and memorized both extensively and I have never found any disagreements or changes. The actual words may be slightly different but the meaning is the same and that is what makes a good translation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, but there are doctrinal differences. I'd have to give you examples to show you. I grew up on various translations as well and what I didn't realise at the time was the extent of differences. A) because I didn't know when to look them up and to compare the translation with the KJV. B) because we can have a habit of reading our beliefs onto the text.

 

Even subtle differences are important to note because satan deceives through subtlety. I believe that today's moden bibles are moving further and further away from the truth because we are heading into apostasy. Thus the great confusion going on in the church. God told us also that there would come a day when there will be a famine for his words.

 

You could start by looking up these references in the NIV -followed by the KJV -

 

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.

 

Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20.

 

Luke 17:36; 23:17.

 

John 5:4.

 

Acts 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.

 

Romans 16:24.

 

1 John 5:7.

 

 

ETA: You've missed that the main difference results from the different underlying manuscripts being used.

Bibles are compared to the KJV because it is/was the standard and what was accepted as the holy scriptures by non-Catholic Christians for many years.

[Cammie]

Actually, reading a little more about the debate is fascinating.

 

Apparently the KJV only movement started from a book written by a author named Gail Riplinger.  Apparenlty her hypothesis was that all the modern translations (liberal and convervative) are part of a Satantic new age conspiracy to undermine the diety of Jesus Christ and the credibility of God's word.  The woman who wrote the book, apparently, has degrees in interior design and cannot speak either Greek or Hebrew herself.

 

This stand has aliented a good portion of the Evangelical community who rely on a number of different versions of the Bible in their own churches and who find the argument that those versions are somehow corrupt or less than the KJV to be ridiculous.

 

Those who support the KJVO position will often argue that the people who oppose the idea that the KJV is the only version actually oppose the idea of a perfect Bible.  And I think that may be correct.  Given the history, the multiplicity of languages and the passage of time, I do find that it stretches the imagination to believe that there is currently one perfect, unblemished, free from errors, version of the Bible.  That is why people study the Bible, the relevant history, the languages. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I am going to take a guess, but my guess is that my understanding of what the early Christian church looked like is different to your understanding.

 

Regarding the manuscripts I believe that they were copied many times over and spread throughout local churches, and spread throughout the world. (The holy scriptures were already in Britain in the first century, and very close to the time of Christ.) I believe that as the gospel went throughout the world the scriptures were translated into those languages and went too. The scriptures were never confined to one small group looking after and protecting "the originals."

 

So I don't believe that "one church" took care of one set of manuscripts and preserved them perfectly through time.

 

The King James Bible translators were not producing a bible to sell and profit from. Their intent was not to change God's words (see the 'Translators to the Reader' letter.). This is why they used a majority text approach, and a word for word translation approach. They were not changing the words of scripture to suit their beliefs. Although they did reject certain manuscripts as being corrupt. Their work is transparent in nature and early manuscripts in various languages that weren't held by the Catholic Church support the readings.

I think you misunderstand Cammie's question. The influence of the Early Church includes Holy Tradition. Take the Gospel of Matthew for instance. How do you come to have it in your Bible today? The original manuscripts or copies of the Aramaic text were lost long ago. It was passed down through oral tradition and the earliest copies used by the church were translated to Greek.

 

Furthermore, I think Cammie may have been referring to the fact that there'd be no KJV or any other translation/version were it not for the Early Church. Everyone has a Catholic bible.

[bolt.]

it's hard to read past so many obvious KJVO-and-beyond misunderstandings and not argue with each individual point, off in 100 different directions. I don't think it would help anyone if I did, but I don't want them to stand as if no one objected.

 

Does anyone actually want me to bother rebutting this?

[Teannika]

Teannika wrote "Are people here aware of what the Catholic Church did because of translators trying to get the scriptures into the common language of the people?

 

Research what happened to the translator Wycliffe.

 

This is a quick cut and paste from wiki -

 

'The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings. The Council decreed Wycliffe's works should be burned and his remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[20] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.'

 

So years later after he had already been deemed a heretic and martyred, they dig up his bones to have another go at him. Historical details like this show that there always has been, and will continue to be, a war on God's words."

 

 

I am sure that we are all aware. I have two questions:

 

1. How is that relevant to whether or not modern English translations other than the KJV are good translations?

 

2. What is the difference between the Catholic Church trying the prevent the Scriptures being translated into common languages and the KJV only position which restricts access to the Scriptures unless you can read and understand the KJV?

 

Also, do you realize that there were many Reformers who were translating the Bible into other languages, because English was only the common language of English people. You seem to be assuming that all of the common people in 1611 were English speakers. Is Martin Luther's German Bible inferior because it is not the KJV?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

1. It is relevant because there is a spiritual war going on over God's words just as there always has been.

 

2. The language of the KJV is not restricting anyone. My children can read and understand it well enough for their age.

 

It is more accurate to stick to a word for word translation, and it also holds the poetic style of the Hebrew and has other such good qualities. If accuracy and transparency isn't an issue for you then go with another English bible. If the Vatican manuscripts aren't an issue for you then go with another bible. If regular changes and updates to your bible version aren't an issue for you, then go with another bible. If missing words and verses aren't an issue for you then go with another bible. If new age terminology isn't an issue for you then go with another bible. If the beliefs of the scholars aren't an issue for you, then go with another bible. And I could go on..

 

 

(I think Martin Luthers German bible was a good one from the same reliable sources as the KJV from memory.)

[lulalu]

Teannika your understanding of how manuscripts were copied and spread around the world supports a non kjvo stance. The fact that we have all these manuscripts not held by one power is against the thought line of kjvo.

 

I was able to attend several debates by dr james white. Not over the topic of kjvo but on Islam. However, I greatly respect his work in apologetics and have watched many debates on kjvo. Here is a link to a well done one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0

 

This is not to you directly, but the lesders in the kjvo are not acurate with facts and history and thus weaken the apologetics with Scripture. I have seen far too many effects of thisen

 

Now yes i firmly believe we have too many english translations. But to say the manuscripts were corrupt, is to then say history of the christian church is corrupt. No manuscripts in the world read like the kjv. The TR was written after the kjv to match the kjv!

 

And King James gave word that had to be used. They had to say church instead of assembly, could not say immersion. There is bias in the kjv. As well as it was a political work! There are committees of believers who made some of the modern translations do they not deserve respect for their work?

[mommaduck]

I am speaking in a generalised way, yes. Because most people are not aware of why it is the KJV vs other Modern English Bibles. And when the major differences started to appear from what the KJV said.

 

When speaking early English translations, for example, if you compare the Geneva to the King James, if you read them together they are pretty close and in agreement for the most part. But if you compare a King James Bible to say the NIV you will start to see major differences in what the text says.

 

 

The mistake here is that one is a translation and the other is not and was never intended to be taken as such.

[Cammie]

1. It is relevant because there is a spiritual war going on over God's words just as there always has been.

 

2. The language of the KJV is not restricting anyone. My children can read and understand it well enough for their age.

 

It is more accurate to stick to a word for word translation, and it also holds the poetic style of the Hebrew and has other such good qualities. If accuracy and transparency isn't an issue for you then go with another English bible. If the Vatican manuscripts aren't an issue for you then go with another bible. If regular changes and updates to your bible version aren't an issue for you, then go with another bible. If missing words and verses aren't an issue for you then go with another bible. If new age terminology isn't an issue for you then go with another bible. If the beliefs of the scholars aren't an issue for you, then go with another bible. And I could go on..

 

 

(I think Martin Luthers German bible was a good one from the same reliable sources as the KJV from memory.)

 

 

I think it comes down to a need in some quarters for their to be a perfect, inerrant version of the Bible that they can say is the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD. 

 

There are groups that will always feel that there is a spiritual war over some issue or the other.  There are groups that will always feel that anything that doesn't comply with their vision is the work of Satan.

 

I don't think anyone here has a problem with anyone using the KJV or relying on the KJV entirely for their own study.  It is when people start attacking what other people rely on that the divisions start.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

it's hard to read past so many obvious KJVO-and-beyond misunderstandings and not argue with each individual point, off in 100 different directions. I don't think it would help anyone if I did, but I don't want them to stand as if no one objected.

 

Does anyone actually want me to bother rebutting this?

 

I would enjoy reading it.

[need2read]

I'm sorry, but there are doctrinal differences. I'd have to give you examples to show you. I grew up on various translations as well and what I didn't realise at the time was the extent of differences. A) because I didn't know when to look them up and to compare the translation with the KJV. B) because we can have a habit of reading our beliefs onto the text.

 

Even subtle differences are important to note because satan deceives through subtlety. I believe that today's moden bibles are moving further and further away from the truth because we are heading into apostasy. Thus the great confusion going on in the church. God told us also that there would come a day when there will be a famine for his words.

 

You could start by looking up these references in the NIV -followed by the KJV -

 

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.

 

Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20.

 

Luke 17:36; 23:17.

 

John 5:4.

 

Acts 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.

 

Romans 16:24.

 

1 John 5:7.

 

 

ETA: You've missed that the main difference results from the different underlying manuscripts being used.

Bibles are compared to the KJV because it is/was the standard and what was accepted as the holy scriptures by non-Catholic Christians for many years.

 

I'm sorry but none of these are doctrinal issues.  And all of the "missing" verses are in the footnotes of my NIV so they are there, but with a note that says that the most reliable manuscripts do not have them. Some of these examples are omissions of a sentence that has nothing to do with any doctrinal teaching, like "but Silas decided to remain there."

 

There have been manuscript discoveries since the KJV.  The Dead Sea Scrolls for example had some older and more complete manuscripts than anyone had ever seen.  That is how extant manuscripts are "rated," if you will, for accuracy.  The older they are the closer to the source.  I have never heard a Bible scholar or translator say that the KJV is the standard and that all Bibles are compared to it.  The standard is the original document and since we don't have those we have to rely on the oldest and most complete.  

 

Please understand that I don't hate the KJV.  It is a literary masterpiece and God has used it greatly to bring people to salvation.  But He has undeniably used other versions also.  

[Teannika]

But as has been explained, we aren't seeing a transition to one language. You saying there is one doesn't make it so. While many (especially in the business world) in other countries pick up English as a second language, many in the U.S. do exactly the same thing and have for some time.

You misunderstood my point then. My point is not that everyone is and will be speaking English (even though I do think we are moving in that direction), but it is THE language that is up there in being accessible and utilised by all nations to communicate. Just as you admit, in the business world for example.

 

I'm not sure what stats you are looking up. Maybe I missed your earlier links. A quick search gave me - http://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/

 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics

 

 

In bible times not everyone spoke Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. So I don't believe that God is limited to speak in those three languages, and it doesn't make sense to me that he wants us to keep trying to go back to those languages to figure out what his word really said especially when we don't have completed OT and NT manuscripts. So to me it makes sense that as he would bring his word into English and that he could influence the translators to choose the correct text and correct words. And then go on to use that English bible to take his word even to believers who's second language is English. I make this argument because I know many believers online who fit this description. They choose the KJV but live in Asia, the Phillipines etc.

[milovany]

it's hard to read past so many obvious KJVO-and-beyond misunderstandings and not argue with each individual point, off in 100 different directions. I don't think it would help anyone if I did, but I don't want them to stand as if no one objected.

 

Does anyone actually want me to bother rebutting this?

 

I think in the eternal scheme of things, you probably have better things to spend your time on. (*Hoping that came across the way I thought it, not the way it could read, which could be something akin to a rebuke on the way you use your time!)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You misunderstood my point then. My point is not that everyone is and will be speaking English (even though I do think we are moving in that direction), but it is THE language that is up there in being accessible and utilised by all nations to communicate. Just as you admit, in the business world for example.

 

I'm not sure what stats you are looking up. Maybe I missed your earlier links. A quick search gave me - http://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/

 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics

 

 

In bible times not everyone spoke Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. So I don't believe that God is limited to speak in those three languages, and it doesn't make sense to me that he wants us to keep trying to go back to those languages to figure out what his word really said especially when we don't have completed OT and NT manuscripts. So to me it makes sense that as he would bring his word into English and that he could influence the translators to choose the correct text and correct words. And then go on to use that English bible to take his word even to believers who's second language is English. I make this argument because I know many believers online who fit this description. They choose the KJV but live in Asia, the Phillipines etc.

 

 

I didn't admit anything.  I stated a fact - many in the business world learn English as the U.S. and other prominent English speaking nations are prominent in international trade.  I should note that you ignored the next part of that statement where I pointed out that those in the U.S. engaged in international trade often learn the language of prominent trading partners as well.

 

As is typical with the End Is Near folks, I can see you like to torture facts until they confess what you want to hear.

 

And it doesn't make sense that God would choose English considering at the time of the KJV it was spoken by fewer people than French.

[TechWife]

There are many other Christians in non-English speaking countries who seek to know what are the preserved words of God and genuinely wish to know which bible to use.

 

I'd say that because we have over 300 English versions we need a lot of direction on what to trust, so lots of discussion follows.

 

The one written in their native tongue would be the best one for them to use.

[Teannika]

Teannika your understanding of how manuscripts were copied and spread around the world supports a non kjvo stance. The fact that we have all these manuscripts not held by one power is against the thought line of kjvo.

 

I was able to attend several debates by dr james white. Not over the topic of kjvo but on Islam. However, I greatly respect his work in apologetics and have watched many debates on kjvo. Here is a link to a well done one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0

 

This is not to you directly, but the lesders in the kjvo are not acurate with facts and history and thus weaken the apologetics with Scripture. I have seen far too many effects of thisen

 

Now yes i firmly believe we have too many english translations. But to say the manuscripts were corrupt, is to then say history of the christian church is corrupt. No manuscripts in the world read like the kjv. The TR was written after the kjv to match the kjv!

 

And King James gave word that had to be used. They had to say church instead of assembly, could not say immersion. There is bias in the kjv. As well as it was a political work! There are committees of believers who made some of the modern translations do they not deserve respect for their work?

 

Please ask Mr White where the originals are so that I can read them. Where are these originals he esteems so highly? I know his stance and he does not have "holy" scripture. He believes all bibles are flawed. Just as Westcott and Hort do. Not everyone has taken that position historically.

 

I'll say it again. All manuscripts are not equal. How can they be if they are in disagreement? If you want to rely on two manuscripts to depart from the Majority Text, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus (that highly disagree between each other) then go for it. It's totally dodgy in an obvious way to me, but if you prefer them because of their age and because of who esteems them then go for it. If you truly don't believe that someone tampered with them in the past then you are welcome to them. I just don't trust them and that's why I stand against them.

 

Paul said that the words of God were being corrupted in his day, and that there were more people corrupting them than not. (2 Cor 2:17)

[TechWife]

They were not changing the words of scripture to suit their beliefs. 

 

However, they did have to meet the requirements of King James. There were many rules they had to follow. Among them was that they could not use the word "congregation." So, really, they changed the meaning of words to suit the beliefs of King James, which were strongly against the presbytery. 

[Teannika]

The one written in their native tongue would be the best one for them to use.

If they have a completed bible from the majority text then I agree.

[Teannika]

Actually, reading a little more about the debate is fascinating.

 

Apparently the KJV only movement started from a book written by a author named Gail Riplinger. Apparenlty her hypothesis was that all the modern translations (liberal and convervative) are part of a Satantic new age conspiracy to undermine the diety of Jesus Christ and the credibility of God's word. The woman who wrote the book, apparently, has degrees in interior design and cannot speak either Greek or Hebrew herself.

 

This stand has aliented a good portion of the Evangelical community who rely on a number of different versions of the Bible in their own churches and who find the argument that those versions are somehow corrupt or less than the KJV to be ridiculous.

 

Those who support the KJVO position will often argue that the people who oppose the idea that the KJV is the only version actually oppose the idea of a perfect Bible. And I think that may be correct. Given the history, the multiplicity of languages and the passage of time, I do find that it stretches the imagination to believe that there is currently one perfect, unblemished, free from errors, version of the Bible. That is why people study the Bible, the relevant history, the languages.

 

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous to state that Gail Riplinger started a movement that believes in the King James Bibles as the preserved word of God. The 1611 translators themselves believed that they were translating the very words of God. Have you read their letter in the preface?

[Dicentra]

I was under the impression that the translators working on the King James bible did NOT use word-for-word translation from their source texts.  But I could be wrong. :)

[Cammie]

I guess what I still really don't understand...is why it is so important to lift up the KJV over all the other versions?

 

You can think it is better for your needs, easier to understand, a better translation even.  But why the need to denigrate every other translation in the process?  Translations that millions of Christians have relied upon and that suit their religious needs.

 

No one doubts that the KJV is a good and useful version of the Bible.  But the idea that the other versions are the products of satan or of a spiritual war seems so extreme.