Featured Bible debate

I find different translation doesn't take away from what I have already learned and include it with what God has already taught me. I have read the NIV old and the 2012 NIV, NASB, KJ and the NKJ. I loved each translation. So many meaning in English adds the more meaning I learn from each translation. I still do use the KJ to compare when something seems different to clarify not take away all what God is teaching through His word. They do have a translation version portion on BB where you can hear more from people who get into that type of discussion.

 

Hey Ryan, yes, I love my KJB. 'm a recovering KJVO ;-) Might I interest you in the book that finally convinced me that my only-ism was not warranted? I The Unchained Scriptures, by Rick Norris.
http://www.kjv-only.com/unboundscriptures.html

Look for this thread to be moved to the Bible versions section. Glad to have your participation on the BB.

 

Since my exodus, what is sad is that the whole KJVO issue is a tempest in a teapot! Practically no one outside of the KJVO churches is even aware that this issue exists! I feel I have 'expertise' (used very loosely) in a subject that hardly anyone cares about and most of those that do care are decidedly and almost assuredly NOT open to considering that they might be wrong.

Anyways, if their faith is working for them and if they need the KJV to be the ONE version, then perhaps we should leave them alone, no? Yet I can't help but think that had someone loved me enough to patiently present to me facts, that I would have been convinced of their case.

 

It would be fine to "leave them alone", except for the fact that we are told in the Scriptures to confront false teaching and those who cause division- Titus 3:9-11. And of all the teaching that I have heard as a Baptist, the KJVO issue is the most divisive and unscriptural of all.

 

In my experience, the most unscriptural & damaging belief is that one can leave their spouse if they want to, and that it's not a big deal.

 

I appreciate the richness of the different versions. Yes, KJVO is the only issue I can think of more divisive than the sovereignty free will issue. I cannot understand, over an entire life time, how some stop growing spiritually or even regress. We are suppose to mature, not regress. For example, those who think the hymns in the Baptist hymnal are sacred, and the contemporary music is some form evil, are barking up the same tree. Somehow, they have connected the hymns to phrases like "the good old days" or "this is the music Jesus worshiped to" when in fact, if they could hear one of the Psalms performed in a service in 30 AD, it would also sound evil to them.

It is like those who honor God by wearing clothes from the 1870s, or costumes for a supporting role in Little House on the Prairie.

The KJV is a good translation, but so is the NKJV, NIV, etc. I read the NKJV in church and study the NIV, but that is me. It makes it no more or less good or bad than those who read other versions.

By the way, in the example of the music above, I prefer the hymns, but that is not the point. The only conclusion I can draw about folks who do things like this is that they stopped growing, and their mind got stuck in some past fond year of theirs. It is almost like either King James or his Bible become the object of (I will not use the word worship) of extreme adoration, as an object within itself. I cannot explain the phenomina, except that thought process went amiss or became lazy.

This is one issue I have never gotten involved in like the free will issue. While both divisive, I do feel there are valid Scrpitural points on the Calvinism side and the Arminian side, and a discussion is a worthy pursuit. I wish it was more civil (like I am not at times) However, the KJVO debate is so ridiculous, that to me, it does not deserve one word uttered. It is like arguing the sky is green.

 

I agree, Ryarn, the KJV of the Bible, is to be loved and admired, but not worshiped. God inspired men to reduce to writing His Word. They wrote the revelation in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Individuals copied the revelation, and we now have copies of copies of God's word that vary.

Modern scholars believe the Critical Text probably comes closest to the original revelation, but others hold to the text underlying the WEB version, i.e. Byzantine.

There are some who continue to claim the corrupt text underlying the KJV, i.e. TR, is the best.

Bottom line, all English translations are based on underlying text that comes close or not so close to the original revelation. Then the translation choices further corrupt (or not) the transmission of God's word. However, these flawed English translations remain sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to provide us with God's word.

 

I grew up with the KJV, read it every day, and love the literary quality of it. From reading it, and Shakespeare, for 40 of my 64 years I am familiar with many of the definitions of the archaic language, but I still find phrases, ways that thoughts are expressed, that I have to go to a NASB, NIV (1984) or an ESV to understand correctly.

Last night I read the Book of James in the KJV and followed it with the NIV, and then with the ESV. James: 2-1 is a good example of what I mean in understanding a phrase more accurately in the newer translations. Another, for me, is 1John: 5-21. Read that in the KJV and then in the NLT.

The Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was one of the foremost expository preachers who ever lived in this world of time. I've read quite a bit of his published work and he has said that Westcott & Hort can be trusted. In his 8 volume series on the Book Of Ephesians he not infrequently compares translations and says (paraphrasing) that the AV (KJV) got it right or that the RV is the better translation.

I don't read the original languages so I cannot assess the accuracy of the translators choices but MLJ did read the Greek and the Hebrew. If he, with his vast knowledge of the texts, was confident in the CT then so am I. When we read the history of the Greek texts, TR, CT and MT, it is apparent that unless more early manuscripts are discovered we can never be sure whose interpretation of the texts is 100% correct.

As MLJ points out, the important thing is the doctrine, and that is not effected by the foremost translations previously mentioned. Sometimes I don't agree with the choices translators have made. For instance, in The Gospel Of Matthew 5:3 our Lord says, Blessed are the poor in spirit (KJV). The NLT has God blesses those who are poor and realizes their need for Him. The NLT translators have 'in spirit' footnoted. Reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones's exposition of this verse, in Studies In The Sermon On The Mount, (a masterpiece that every Christian should read) we find that only the 'poor in spirit' will be blessed of God. Being poor doesn't necessarily give one a contrite and humble heart.

I continue to read the KJV daily as my main source but I also back it up with the understanding I can gain from alternate translations. Mainly NKJV, NASB, and ESV in my particular case. I think that this is a better way to go.

 

Now, with THAT statement, I agree completey !!!:wavey:
I stay away from the KJVO thingy myself....I'm nominally KJVO, which is to say that I'm KJVO without teaching it as a doctrine, but a conviction that it is superior and that the TR is superior. I was raised in a church using the NASB or NIV.

There are different forms of KJV-Onlyism. I think it is only a problem when you make it an issue of doctrine, and not Textual Criticism. As an issue of Textual Criticism...I'm decidedly KJVO...as regards doctrine, it isn't a Bible Doctrine.

I cannot emphasize my agreement with 12-Strings MORE!, unless that changes, our position on the KJV or everything else means nothing in comparison. :jesus:

 

That is another biggie but it does not do as much damage to Missions and missionaries as KJVO has.

 

It does WAYYY more...Not "directly" perhaps, but it eats away at the foundation of the Church, and society as a whole. Lemme put it this way: You remove the easy-divorcism in the Church, and within a decade the money and resources and missionaries themselves sent to the mission field would DOUBLE. I realize that there are annoying KJVO types who make no sense and are rather insane...but you know what? The issue has gone full circle to where there are "anti-kjv-only" people who are as insanely pre-occupied as Ruckman himself.

There are people on this board whose pre-occupation with denying KJV-Onlyism... has become an unhealthy and fanatical obsession. They sound absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the KJV-ONLY types they are debating....They are fanatics and they have lost perspective in the same way that certain KJV-only types sometimes do.
If you honestly believe that in the end...eradicating KJV-ONLYISM will do more to help missions than eradicating easy one-step-two-step divorce and abandonment of the home and family...then quite frankly, you are indistinguishable from Peter Ruckman.

 

No...not so. I don't "prefer" the KJV...and I already stated that I am NOT kjv by tradition....I was raised in a church which used the NASB and NIV. Don't listen merely to the outlined positions that KJVO detractors have. I don't "prefer" it....I think it is VASTLY superior, and that whatever you are using is by comparison.... crap. That isn't Preference Salty.

I AM KJVO....I just understand that it isn't a "doctrine" issue.....It's an issue of Textual criticism....Don't put that nonsense label created solely by KJV-haters on me....I know the arguments well enough too.

 

Hey HoS, is there anyone out there (published in print or on the web) that you would say represents your view on the subject?

 

the problem is thatere isn't really any good solid written arguement for the TR textual basis as being superior to the CT, which would be able to present a case for KJV being superior!

Now, IF you change from the TR text, to the Majority/BTZ text, even though hold to superiority of the CT, TAHT does have scholarship behind that view!

Believe john of japan that posts here would be a good source for that!

 

Honestly...I don't think so. I hope there are, but, I am where I am due to my own studies...

Like the issue of Calvinism...
I have NEVER read a Pro-Arminian book in my life...never once...I have read about 8 books preaching Calvinism..
Similarly...I once read William Grady's book "Final Authority" (a pro-kjv book) once....but, since then...I have read James White's book "The KJV ONLY Controversy"..TWICE...and I have yet to find an argument which I buy which defeats KJV-ONLYISM..

What I do, is to stake out a position which I think to be correct....then I NEVER read a book which supports it...I ONLY read the opositional position...hence I have read 8+ books which are pro-Calvie...and 4+ books which are anti-kjv....

I am where I am, because, I have NEVER read an anti-kjv book which I found to be convincing (although reading it has helped me modify my position) and that is indeed critical. I am not "Doctrinally" KJV-ONLY...because "anti-kjv onlys" have surely convinced me that that is NOT a viable Scriptural "DOCTRINE".....I gained that much from them......
But nonetheless...I am absolutely convinced that..and this is where I stand:
the KJV is without peer...and that there will likely NEVER be an English Translation which is more accurate or better translated. for speakers of the English Language:

I DO NOT think it's "a-o.k." to pretend that Mark 16:9-20 is of NO consequence.
This has bearing upon the reality of Christ's Resurrection...and Paul has CLEARLY explained how that is an issue of why we believe the "blessed hope". If it be established that Mark 16: 9-20 is not original to the text....than the EARLIEST gospel says NOTHING about how Christ is Risen...That isn't ancillary, it's critical

Truth is, Westcott and Hort's manuscript (from which ALL...And I mean ALL....) modern Translations are derived, IGNORE or simply Do not Contain Mark 16:9-20...that's an issue worthy of investigation:

But, let's bring this closer to home.
Let's say that you're a Baptist and that you truly "Believe" that man must repent and believe before he is to be Baptisted...:

The STRONGEST verse you have is ground in Acts 8:27....
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Other than the KJV...There is NO translation ON EARTH (in English) other than NKJV...which includes this verse.

This verse INSISTS that one must "BELIEVE" BEFORE they are allowed to be Baptised.. This is absolutely NOT insignifigant.
The KJV-ONLY position speaks to this....

You do realize that the NIV simply OMITS... that verse...(LOOK at it..it goes from Acts 8:36-Acts 8:38) It literally SKIPS 8:37....so also ALL translations from Westcott and Hort's manuscript...This isn't "no-biggie"...
I am KJV because IMO Acts 8:37 matters doctrinally, and so does Mark 16:9-20
Look closely at your NIV...it literally skips from Acts 8:36-directly to Acts 8:38
That is NOT a "non-issue"..that particular verse may be the strongest most clear Baptist "Believer's Baptism" verse in the ENTIRE Bible...it absolutely MATTERS whether it's legit or not.

I am a Baptist, because I believe that Acts 8:37 is SCRIPTURE....The KJV contains it...and your NIV does NOT...that isn't just "a-o.k."

 

The NASB has Acts 8:37.