Question for users of the KJV

Cynic, your statement doesn't represent all KJVers. I would be completely happy to let everybody use their own favorite, but if even one version was outlawed, wouldn't it be only a matter of time until they all were.

What is it with everyone that they want to take my KJV away ?

 

So, Brother, shouldn't we who use a different translation be allowed to fight for our translations, too? You still miss the point that even the KJV translators admitted that it was exactly that...and not perfect at that!

I also saw the post on page 5...believe me, I hope NNE wants to take your KJV away from you, but I do wish people of the KJV persuasion would quit trying to depict us who no longer use the KJV as "unsound", backslidden, etc. We are not.

B.T. [/QUOTE]

I am sorry there are folks who will doubt your salvation because of what Bible you use. That just ain't right.

If they outlawed any Bible, I would be very concerned. Yes, Bro Tony, fight for your Bible, use the Bible you are guided by the Holy Spirit to use. And don't let what people, no matter how educated, make the decision for you.

I used to use the Living Bible, I got from my dad, who got it at a Billy Graham crusade. But when I first started seriously reading the KJV, (it wasn't easy, at first) the words came alive, and I fell deeply in love with it. I use my Living Bible sometimes as a guide with my daughter, when telling her Bible stories. The English used is better for story telling, but for my personal use, I guess I'm stubborn, but I don't even want to consider using another version. Until I learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramic. (HA!!!)

 

Warm Christian greetings!

If my AV was removed I would use either the NKJV or NASB as both use Formal type of translation which is more accurate than the "dynamic" form many other versions use.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

WOW! What a thread! Interesting question. I was at first moved to say, "No" then I continued to read. I must admit that there are many interesting points coming from the "MV" camp. And some equally valid points from the KJV camp. Some I have heard before and some I have not. It all tends to get an intelligent fellow like myself to think it through. And I still come up with NO! Follow up questions like "So you would rather have no Bible than have an NIV?" to the contrary; I am moved to think of the MILLIONS of Christians today who have no Bible at all. Period. Yet they still preach the Doctrines of Christ to the lost. Do the countries of China or Sudan come to mind here? I am saddened by what appears to be the motive of the question. Is it really to try and make some poor folks who spoke before they thought about it look like a fool? Or a cultist? Or uneducated? Or what? Or did they really speak their CONVICTIONS that they would indeed prefer no Bible to a corrupted Bible? There is a lot to be said for convictions my friends. For example, do any of the MV'ers have convictions about, say, alcoholic beverages? Or perhaps co-ed bathing? Or perhaps cussing? You see? Although this may not appear on the surface to be a matter of conviction, it nevertheless is about convictions. It is my sincerely held conviction that God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, in my heart it stands to reason that God does not like a group of Christians getting together for a Bible study and ending up arguing..."But MY Bible does not SAY that!" Does this make sense to any of you (KJV or MV)?Would it not be more productive in Bible study if everyone had the same WORDS in their Bible and the same convictions that they were hearing directly from GOD? Of course it would.
I answer your question with a resounding, "NO I would not want any other Bible than the one I TRUST". I trust my old fashioned, out of date, archaic KJB. Period. Because I believe that when I read it, I am hearing directly from God. What the 15th or 11th century christians did for a Bible does not even figure into the mix. Those long gone saints are in His presence and are getting it from the Lips of Jesus. Praise God for that! Amen? What matters is not what YOU do with this issue, nor what someone else may do with it.
What matters is what I do with it because YOU will not be standing before God on THAT DAY in my place. Therefore, who are YOU to determine or undermine or ridcule MY CONVICTION that God gave me a PERFECT Bible? Isn't that between me and my Savior?
Now if you want to believe that any old Bible will do. Go for it! Personally, I have a perfect God, a perfect Savior, a perfect Comforter, and a perfect Bible which comes from Him. And I am blessed beyond what I deserve because of it, for like I have already mentioned, there are MILLIONS of Christians in this world today who do not have ANY Bible.
AV1611Jim

 

What exactly do you expect? When you come to a board like this and post your opinions you should expect to have them challenged. You state your CONVICTION and those of us who disagree say, "Prove it." I'm sure you would love it if everyone else just acquiesced but some of us believe the truth deserves to be tried and proven.

If this is truly how you feel then why did you bring your CONVICTION in here where it would obviously be challenged? Why would you demonize the users of MV's by declaring them perversions if the issue is just between you and the Saviour?

The real issue seems to be that you want to hold an opinion, foist it on everyone else, and not be challenged.

Sorry, you came to the wrong place.

There are several KJVO boards out there where the moderators allow or even encourage the participants to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. They all agree with each other and pat each other on the back for being so spiritual and wise. All the while, they have shut off the testing of their ideas because deep down they don't want to know the truth.

I really appreciate the way this board is run. They allow maximum latitude of opinion while enforcing a good level of civility.

 

Tony;
1)Define perfect? I did that. Look to the last paragraph of my post. Perfect God. Therefore He gave us a perfect Book. Perfect, as in...Holy, with out error, complete, eternal, or do you prefer a dictionary definition?
Webster's 1828..."Finished; complete; consumate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind". There's the definition you asked for. Don't you have a dictionary?
2) Yes indeed the KJV translators humbly admitted that their WORK may not be perfect. But how does THAT prove the Bible is not? I quote,"The Scriptures then being aknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them?" And again I quote,"But what mention we three or four uses of Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practised, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ's time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also the perfection of Scripture?" So you see Tony, although the translators were humble enough to state their WORK may not have been "perfect" (see comments in the Epistle of the Translators to the reader concerning the different Hebrew words which even the Hebrews themselves were divided on) the translators do indeed affirm in many places that the Scriptures ARE perfect, my two examples being among the many in the translators' letter.
Scott;
I NEVER used the word "perversion" in my post. That is your doing. Also, NEVER did I demonize anyone for using a translation other than the KJV. In fact, if you would read my post carefully rather than superficially, you would find that I said if you want any old Bible, then go for it. I call to your attention the following: Webster's 1828, "demonize" is not even in the american language in 1828! So let's look to something more recent shall we for the sake of accuracy and modernity? Webster's 1977 Collegiate, (no entry for 'demonize' so let's look at the root) :hmmm It gives, "demon: an evil spirit; an evil or undesirable emotion, trait or state; a supernatural being of greek mythology intermediate between gods and men; one that has unusual drive or effectiveness". Not much help there huh? Let's try the Reader's Digest Encyclopedic Dictionary. "demonize: to make a demon of; to bring under demonic influence."
Considering the forgoing definitions I listed, to which are you referring that I did. And will you please provide a quote?
And Mr.Cynic;
..... (could not resist that one!)
As to my convictions, they are Biblically sound. Challenge them, pound on them, ridicule them, blast away! They are founded on the Rock of my Salvation. I believe Jesus knew the Scriptures were perfect and without flaw. I believe that Jesus when refering to Scripture never said, "it is better rendered in the hebrew...aramaic...greek, etc..." He simply said, "It is written...". I believe He just stated them and let the chips fall where they lay. I will not join in the group who say you cannot be saved without the KJV. That is preposterous! ( I know I already affirmed this in my previous post.)
Let me give you an illustration. The words of God are likened to a two-edged sword. To 'modernize' the illustration let's use firearms, ok? My KJV is an M14 and your NIV (you may insert NASB, RSV, NKJV, or anything else that is based on Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland here, ok?) is a 22cal. As long as you have the pistol pointed at the SAME enemy as I do then I will support your efforts to battle satan, the world, and the flesh. But IF you turn it on me, your fellow soldier, then EXPECT to be blasted! Now, I believe my M14 is much more powerful than your little 22, but at least your 22 will get the job done for which it is intended. It can still kill OR protect life. It does not have the SAME AMOUNT of power nor does it have the same RANGE but at least it has the SAME KIND of power (although greatly diminished) and will ward off attackers in a pinch. If you are using it to save souls and equip the saints, then fine. By all means use it! But at least be christian enough to have explicit faith in its INFALLIBILITY. How can you claim that you have the Word of God and yet in the same breath declare it is NOT PERFECT? Is God that weak that He cannot give every nation on earth a perfect Book in their OWN language? I don't get that about the MV camp. I am baffled. In one breath you claim to have faith in Him, and in the other you disparage His Book. I ask, is this rational? Is this reasonable? Is this Christian?
During the reformation, "Old Split-foot" waged battle against the publishing of the Scriptures in the common tongue. He used the Roman Catholic church to attain that end. To this, MOST would agree. When he saw that he could not defeat this effort, he then turned his attention on the Book itself and used the RC to publish a translation which would substantiate their perverted doctrines. To this, MOST would agree. His subterfuge was soon exposed, so why is it so UNREASONABLE to believe that he has tried a different tactic with the proliferation of multitudes of different translations to muddy the waters? Can anyone on this thread produce evidence of HUNDREDS of translations in ANY other language or nation of today's world? German? French? Danish? Italian? Russian? Spanish?
Although one may cite "facts" which appear to contradict my contention that there is ONE perfect Bible in the English language, their evidence does not stack up against the counsel of God. It appears that the 'scholars' who contend that there is no perfect translation of the Sciptures in English, are casting doubt on what EXACTLY are the very WORDS of God. Way back in Genesis that "Old Sly Devil" began this controversy, "yea, hath God said?" "Ye shall not surley die" "Your eyes will be opened" "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". At every turn he cast doubt on the words of god. Is it any different today? He knows what works, and he still uses the tactic today. He did in Jesus' day. He even was so foolish as to try it on Christ Himself. Why believe that suddenly we are immune to the same efforts? It was not the KJV men who started this idea that we NEED a new translation. It was men who fell for the old lie,..."yea hath God said...?"
I will not proclaim that the MEN who hold the MV position are evil, I leave that up to God. But I will loudly proclaim that this business of a new translation coming out every other year is certainly not of God nor is it constructive to the unity of the Blood bought church of the Living God. It causes way too much confusion to be of God.
AV1611Jim
PS; by the way, LDS, and JW do NOT have the KJV. You should KNOW this. It has been changed to fit their peculiar doctrines at their own convenience. Have you READ either of their publications they call the Bible?

 

By this definition, the NASB and NKJV are every bit as much the perfect word of God as the KJV is.

Wow, we're in agreement. Their work was the KJV, not the Bible.

No, you're right. You said they were corrupted. Sorry, although I don't see a significant difference in the weight of the indictment.

Thank you for graciously granting your permission.

I will assume that you really don't know the meaning and use of this word and offer this:

de·mon·ize Pronunciation Key (dm-nz)
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es
1-To turn into or as if into a demon.
2-To possess by or as if by a demon.
3-To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
demon·i·zation (-m-n-zshn) n.

You would be doing numbers 1 and 3.

 

I disagree. The NKJV, yes, but the NASB has some words and verses missing that make it incomplete.

 

If the NKJV is from the same text as the KJV ; then why the difference in Daniel 3:25 ?????( also the same in the RSV,NIV,ASV,NAB and NRSV.)

[ September 04, 2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: KJVONLY ]

 

What is the difference?

They look essentially the same to me.

-kman

 

The difference is that the MV's have The Son of God as a son of the gods Which one? I thought the Bible's theme was The Lord Jesus Christ? It would appear that the NKJV does not share the same text with the KJV.

 

KJVONLY, you really should check your facts before you make a public fool of yourself!

The KJV reads, "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

The NKJV reads, "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

Looks the same to me. Now, of course, you can see that the NKJV does not agree with the RSV, NIV, ASV, NAB and NRSV, as you claimed.

 

The difference is that the MV's have The Son of God as a son of the gods Which one? I thought the Bible's theme was The Lord Jesus Christ? It would appear that the NKJV does not share the same text with the KJV. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]If you read the verse in context, you'll see it was spoken by Nebuchadnezzar, who is a pagan so believes in more than one god. So he says something that demonstrates that he misunderstood what he saw. That doesn't mean the non-KJV Bibles advocate polytheism...

Context, context, context!

Eric

 

Well the copy of the NKJV I saw said son of the gods,a fluke? What about Matt 18:26, Matt 20:20, John 8:35,Acts 3:13,Mark 2:15(omited),Acts 17:29,1Cor 1:18,2Cor 2:15,Matt 7:14(difficult?!)Ps 109:6, I find it hard to belive that the NKJV derives from the TR!!!!! SMOKING!!!!!!

[ September 04, 2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: KJVONLY ]

 

My copy of the NKJV has "Son of God", too... and Mark 2:15 is NOT omitted... you must have the special, limited edition extra-corrupt version...

Eric

 

Yep must have!!! as opposed to the standard corrupt version...But what about the rest?????

[ September 04, 2002, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: KJVONLY ]

 

as opposed to the standard corrupt version...

And what is that?... the standard KJV?