Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt!

The question in this thread is not how modern versions translate passages on separation, but whether we practice separation when we use our KJV.

Several have done a good job of addressing this issue.

Let's rephrase Paul's question this way.

Imagine you are the pastor of a non-conformist, sepraratist church soneplace in rural England in 1612. You have your Geneva Bible open and suddenly a rider appears. It is one of your deacons. "Pastor," he yells as his jumps off his horse," I have a copy of the king's new Bible. What do you think?" As you open the new translation you discover that it has the Apocrapha inserted between the Old and New Testaments. You realise that his translation team was composed totally of officials in the state church. You ministry is always in danger because you will not conform to the state church.


The question is this. Do you lay aside your Geneva Bible to use this new translation? Would you be violating your principles in so doing? Would you feel that you are compromising your beliefs by using the king's new Bible version?

I am obviously playing "devil's advocate" here folks. If we have a belief we ought to able to defend it. Do we have a reasonable answer for this question, or will we just shoot the questioner?

[ February 14, 2006, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Welcome to the BB to Mrs Woogie from me, too!

I agree with you here, C4K. In particular, cross-cultural missionaries who can't use English would be tremendously handicapped if we had to pay attention to what denominational group did the translating! Oftentimes there is little choice of translations in a given language, unlike in the English language.

The caveat is that Fundamentalists have always rejected translations done by liberals for the simple reason that liberals don't get it right. Going way back to the Revised Standard Version controversy, the RSV translated the Hebrew almah as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, and Fundamentalists rejected the RSV for that and other mis-translations.

I'm going to throw a bouquet to Paul33 here and his OP and mention that the fact that there were liberals on the RSV translating committe was evidently a factor in its rejection by Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists also in days past have rejected such liberal translations as the New English Bible and Good News for Modern Man.

In Japan the first modern colloquial version, the Kogo Yaku ("Colloquial Translation"), was rejected by some Fundamentalists partly because it openly used the RSV as a version for consultation. However, the main reason for its rejection to this day was not this, but that it translated the Greek future active indicative as a potential verb. Thus, "This same Jesus may come again...."

 

IMVHO this is the key issue, thanks for throwing it in John.

 

Not trying to point fingers or cause a huge fuss but I must tell you that the KJV is an Anglican translation although the Anglican church is certainly not the RCC there not exactly IFB.

Welcome.

 

Number one--we, as believers in Jesus Christ, are "sanctified"--which means "set apart". Set apart means "separated". Sanctification or holiness refers to being set apart to God from sin. Therefore, we are to practice separation in ALL aspects of our Christian walk--which includes reading God's Word. What is written in God's Word DOES matter.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
1 Thessalonians 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Number two--I did not always use the KJV exclusively. Even though my first Bible was the Open Bible, KJV (1974 edition), I did use other versions--mainly the NASB and the NKJV. I even argued with the KJV defenders, until I decided to do a Bible version study on my own, to check those KJV guys out. I did alot of this without the aid of a computer/internet and spent many months on this comparison study. Then when I got a computer in 1998 and got on the internet, I found tons of sites defending the KJV--I also read James White's book "The King James Only Controversy". I found James White to be much too "philosophical" for my taste--but I did finish the book. Most of his arguments were weak for the MVs. The only truth that James White convinced me of was that there definitely was a "KJV Only Controversy". I am a firm believer in the KJV as the most accurate translation of God's Word because it is based on the best Hebrew manuscript (Masoretic text) and Greek manuscript (Textus Receptus/Received Text). The KJV is God's preserved, inspired, and inerrant Word. I just recently read about Westcott & Hort in depth--they were both heretics, IMHO. Most of the MVs are based on Westcott & Hort Greek manuscripts--and I sure don't believe I need to be reading a version that is translated from manuscripts written by heretics.

Thirdly and finally--I sure don't see anybody making an attempt to "defend" any of the MVs--but as soon as a KJV Only person begins to defend the KJV, they are accused of attacking Bible versions. Not all KJV Only people are radicals and should not be "categorized" into "one" group. Most KJV Only people on this board have had their threads closed down for defending the KJV. The reason I defend the KJV is because I believe it to be the most accurate translation (and I use the word "translation")--translated from the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is God's preserved, inspired and inerrant Word for English speaking people, in the English language.

BTW--The KJV is NOT an Anglican translation--it was translated in England in English -- that makes it an ENGLISH translation. Maybe the translators were Anglicans--the KJV is NOT a denominational Bible.

 

Sorry Linda, the KJV was translated by Anglican scholars at the direction of the king. It is an English translation done by Anglicans.

Lets not get sidetracked that defenders of the KJV are censored. No one here is ever censored for their defense of a version unless they attack another person or version. This charge has been made over and over without any substantiation.

Now, to the topic. Just because the KJV was translated by Anglicans is no reason to reject it and it now compromise to do so. The scholars used what are still, imho, the best manuscripts and the best translational methods. That is all that really matters. Their ecclesiastical association has nothing to do with our choice to use it today.

 

Linda,

If you are a KJV defender, then why do you so often refuse to answer direct questions?

In your most recent post, you claimed that you believe it to be the "best" translation, using the "best" greek and hebrew texts. That is great!

Here is where the problem lies. Being the best is a far cry from being the only. I believe that Dr. Pepper is the best soda, made from the best materials. That does not make it the only.

I ask, where do you make the jump? Where do you go from "in my opinion, the KJV is the best, using the best manuscripts" to the "KJV is the only translation, God's only preserved and inerrant word in English"? Is it a leap based in objective fact, or subjective faith?

BTW, the KJV IS an anglican translation. It does contain many influences from the RCC. I cannot believe the denial of plain facts in those 2 cases.

May I pose a question? If you are "separated" from sin, and most assuredly false doctrines, what is your view on sprinkling or baptizing babies? Do you feel it is heretical? (please, allow for linda to answer that)

 

Please keep the thread on topic DD. If Linda answers your question it will carry the thread off topic. Please feel free to post that question in a general way elsewhere.

 

Agreed!

We should not base our selection of Bible versions on the denominational affiliation of the translators, with a couple exceptions I can think of. If there are errors in translation like in the Clear Word and New World translations, then I believe the Holy Spirit will give us discernment about those matters.

If it is compromise to use the KJV then it is compromise to use any English Bible version.

Greek 101 is being taught down the hallway on the left. Hebrew 101 is on the right.

 

This does not make the KJV bible an "angelican" bible. I think the question has been answered. Atleast from me it has. We are not compromising because we are using the KJV bible. The KJV is a free bible. Just like our country is a free country. Just because Englishmen founded our country does not mean that we are english. It does not mean we compromised with England. God uses differant people for differant things.

 

Hey, can we have a class in Japanese for the Japanese Bible, too? It wasn't translated by Anglicans, I know that.

 

Mrs. Woogie , The point of these points is that it is inconsistent and even dishonest to cast dispersions on modern translations but not apply or allow the same arguments against the KJV.

My bias or yours toward a particular version doesn't set that version apart to a double standard.

 

This thread is on page five - the standard policy limit. I think we have said all we can on the "compromise" issue so am issuing a six hour warning. This thread will be closed no earlier than 1600 EST today.

 

Don't worry, C4K, I've already answered that question and I will not repeat myself. I've stated the reasons why I use the KJV and DD's question is just another attempt to show his disdain for the KJV and the people who choose to use it.

As far as the KJV being an Anglican translation-- I said:

You said almost the same thing--the only thing I added was the word Maybe . You said:

That does NOT make the KJV an ANGLICAN Bible--that was the point I was trying to make.

 

Just can't see how a version commissioned by the king for the Church of England is not an Anglican Bible.

Doesn't mean I am compromising by using it.

No takers on my scenario above before the thread is closed?

 

That absolutely would be a compromise of principles C4K and a very good illustration to boot.

 

The problem with my scenario is that I don't know how I would respond to it .

 

This is too broad a charge Paul. I personally know of IFB churches who use the NIV, the NASB, and the NKJV. But that is the topic of another thread.

 

Roger -- it is a great example because it gets to the heart of the matter in that time period. I would have stuck with my Geneva Bible. I'm sure I would have (but I'm a rebel at heart anyway -- and don't think God hasn't taken me to task on multiple occassions for it!).

AT the time, I think it might not only have been a compromise, but some church members might have considered trechorous (sp?). I don't know that I consider it a compromise today as we are far removed from the time and place AND we have well established our separation.

[ February 14, 2006, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: mcdirector ]