Four reasonable questions concerning KJVO

[dad]

Hi, longtime lurker, fist time poster here. Title says four questions, but it was seven by the end of my writing and I don't know how to change the title. Sorry.

I’m posting this out of genuine curiosity. I have not arrived at a destination. I am simply trying to figure out where I stand on things. I want to give some background. I grew up a Christmas and Easter Baptist. Went on to a Christian college during the 2010 hipster pastor movement. Fell into Big Eva non-denominational mega church nonsense for a few years. Fell out of it, became a Quaker for a few years and love the doctrine of the Friends. It’s truly where my heart is. Unfortunately, Friends are dying and just not enough community for my family and I. I have always been a Christian, but certainly not practicing my faith. Last year, found my fire for God again and have had trouble finding a Church home. Recently began attending a KJVO Baptist church and it's left me with some questions/thoughts I need to flesh out and need some help. I have watched/read a ton about this and have talked to a few people. I don’t have social media to explore this stuff and I think the internet with it’s vast amount people can help me think through this.

1. OK, first things first. This is something I can't quite seem to comprehend. I think this point supports the KJVO stance (which isn’t my goal one way or the other). I hear people say all the time. KJV is a fine translation to use along with most others (NASB, CSB, ESV). But then will always say something like, The NIV or NLT Is fine to use but I wouldn't use it for deep Bible study or Sermon prep. If all Bibles are fine to use, then why would those translations fall short for study or sermon prep? To continue that logic, people all agree that things like The Message Bible are “bad” translations. But who gets to define that and why? Because if you say The Message is a bad translation, couldn’t you say the same thing about any translation you wanted to? I do know the history of The Message so that may be a bad example. So let’s take the NIV. Many people bash on it and if we’re saying it’s right do to that because it’s a bad translation, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that not all translations are “fine to use?” My main concern with this question is that don't we either have to believe that we have a "perfect" Bible or not. I hear a lot of people say we don't have a perfect bible which kind of surprises me because isn't that a basic tenant of the faith?


2. And what about when a translation flat out says different things like the KJV verse Matthew 17:21 (and others). This one is a pretty big deal. Let’s just say that modern versions correctly remove these verses. If so, then doesn’t that have a big impact on our lives? I guess my point with this one is that someone has to be correct? In the case of Matthew 17:21, you either believe prayer and fasting play a role in this or not and that seems to have a major impact on our life.



3. Why the KJV and not the Geneva Bible or the Bishops Bible? I don’t' really see an answer for this specific question. Why is the KJV God's pure word, but nothing else. The answers seem to just be "because that's what we believe." So maybe someone who is KJVO can answer this. Wouldn't it stand to reason that it was better to be textus receptus only instead?


4. KJVO advocates seem to have an issue with the Bible being updated. The question I have is this: If we're fine with the Bible being updated, how can we trust it? Couldn’t it just be updated again and say something different then too? From what i understand, the 1611 KJV acknowledges it's updates and basically says there should be more. I might be misunderstanding this so please, if you're KJVO fill me in on this question.


5. From what I understand, the KJV is not copywritten in the US (but in the UK it is or so I've heard). I've also been told that when a version is copywritten, there usually has to be a change accompanying it like less than 1k verses used, less than 10% used in the new translation and this normally depends on the publisher. Wouldn’t it seem that there is a financial incentive to create new versions? All the major publishes have a KJV so it's not like money isn't being made their either.


6. In my “research” it seems there are over 5,000 “majority text” manuscripts and only about “50” critical text manuscripts. I know the argument is that they’re older therefore more reliable, but why is that the case? Older doesn’t necessarily mean better does it? Couldn't more mean better?

7. Finally, I'm not sure why the KJV only stance is considered extreme. I don't really see people calling Jewish people extreme for the use of the Tanakh and nothing else or Muslims who use the Qur'an and nothing else. I know in this forum wouldn't agree with the religious beliefs, but those views are reasonably accepted in society but if you tell someone you're KJVO, they think you're crazy.


I don't have an agenda here. I'm not KJVO or anti KJV. My beef is that 9/10 it seems no one is asking these questions. All the KJVO critics rely heavily on calling the KJVO overzealous nutcases or say they haven't truly thought things through. I don't believe that to be the case. Sure, I have met some nutjobs (like I have in almost any church I've been too), but the KJVO church I know are not fundamentalist or unintelligent. They are deep thinkers about Bible issues and want to help.


If this post is not allowed or starts too an argument rather than become something helpful, I apologize.

 

[Logos1560]

My main concern with this question is that don't we either have to believe that we have a "perfect" Bible or not. I hear a lot of people say we don't have a perfect bible which kind of surprises me because isn't that a basic tenant of the faith?

To be a basic tenant of the faith something has to be clearly taught in Scripture. The Scriptures do teach that God directly gave the Scriptures by a miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that God gave absolutely pure, perfect, or inerrant Scriptures. Those Scriptures are in the original languages. Those Scriptures still accurately record some lies stated by Satan and by imperfect people. According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3). Once the New Testament was completed, the process of the giving of Scripture by inspiration to the prophets and apostles ceased or ended.

On the other hand, the Scriptures do not teach that later post-NT Bible translations would be made by this same process of a miracle of direct inspiration of God. It was the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles that was by the divine process of direct inspiration of God, not later post-NT translating. There is no mention of post-NT Bible translating in 2 Timothy 3:16. 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:21 or any other verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of post-NT Bible translations is by direct inspiration of God. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation/interpretation decisions of any one exclusive group of textual critics and translators. The Scriptures do not teach that the process for the making of the 1611 KJV was different than the process for the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. If inspiration were supposedly a quality or attribute that could be transferred to post-NT Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not explained how it was not present in the pre-1611 English Bible translations (of which the KJV is a revision) in the same sense as they try to claim inconsistently only for the KJV. Human claims of perfection for post-NT Bible translations are not actually taught in Scripture so they are not a basic tenant of the faith. The faith once delivered to the saints did not include any claim of perfection for one English Bible translation in 1611 that has been revised and corrected in several later revised editions. If the 1611 KJV was supposedly made by the process of direct inspiration of God, it would not have needed to be revised, changed, or corrected in over 2,000 places in post-1900 editions of the KJV. Why would there be a need to claim a perfect English Bible translation after 1611 if there was no need for a perfect English Bible translation before 1611? The wisdom from God above which is without partiality (James 3:16) would not show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611. Would a basic tenant of the faith encourage believers to commit sin by having respect to persons to the makers of the KJV (James 2:9)?

 

[dad]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This makes a lot of sense. You don't know what you don't know and your response showed me what I didn't know. Thank you.

 

[Deacon]

As I traveled through Springfield, Ohio on Saturday, I passed a church named, "King James Bible Church".
Who is it that's being extreme?

1. My main concern with this question is that don't we either have to believe that we have a "perfect" Bible or not.
I hear a lot of people say we don't have a perfect bible which kind of surprises me because isn't that a basic tenant of the faith?

The Scriptures were written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. There is a long history of their translation into various other languages. Translation is not perfect, languages differ in a variety of ways.
There are many fine English translations today. My advise is to begin by using the translations of the congregation you are in and and read it's preface. There you can pick up the translators philosophy of translation, what they think is important about the translation they did.
The KJV originally had a preface, but overtime it was not included with the translation. I've linked the preface to the first site offering it that popped up in a search >>> [KJV Preface LINK]
It is wise during your study of the Bible to compare a variety of translations, you'll get a fuller sense of the meaning.
Our Bibles are authoritative and trustworthy.

2. And what about when a translation flat out says different things like the KJV verse Matthew 17:21 (and others).
Just how often do you "pray and fast"? Missing verses are present in EVERY version, the KJV included. If you are curious, you can study each passage out and learn why one version has the passage and another doesn't. Often the "missing" passages are mirrored in other portions of Scripture [e.g. Mark 9:29].

3. Why the KJV and not the Geneva Bible or the Bishops Bible? I don’t' really see an answer for this specific question. Why is the KJV God's pure word, but nothing else. The answers seem to just be "because that's what we believe." So maybe someone who is KJVO can answer this. Wouldn't it stand to reason that it was better to be textus receptus only instead?
Again, read the preface of the Bible you choose and sometimes knowing a bit of history helps. King James authorized his chosen translators to make a translation that was less critical of his monarchy than the previous versions.

4. If we're fine with the Bible being updated, how can we trust it? Couldn’t it just be updated again and say something different then too?
Languages change, the source text stays the same. If a question develops about a passage where the meaning has changed, compare versions or better yet examine the original language text.

5. Wouldn’t it seem that there is a financial incentive to create new versions? All the major publishes have a KJV so it's not like money isn't being made there either.
Bible scholars and pastors develop commentaries on the Bible. Often they will translate the original language Scriptures into their own translation. It is their passion and expertise. But no one is going to get financially rich by translating the Bible. It's a task that requires a vast amount of scholarly study and time. There are easier ways to get rich.

6. In my “research” it seems there are over 5,000 “majority text” manuscripts and only about “50” critical text manuscripts. I know the argument is that they’re older therefore more reliable, but why is that the case? Older doesn’t necessarily mean better does it? Couldn't more mean better?
I'm not sure where your numbers come from - they're off... but anyway... simply the more hands that have copied a document, the greater the odds of a mistake. And don't assume that the textus receptus has a single form, there are scads of different variances within the majority text.

7. Finally, I'm not sure why the KJV only stance is considered extreme. I don't really see people calling Jewish people extreme for the use of the Tanakh and nothing else or Muslims who use the Qur'an and nothing else. I know in this forum wouldn't agree with the religious beliefs, but those views are reasonably accepted in society but if you tell someone you're KJVO, they think you're crazy.
Islam discourages translation of its holy book recognizing that translations cannot convey the whole meaning. Judaism has a long history of translation in to other languages.
The Tanakh simply describes the Jewish Scriptures. It is an acronym for the three portions of their Scrioptures (Torah (Law), Nevi'i m (Prophets) and Ketuvin (Writings). I've got a variety of translations of the TANAKH in my personal library.
Christianity realized that in order to bring the Good News to as many peoples as possible, translation into their native language is vital. The KJV was written to people in 1611 and is not how people speak today.
I've met some KJVO nut jobs... we have a collection of them on the BB. But generally if we downplay differences and emphasize our similarities we can get along.
Quite a few of my favorite posters take positions that I disagree with... and I still consider them my friends.

I think it would be good if at the end of the day, we could feel that we could sit down together and have a meal... perhaps even communion... and fellowship together.

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

3. Why the KJV and not the Geneva Bible or the Bishops Bible? I don’t' really see an answer for this specific question. Why is the KJV God's pure word, but nothing else. The answers seem to just be "because that's what we believe." So maybe someone who is KJVO can answer this. Wouldn't it stand to reason that it was better to be textus receptus only instead?

Your third question indicates one of the problems with inconsistent, human claims of perfection for the KJV, which was a revision of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles. I have raised similar questions to KJV-only advocates, and they have given no satisfactory answers to them.

If these pre-1611 Bibles were the word of God in English as the KJV translators themselves suggested in their preface to the 1611, did they supposedly cease to be the word of God after other men revised or updated them in a later translation? Did the first authorized English Bible [the Great Bible] expire or cease to be the word of God at some point? Did the Geneva Bible [the authorized English Bible in Scotland] cease to be the word of God at a certain date? Did the Bishops’ Bible [the second authorized Bible in England] cease to be the word of God in English at some point?

If these pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of God in English and were counterfeits as some KJV-only reasoning suggests, what would that suggest about the KJV which is truly a revision of them? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," “pure,“ or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Were all the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles fixed, solid, and pure?

According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities or properties that were not present in them? How could a pre-1611 English Bible give the KJV something that it does not have itself? How could a revision of an earlier English Bible have any qualities or properties that were not also present in that earlier Bible translation?

According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inspiration? Could the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not directly given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can any imperfection, inaccuracy, impurity, or corruption in the pre-1611 English Bibles lead to perfection, purity, or incorruption?

There is way too much diversity or way too many variations in the pre-1611 English Bibles for any attempt to draw a broad-sweeping KJV-only generalization. At times the actual Bibles on the KJV-only view’s good tree differ significantly with each other. The many actual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles (of which the KJV is a revision) and the 1611 KJV are not infrequent, are not all incidental, and are not all minor. The pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV often dissent from each other, and they do not all agree in all readings and in all renderings. KJV-only authors have not provided an honest, complete evaluation and comparison, applying the same measures/standards justly, of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV. Facts concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision may be more of a problem for KJV-only reasoning instead of providing support for it. While KJV-only advocates may appear to want English-speaking believers to go back to 1611, many of them in effect imply that you cannot go back before 1611 and have the true word of God in English.

 

[xlsdraw]

I'm quite sure that the OP would be much better off seeking God's counsel directly in prayer on such an Important matter as this, than the biased counsel of BB members.

The ordinator of this forum proclaimed that he started this forum to combat KJVO. You can't be more biased than that.

 

[Logos1560]

How would appeal to the mystical or subjective feelings or experiences of a biased KJV-only person be better than counsel from the Scriptures?

Any bias that I have would be for the KJV which I have read and studied over 50 years.

A scriptural view of Bible translations would be true both before and after 1611 while a modern KJV-only view has not been demonstrated to be true before 1611.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

Writing for all the translators in the 1611 preface, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

 

[37818]

A first question.

If all Bibles are fine to use, then why would those translations fall short for study or sermon prep?

This goes to two main issues of translation.
1) The texts being translated.
a) The language, Hebrew, Aramaic, Old Testament.
b) The Greek New Testament.
c) Known textual variants in the texts.
2) How and what different word or words are chosen to translate a word and words deemed needed to be added by the translator(s) do to grammar and/or context.

 

[Deacon]

Over the years I've had the chance to chat with quite a few students of a nearby Biblical University.
It's in their Senior year that many undergrads are exposed to the study of textual criticism.

It's a real eye-opener for some;
The topic challenges their comprehension of basic doctrinal beliefs;
Many struggle as they seek to integrate the new knowledge into their faith walk.​

Knowledge of the science of textual criticism is not essential for believers.
And it isn't a topic that I wouldn't bring up until a person is solidified in their faith.

If you are struggling to pick a Bible version, certainly textual criticism is a topic that you may be introduced to...but I wouldn't recommend dwelling on it.
...the study of textual criticism may open doors to doubt and confusion that don't need to be opened until there is a pressing desire.
Some have even forfeited their profession.

Be curious but guard your faith, keep that which is committed to your trust, protect your faith fiercely.
Be wary when discussions contend with your faith.

Rob

 

[Baptizo]

I would say it is fine to remain in your church as long as they are doctrinally sound and do not idolize the KJV by incorporating its so-called “perfection” in every sermon which would be idolatry.

I used to be a KJVOnlyist and what lead me out of it were simple historic facts surrounding the translation process.

For example, if the KJV was divinely inspired into the English language why are scribal errors still in it? For example:

2 Chronicles 22:2 - Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

2 Kings 8:26 - Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

You can easily figure out Ahaziah’s age is supposed to be 22 otherwise that would make him older than his father. This was a simple copyist mistake.

The NIV fixes this by having 22 years old in both places. Therefore, I could claim the NIV is divinely inspired because it removes the error.

This is one example of many. Check out the book “The King James Only Controversey” by James White if you want to know more than what I can provide off the top of my head.

 

[dad]

There are so many thoughtful and helpful replies here. I appreciate you guys/gals taking the time to write them out. I certainly have and continued to pray and read my Bible about these issues, but always found it helpful to talk with people about things. Thank you.

 

[JD731]

Hi, longtime lurker, fist time poster here. Title says four questions, but it was seven by the end of my writing and I don't know how to change the title. Sorry.

I’m posting this out of genuine curiosity. I have not arrived at a destination. I am simply trying to figure out where I stand on things. I want to give some background. I grew up a Christmas and Easter Baptist. Went on to a Christian college during the 2010 hipster pastor movement. Fell into Big Eva non-denominational mega church nonsense for a few years. Fell out of it, became a Quaker for a few years and love the doctrine of the Friends. It’s truly where my heart is. Unfortunately, Friends are dying and just not enough community for my family and I. I have always been a Christian, but certainly not practicing my faith. Last year, found my fire for God again and have had trouble finding a Church home. Recently began attending a KJVO Baptist church and it's left me with some questions/thoughts I need to flesh out and need some help. I have watched/read a ton about this and have talked to a few people. I don’t have social media to explore this stuff and I think the internet with it’s vast amount people can help me think through this.

1. OK, first things first. This is something I can't quite seem to comprehend. I think this point supports the KJVO stance (which isn’t my goal one way or the other). I hear people say all the time. KJV is a fine translation to use along with most others (NASB, CSB, ESV). But then will always say something like, The NIV or NLT Is fine to use but I wouldn't use it for deep Bible study or Sermon prep. If all Bibles are fine to use, then why would those translations fall short for study or sermon prep? To continue that logic, people all agree that things like The Message Bible are “bad” translations. But who gets to define that and why? Because if you say The Message is a bad translation, couldn’t you say the same thing about any translation you wanted to? I do know the history of The Message so that may be a bad example. So let’s take the NIV. Many people bash on it and if we’re saying it’s right do to that because it’s a bad translation, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that not all translations are “fine to use?” My main concern with this question is that don't we either have to believe that we have a "perfect" Bible or not. I hear a lot of people say we don't have a perfect bible which kind of surprises me because isn't that a basic tenant of the faith?


2. And what about when a translation flat out says different things like the KJV verse Matthew 17:21 (and others). This one is a pretty big deal. Let’s just say that modern versions correctly remove these verses. If so, then doesn’t that have a big impact on our lives? I guess my point with this one is that someone has to be correct? In the case of Matthew 17:21, you either believe prayer and fasting play a role in this or not and that seems to have a major impact on our life.



3. Why the KJV and not the Geneva Bible or the Bishops Bible? I don’t' really see an answer for this specific question. Why is the KJV God's pure word, but nothing else. The answers seem to just be "because that's what we believe." So maybe someone who is KJVO can answer this. Wouldn't it stand to reason that it was better to be textus receptus only instead?


4. KJVO advocates seem to have an issue with the Bible being updated. The question I have is this: If we're fine with the Bible being updated, how can we trust it? Couldn’t it just be updated again and say something different then too? From what i understand, the 1611 KJV acknowledges it's updates and basically says there should be more. I might be misunderstanding this so please, if you're KJVO fill me in on this question.


5. From what I understand, the KJV is not copywritten in the US (but in the UK it is or so I've heard). I've also been told that when a version is copywritten, there usually has to be a change accompanying it like less than 1k verses used, less than 10% used in the new translation and this normally depends on the publisher. Wouldn’t it seem that there is a financial incentive to create new versions? All the major publishes have a KJV so it's not like money isn't being made their either.


6. In my “research” it seems there are over 5,000 “majority text” manuscripts and only about “50” critical text manuscripts. I know the argument is that they’re older therefore more reliable, but why is that the case? Older doesn’t necessarily mean better does it? Couldn't more mean better?

7. Finally, I'm not sure why the KJV only stance is considered extreme. I don't really see people calling Jewish people extreme for the use of the Tanakh and nothing else or Muslims who use the Qur'an and nothing else. I know in this forum wouldn't agree with the religious beliefs, but those views are reasonably accepted in society but if you tell someone you're KJVO, they think you're crazy.


I don't have an agenda here. I'm not KJVO or anti KJV. My beef is that 9/10 it seems no one is asking these questions. All the KJVO critics rely heavily on calling the KJVO overzealous nutcases or say they haven't truly thought things through. I don't believe that to be the case. Sure, I have met some nutjobs (like I have in almost any church I've been too), but the KJVO church I know are not fundamentalist or unintelligent. They are deep thinkers about Bible issues and want to help.


If this post is not allowed or starts too an argument rather than become something helpful, I apologize.

Responding to point #1.
Just a thought here, but you seem by your own testimony to be unstable in the faith and in violation of what a strong belief in the words of scriptures would definitely prevent. You mentioned different ideas about the Christian faith that you have been drawn to but the words of God are presented through these apostles and prophets and eye witnesses of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and God has preserved them and things that happened during those days still impacts us today and will for all eternity and remains the only divine authority for the church of Jesus Christ. So, one has only one shot to get it right. About 70 years typically. You must choose what and who you will believe.
There is a vast difference in what the Christian community believes when they are reading the original language works or a translation into different languages. It really doesn't matter which. There is no unity, even in churches, as you have demonstrated with your experience. Then when you add in a multitudes of different translations into the same language, all having different words, it adds confusion and the conclusion has to be that individual words do not matter with those who accepts this practice as being holy as long as one believes the overall message. A unity of belief is out of the question with those who interpret the Bible under this philosophy. God says he is not the author of confusion. At least it says that in the Bible I read and study.

Here are two verses that are direction for us on the subject of the Christian faith that is relative to this discussion.

Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

There is an eternal consequence for believing and preaching either right or wrong.

One more verse;

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Our duty is to submit to will of God the Father out of a sense of love for him and if there is a doubt to give him the benefit of it.


Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Compare this one with1 Cor 1:10 above.

This continual translation business into the same language with different words is a new thing in the earth and can continue because it is accepted and tolerated with the majority. It is an end times practice after 2000 years of the working of the leaven of corruption in the church. It is a violation of the spirit of Paul's instructions in his letter to the Corinthians and by extension to us.

I recommend the KJV only for the pure words of God in the English language.

 

[37818]

Just a thought here, but you seem by your own testimony to be unstable in the faith and in violation of what a strong belief in the words of scriptures would definitely prevent.

Romans 2:1, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Matthew 7:2-3, For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

And applies to me too.

 

[JD731]

Romans 2:1, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Matthew 7:2-3, For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

And applies to me too.

Point please.

 

[37818]

Point please.

Believe the words.

Romans 2:1, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Matthew 7:2-3, For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[JD731]

Believe the words.

Are you suggesting that my comments have violated those instructions?

37818 said: ↑
Romans 2:1, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Matthew 7:2-3, For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[37818]

Are you suggesting that my comments have violated those instructions?

Just a thought here, but you seem by your own testimony to be unstable in the faith and in violation of what a strong belief in the words of scriptures would definitely prevent.

 

[JD731]

I am still guessing what your point is but the reason I posted in that fashion is because the op had by his testimony been unsure of the people to fellowship with, those mentioned surely believing different doctrines from one another. The passage I quoted from, Eph 4, gave the antidote to being carried away with winds of doctrine. This gives a learning structure that is in place no matter if you were living in 60 AD or in 2024 AD. It is the same for everyone. It includes apostles whose words we have written & preserved for us.
He asked questions and I singled out question #1 and provided my answer.

Here, look at it again and check the end goal.

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

If you do not agree with this it is okay with me. No one is trying to make you believe anything.

 

[Mikoo]

Responding to point #1.
Just a thought here, but you seem by your own testimony to be unstable in the faith and in violation of what a strong belief in the words of scriptures would definitely prevent. You mentioned different ideas about the Christian faith that you have been drawn to but the words of God are presented through these apostles and prophets and eye witnesses of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and God has preserved them and things that happened during those days still impacts us today and will for all eternity and remains the only divine authority for the church of Jesus Christ. So, one has only one shot to get it right. About 70 years typically. You must choose what and who you will believe.
There is a vast difference in what the Christian community believes when they are reading the original language works or a translation into different languages. It really doesn't matter which. There is no unity, even in churches, as you have demonstrated with your experience. Then when you add in a multitudes of different translations into the same language, all having different words, it adds confusion and the conclusion has to be that individual words do not matter with those who accepts this practice as being holy as long as one believes the overall message. A unity of belief is out of the question with those who interpret the Bible under this philosophy. God says he is not the author of confusion. At least it says that in the Bible I read and study.

Here are two verses that are direction for us on the subject of the Christian faith that is relative to this discussion.

Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

There is an eternal consequence for believing and preaching either right or wrong.

One more verse;

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Our duty is to submit to will of God the Father out of a sense of love for him and if there is a doubt to give him the benefit of it.


Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Compare this one with1 Cor 1:10 above.

This continual translation business into the same language with different words is a new thing in the earth and can continue because it is accepted and tolerated with the majority. It is an end times practice after 2000 years of the working of the leaven of corruption in the church. It is a violation of the spirit of Paul's instructions in his letter to the Corinthians and by extension to us.

I recommend the KJV only for the pure words of God in the English language.

I recommend the NASB only for the pure words of God in the English language.

 

[Logos1560]

I recommend the KJV only for the pure words of God in the English language.

Your recommendation is not Scripture.

Are you recommending an opinion or tradition of men?