I used to be KJV-only, now I'm not and boy how the Lord has blessed my Bible studying

OK, how's this: when did the KJV become "it"? When the first one came off the printing press, or some time later? I think you'll see where my proof will come from, if you think this through...

 

Natters...you are absolutely correct...and therein lies the problem with this whole arguement about translations....we are merely argueing opinion....and nobody likes to hear their opinion is wrong or cultic or anything else.The Bible IS our rule for faith and practice as Bible believing Christians.There ARE good bibles...and [descriptive term not allowed on BB] bibles.The "fruit" of each is what makes the difference.It is also what creates the arguement.I'll stick with my KJV...it is the only one I personally have any confidence in.

Greg Sr.

[ February 14, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Gregory, it is against board rules to call Bibles "corrupted".

Sorry, but to those of us that do not hold your position you are attacking our Word Of God, not the doctrine.

This is not a double-standard. Cultism refers to the "doctrine" of KJVonlyism and nobody here denies that the KJV is also a translation of the "Word of God". It is just not the ONLY English translation.

 

Phillip...I respect the rules of this forum...that is why when I used the word "corrupted" I DID NOT identify any versions or paraphrases that I may have that opinion of.Your deletion of the phrase was unnecessary.I stated the truth without malice.I didn't pull a "Ruckman" and start slinging any epitaphs.By the way...I don't care much for him either.Now...if I had used that word and identified any specific translations you would have been thoroughly justified "by the rules" in deleting the reference.Chill man...I wasn't attacking anything specifically.You made an assumption based on the previous "tactics" of others.

Greg Sr.

 

By the way...just to clarify things..I went back just now and re-read Dr.Bob's posting rules and with all due respect,the word "corrupted" was NOT on the list of off-limits terms.However,the reference you just made referring to the KJVo "doctrine" as being a form of "cultism" would,in my opinion,be definitely OFF-LIMITS.You may want to <snip> your own post brother.We can't have any double standards here just to be fair.I'd have handled this matter in a PM if you had seen fit to do the same.Please accept my apology and I'll be happy to accept one from you as well.I'm done.

Greg Sr.

Greg Sr.

 

I realize you did not refer to any specific Bibles, but the implication was clear, so I decided it was best to edit the post.

Your motive had nothing to do with my decision to edit.

I was not using assumptions by others as my guideline, only that you called Bibles corrupt and since you have stated that only the KJV is correct, It was obvious which Bibles you were referring to.

I do not make the rules, just enforce them.

By the way, I do appreciate that you said you respect the rules of this forum.

Enough said about this issue. Carry on!

Thank you!

 

Getting back to the subject, you mentioned there was no scripture regarding the issue of more than one translation.

This is not a doctrine. The idea that there can only be one translation and that translation (although technically is) is not really in the language we speak today.

I ask you, why would English be the language that would be lucky enough to get the one and only correct Word?

I also ask how you explain all of the versions since 1611? If one is absolutely correct, which one would it be, the 1611 or more popular 1769 Oxford?

Then again I ask the OTHER major question I always ask those who believe in this theory: What exactly was the letter perfect Bible in English in 1550?

Why would the Crown make the translators change several verses in the KJV to more closely fit the Anglican church, while at the same time burning Geneva Bibles and going after Puritans who used the Geneva?

If you can answer these satisfactorily, then I would have to at least consider your assumption; so it would be nice to get some good answers which have not been forthcoming from anybody since I have been posting.

 

Marking

 

In HIS service;
jim

 

Jim, I have no problems with your answers. I may disagree with them, but you answered truthfully without malice and I appreciate that.

Is it your opinion that the KJV is the only letter perfect Bible there is and that no other English translation can be made? Or are you simply saying that the source material (usually considered the Byzantine text-type) is okay to make other translations?

What, in the HCSB do you think is slanted heavily SBC. The fact that "tongues" is translated into "languages"? What is wrong with this since "tongues" DID mean "languages"? Or have you other verses to refer to?

 

Okay, I'll bite. Could you please show us what God has specifically said about the KJV being the only legitamate English version of the Bible. I don't want your view, I just want what the God actually said about this issue.

Bro Tony

 

__________________________________________________

Letter perfect is a tough row to hoe! LOL I am not so sure where I am at with that one. I have one KJV (Oxford) that will print "always" while another (Cambridge) will print "alway". One will print "example" while the other will print "ensample". I understand the difference in the two usages, but obviously "letter perfect" it is not. Would you agree? So as I said, that is a tough row to hoe, and I think it is open for attack and miserable attempts to defend.

Source material is more accurate to my position. The KJV, IMO, is the ONLY one which accurately renders the source from which it comes. I have seen where the NKJV, while claiming to adhere to the same texts that the old KJV did, strays in places. I really do not think it possible for us today to accurately reproduce the source texts the KJV translators used, unless of course all their notes during the translation process could be produced. I think it would be nigh impossible to determine which sources influenced their decisions in every instance. They themselves said they considered many translations in other languages, MSS and prior English translations. In light of that alone it would be nigh impossible to know which they used and where.

I am going on memory at this point since all my material and references are in storage.


As to the HCSB, I will have to get back to you on that one. I need to go back over what I have seen posted in the variuous threads to provide examples. Truthfully, I am a bit lazy in that respect, so let's just say, until I have more information, I will retract that part about the HCSB, OK?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim, that is fine, I was just curious if you had seen other issues in the HCSB. I am serious about wanting to know if it does bias the translation and the only way to find out is to ask or do the research myself, but since I am not a particularly good scholar at Greek, I do not trust myself. Don't worry about it, if you find something, you may share it, if not that's okay too.

Regarding letter perfect perfection that is one common area where we do agree. And, I also agree that the TR as written is not the original KJ sources. It may be close, but there are obvious differences.

I think the NKJV is true to its word that it used the TR, but not necessarily clear that it does not always use the KJ sources.

I say this in all sincerity, since you are being very civil to me in your answers, Do you feel that you are KJV preferred, or more KJV only? (You can explain that, I'm not holding you to just saying one or the other.) and what is your reasoning behind your belief?

Let me tell you that I do appreciate your honest and civil answers. It is often difficult to get to the brass tacks on a person's belief with mud slinging. A civil dialogue can go a long way.

We may not agree, but we might understand each other better. Thanks.

 

Thanks Phillip. "I'm kool wid dat!"

As "some" here would define it, I am KJV preferred. As "others" here would define it, I am KJVo. As "still others" here would define it, I am KJVo#4.

Too often labels tend to cram a fellow into a mold which eventually either he or someone else can kick the sides out of.

With those qualifiers, I am KJVo. As defined by saying I believe the KJV as we have it today is the inerrant, infallible, only word of God for the English speaking people of the world today. I cannot fully disect that for all the self professed scholars on this or any other board, but I fully accept the KJV as being such as I have described it based on the information I have to date.

Does that mean that there are not "problems" with my position? No, in no way. But then again, there are also problems with explaining an infinite God who is personally interested in a finite sinner such as myself. God's word, like Himself, is oftentimes too wonderful for me to fully know or explain. Similarly, how it came to be, is often too wonderful for me, and is shrouded in mystery. Paul showed us many mysteries, not trying to explain them but simply to show them to us as God directed. Verbal inspiration is just such a mystery. Did God dictate or did He simply "oversee" the writing? We can't say for sure, as there has been heated discussion both ways.

I DO NOT believe God is so weak as to let His very words slip into obscurity. And that is the mindset I see your side entertaining. On the one hand one will say I believe the Bible is God's word, but on the other one will affirm that there are minor mistakes in it. Which leads one such as I to ask, how is it that a Perfect God cannot or will not give a perfect Book to people that they may know Him who is perfect? There is much more "fuel for the fire" that the worlds critics may add using the "errant but inerrant" position than the position I take.

I believe with all my heart that, when one preaches the whole counsel of God, he better believe he has ALL of it, lock, stock and barrel with no room for error. And he is better off just preaching the Book rather than trying to explain what God meant "in the greek". We ought rather explain what the English means since we are preaching to an audience these days which is more and more illiterate.

My mind is racing just now, as I have much more to say, but I will stop for now, lest this turns into a book of my own! LOL

In HIS service;
Jim

 

WHat if the information you think you have is not the correct information.

About preaching: almost none who say the Greek says this or that really have a clue what the Greek does say. They just like fanciful sounding words and aim to sound important. Those who do know Greek know the fool when they hear one. A friend of mine from Greece has told me about some he has heard and how much they miss the mark.

 

AV 1611 Jim: Roby;
I would like PROOF that God didn't get it right and I would also like to know WHEN you think He will.

God has ALWAYS "gotten it right". It's MEN who've dropped the ball. Can you show me any translation that has no man-made goofs?

However, God has influenced men to translate His word into over 2400 languages, with each valid translation being perfect for its target readership/audience.

 

Amen. God even got it right in 1605, yet men made the KJV anyway.

 

Now, while I define "inspiration" of Scripture as God's directly making or commanding people to write His words, I believe He has INFLUENCED men to make translations of His word into THEIR languages, without adding any new doctrines or commands or any other new Scriptures. I believe He caused/allowed the early English translations to be made, such as Aelfric's and Caedmon's, as well as the well-known ones from Wycliffe's onward. There's NOTHING in Scripture in any way indicating He was going to stop allowing/causing English versions to be made after 1611. Can anyone show us any different?

 

Sometimes I think we are one step away from the rainbow bridge. There are no bad bibles, only bad interpretations huh.

 

GB;
That's the issue for BOTH of us isn't it? What IF our respective resources are wrong? I really do not see how they can BOTH be right, therefore, ONE of us IS wrong huh?
What if I am? It doesn't change my walk one bit. It also doesn't change my salvation one bit. For I believe God's book is perfectly right as I have it. And I judge my walk according to that word as it is.
But what IF you are wrong? What IF you have relegated the Scriptures to everyman's ability or inability to rightly translate them for himself? For, in effect, that is what I see your side is doing. So, what IF you are wrong? Doesn't it, (as I have described it) then mean every man does what is right in his own eyes?

About preaching. You hit the nail on the head for me. Just preach the Book as you have it and leave all the greek this or greek that alone. Don't assume you gotta explain what the greek says. Just explain the English, and you'll do fine, and so will your people.

Roby, the KJV as I have it has no "man-made goofs". (your words) You may not think so, but then again you may not even get along with me in person either. Big deal.

In HIS service;
Jim