Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What is it about the KJV that sparks such controversy and judging from others within the Christian community?

Nothing. It is the incessant view that everyone MUST agree that it is the only acceptable [English] translation that sparks such controversy and judging.

Everyone agrees that it is an excellent translation and that anyone who chooses to use it can trust their choice of translation.

I don't know if we can call people who believe in one version unbiblical, but the view that God only preserves in His word one specific translation is certainly not based on the scriptures.

 

[saturneptune]

Nothing. It is the incessant view that everyone MUST agree that it is the only acceptable [English] translation that sparks such controversy and judging.

Everyone agrees that it is an excellent translation and that anyone who chooses to use it can trust their choice of translation.

I don't know if we can call people who believe in one version unbiblical, but the view that God only preserves in His word one specific translation is certainly not based on the scriptures.

Several on this thread have made mention of the fact that KJVO people have made an issue of this. Where are these people? I would think a thread of this nature they would flock to it.

 

[ccrobinson]

Several on this thread have made mention of the fact that KJVO people have made an issue of this. Where are these people? I would think a thread of this nature they would flock to it.

At least one of them was recently banned over the ME issue.

 

[4boys4joys]

I do see the point that others have made on the thread about the attention focused on KJVO's on many threads. If someone said they were NIVO would they get the same reaction and be called unBiblical I do not know ?

All of this is opinion. I do not think we will ever know until we get to heaven. There are some who do not see that scripture itself reflects a basis for believing that one translation is unBiblical , that does not make them unBiblical in there own eyes just in the eyes of others which is then in turn an opinion.

For someone to say you are unBiblical for not believing in more than one version of the Bible is just as judgemental as calling other versions perverted. Tell me where there is a difference here ?

I would hope that we could all see that our opinions are not fact on either side of the issue. Maybe it is not about what we believe, it is how we express it. May I be the first to do the best I can in doing so. I think we have all looked at a post later thought I could have done that differently.

 

[preachinjesus]

I can't vote in the poll because I don't like the language used in the question. Not a criticism I just don't think there is much extra biblical stuff that can be called "unbiblical."

For what it's worth I believe in one authentic version of the Bible, that is the original texts in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek as it existed in its authorized form at the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397.) That is the Bible, everything else is translation.

Granted I will use one particular version in my teaching and speaking, and often refer to others. In my personal study I use other translations. I really don't care what translation one uses, so long as they don't care what version I use.

I guess, in light of the poll question, I would say we only have 1 version of the Bible and thousands of translations. But I wouldn't consider anything else "unbiblical."

 

[russell55]

For someone to say you are unBiblical for not believing in more than one version of the Bible is just as judgemental as calling other versions perverted. Tell me where there is a difference here ?

Does it not matter that Jesus and our Bibles affirm more than one version as scripture? Doesn't that mean that if we are going to be biblical, we must allow for the possibility that wording different from the one we find in our preferred text may also be scripture? Doesn't that mean that we can't automatically rule out versions that contain differences to ours?

 

[4boys4joys]

Does it not matter that Jesus and our Bibles affirm more than one version as scripture? Doesn't that mean that if we are going to be biblical, we must allow for the possibility that wording different from the one we find in our preferred text may also be scripture? Doesn't that mean that we can't automatically rule out versions that contain differences to ours?

The ouote you chose from my post:
For someone to say you are unBiblical for not believing in more than one version of the Bible is just as judgemental as calling other versions perverted. Tell me where there is a difference here ?

I do not know if you were trying to answer my question by quoting it and then giving this response. Like I said in my earlier post. That is your opinion that Jesus and our Bibles affirm this in scripture. Not everyone has this point of view but everyone keeps stating it as fact and I do not understand why ? Some people do not feel that being Biblical is allowing for the possibilty of other wording outside of the text they prefer. We can rule out versions than can contain differences to ours if we choose to just as you choose to do the latter.

It is not about wrong or right but personal choice as was said here before. People keep asking these questions as if fact is being denied, it is not, it is just that opinions differ.

Which led to my question. Since this is all opinion, is it just as judgemental to say someone is unBiblical as it is to say someones version or versions are perverted. If this is all based on opinion (which it is), then is there a difference. One would only differ from the other if you believe one as fact.

Where you trying to answer my question with your response I do not know, hopefully I answered the questions you had. I will also say again that I never said it was unBiblical- this was said in another post about people who did not believe in more than one translation of the Bible I just wanted to hear other opinions to see if this was a view that others had as well and maybe them sharing why if they would like to as well.

 

[charles_creech78]

I guess I am unbiblical because I will only read KJV. The first bible I had was 1611 edition and If God wanted me to read another he will put it on my mind to. I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else. He has wrote what I need to know in it. I rule out other versens because what it said in rev.Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book Re 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. I have receaved the 1611 edition of KJV as my first bible and the words of rev. as the first true writen english words of God and if that bible don't match it then I will not read it. If in rev. say not to add or take away and I read another so called bible and the words are changed in it then how can that be the writen words of God. And you can say they changed it to make people understand better. But God does not give any of us to change or add on and that is being disobedaint to God. This is the reason I will not read anything else of what I have receaved of God. I just don't think God would put them words in Rev. and want us to change it to fit are needs. Some people say I can't understand the 1611 edition. Well I could not read at all when I started to read the 1611 edition. Thanks be to God I can read now. I don't need to go to another book to get more answers when I got all that I need in this bible. I don't think it is unbiblical to trust that the king james Versen is the first true english words of God.

 

[tinytim]

Charles, what would you do if someone showed you where the KJV added to and took away from the originals?

Would you apply that same logic?

And are you serious about using a real 1611, or is it a 1769?

 

[dan e.]

I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else. He has wrote what I need to know in it. I rule out other versens because what it said in rev.Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book Re 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You do realize that these verses weren't originally written in the King James Language...right? So in that case...according to your logic, we should only use the originals, right?

It isn't KJV and the "other versions". KJV is also "another version".

 

[russell55]

The ouote you chose from my post:
For someone to say you are unBiblical for not believing in more than one version of the Bible is just as judgemental as calling other versions perverted. Tell me where there is a difference here ?

I do not know if you were trying to answer my question by quoting it and then giving this response.

I was responding to your statement that both are equally unbiblical.

That is your opinion that Jesus and our Bibles affirm this in scripture.

That's not my merely my opinion. It is a conclusion drawn directly from the text of scripture.

I gave an example previously in this thread where Jesus reads from a place on a scroll of scripture, and he calls it scripture, and it is a different version than our Old Testament. I don't know how anyone can read that account and check the same passage in our OT and deny that it is possible for two different versions to both be scripture. If two different versions can't both be scripture, then either Jesus was wrong in calling what he read scripture, or our OT text is not scripture.

Not everyone has this point of view but everyone keeps stating it as fact and I do not understand why ?

They keep affirming it as fact because it is a fact that scripture quotes texts that are different than ours and calls them scripture.

Some people do not feel that being Biblical is allowing for the possibilty of other wording outside of the text they prefer.

Then they are ignoring the clear witness of scripture that at least some different wording outside of the text they prefer is indeed scripture. It is not biblical to rule out what scripture allows for.

We can rule out versions than can contain differences to ours if we choose to just as you choose to do the latter.

Not unless you want to unbiblically rule out what scripture allows for.

It is not about wrong or right but personal choice as was said here before. People keep asking these questions as if fact is being denied, it is not, it is just that opinions differ.

Deciding what version you think is best or what version you prefer to read is a matter of personal choice. Ruling out other versions as scripture simply because they differ from your favored one is unbiblical.

Which led to my question. Since this is all opinion, is it just as judgemental to say someone is unBiblical as it is to say someones version or versions are perverted. If this is all based on opinion (which it is), then is there a difference. One would only differ from the other if you believe one as fact.

It is a clear biblical fact that it is possible for differing texts to both be scripture. That is not based on merely opinion, but taken directly from biblical examples. Denying that is going against scripture.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I guess I am unbiblical because I will only read KJV. The first bible I had was 1611 edition and If God wanted me to read another he will put it on my mind to. I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else. He has wrote what I need to know in it. I rule out other versens because what it said in rev.Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book Re 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. I have receaved the 1611 edition of KJV as my first bible and the words of rev. as the first true writen english words of God and if that bible don't match it then I will not read it. If in rev. say not to add or take away and I read another so called bible and the words are changed in it then how can that be the writen words of God. And you can say they changed it to make people understand better. But God does not give any of us to change or add on and that is being disobedaint to God. This is the reason I will not read anything else of what I have receaved of God. I just don't think God would put them words in Rev. and want us to change it to fit are needs. Some people say I can't understand the 1611 edition. Well I could not read at all when I started to read the 1611 edition. Thanks be to God I can read now. I don't need to go to another book to get more answers when I got all that I need in this bible. I don't think it is unbiblical to trust that the king james Versen is the first true english words of God.

Earlier English versions had the same passage from Revelation. Was wrong for the KJV to add to and take away from them.

You say you read the 1611 version - does that mean you reject latter editions of the KJV which clarified 'son" as "son of God" in 1 John 5v12?


No one is unbiblical because they read only one version. That is their choice. What is unbiblical is turning that practice into a doctrine.

 

[dan e.]

No one is unbiblical because they read only one version. That is their choice. What is unbiblical is turning that practice into a doctrine.

That is the best way I've heard it yet.

 

[Cutter]

I guess I am unbiblical because I will only read KJV. The first bible I had was 1611 edition and If God wanted me to read another he will put it on my mind to. I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else. He has wrote what I need to know in it. I rule out other versens because what it said in rev.Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book Re 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. I have receaved the 1611 edition of KJV as my first bible and the words of rev. as the first true writen english words of God and if that bible don't match it then I will not read it. If in rev. say not to add or take away and I read another so called bible and the words are changed in it then how can that be the writen words of God. And you can say they changed it to make people understand better. But God does not give any of us to change or add on and that is being disobedaint to God. This is the reason I will not read anything else of what I have receaved of God. I just don't think God would put them words in Rev. and want us to change it to fit are needs. Some people say I can't understand the 1611 edition. Well I could not read at all when I started to read the 1611 edition. Thanks be to God I can read now. I don't need to go to another book to get more answers when I got all that I need in this bible. I don't think it is unbiblical to trust that the king james Versen is the first true english words of God.

God bless you, Bro. Charles for having child like faith in Christ and God's Word, although you are not a child but a full grown man. I'm sorry for what you will have to endure in life and on the BB because of your views because people don't seem to like simplistic faith in Christ and/or allegiance to a particular version, especially the KJV. See they love to take you to task on your beliefs apparently because their touchy and sensitive about their own. Although believers that cherish the KJV are not all dogmatic about it they are treated as if they are and other believers immediately get defensive when they know where you stand. But keep holding to the Word and living for Christ, because He is the One we seek to please, not the world, or the know it alls.

Matthew 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[dan e.]

God bless you, Bro. Charles for having child like faith in Christ and God's Word, although you are not a child but a full grown man. I'm sorry for what you will have to endure in life and on the BB because of your views because people don't seem to like simplistic faith in Christ and/or allegiance to a particular version, especially the KJV. See they love to take you to task on your beliefs apparently because their touchy and sensitive about their own. Although believers that cherish the KJV are not all dogmatic about it they are treated as if they are and other believers immediately get defensive when they know where you stand. But keep holding to the Word and living for Christ, because He is the One we seek to please, not the world, or the know it alls.

I wish there was a way to play a violin as you read this....just kidding.

Cutter, that is silly. You know that the reason people get "touchy" or "sensitive" as you put it, is because of the reputation that has been created by KJVO. I freely admit that not all who prefer KJV are this way....but to intentionally close off other translations because "I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else" is a bit silly. It isn't about allegiance to a translation. I think that is where people get lost....you start to miss the forest for the tress....or the trees for the forest....or however that saying goes. The point is....YOUR MISSING IT!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

G Although believers that cherish the KJV are not all dogmatic about it they are treated as if they are and other believers immediately get defensive when they know where you stand.

I think I speak for everyone saying that we all cherish the KJV. That is not the question of this thread.

 

[russell55]

I think I speak for everyone saying that we all cherish the KJV.

Absolutely.

 

[Amy.G]

See they love to take you to task on your beliefs apparently because their touchy and sensitive about their own. Although believers that cherish the KJV are not all dogmatic about it they are treated as if they are and other believers immediately get defensive when they know where you stand.

Cutter, I have been personally attacked by KJVO's, even in my own church, so I know from personal experience it is a real issue. If you care to, you can go back and read many really nasty debates on this subject (bible versions section), with KJVO's condemning others for reading another version, calling them "perversions".

It's for these reasons that those of us who read versions other than the KJV are a little sensitive.

There is a huge difference between KJV preferred and KJV only.

 

[tinytim]

You do realize that these verses weren't originally written in the King James Language...right? So in that case...according to your logic, we should only use the originals, right?

It isn't KJV and the "other versions". KJV is also "another version".

And these verses were not even translated from the Greek to the KJV..

Erasmus couldn't find the Greek text so he used the RCC Latin to go backwards into the Greek, and then translated his new Greek text into English...

Here is the note from the NET Bible translators...
37tc The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while “the tree” of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek mss, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators. (This textual problem is not discussed in NA27.) http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Bolded my emphasis..

So the verses that Charles quoted are not even from any original text... They are from a translation that most KJVOs view is corrupted.. The Latin Vulgate...

So here is an example of the KJV that has messed up the original text... Can we say that Erasmus removed some words, and added others? And yet, the KJVOnlies, loves this guy!

 

[Cutter]

"I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else" is a bit silly.

What is silly to one man may be conviction to another. Is it your place to stand in judgment of anothers ability to choose the particular version he/she uses? The one they relate to and that ministers to them?

I think not!

In fact your statements wreak of arrogance and bulliness.