Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt!

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
I would love to see those who are KJVO actually have the courage to ANSWER this question, rather than crying foul.

Is that possible, those 3 KJVO that I know of who have posted so far? Would you mind actually answering the question?

I was getting ready to post the very same thing. I would like to see them answer the question as well instead of just crying attack.

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If using the KJV is compromise, then brand me as a compromiser.

Ditto!
Amen Bro

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Let us get back on topic. No one is attacking the KJV.

If we as fundamentalists hold ecclesiastical separation so dear, why do we use a Bible translated by the Church of England? This is not a discussion of the translation, but our stand on separation.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Keith M:
As long as one person is saved through the reading of the KJV, then it has not lost its usefulness - it isn't ready for the rubbish pile yet.

How did those who became believers get saved before English came into existence?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We are not staying on track. I will have to close this again if we do not.

Here is a summary of the OP. Lets stick to the question.

If we as fundamentalists hold ecclesiastical separation so dear, why do we use a Bible translated by the Church of England? This is not a discussion of the translation, but our stand on separation.

Last warning folks.

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by C4K:
There is no attack. The OP simply asked a question. If ecclesiastical separation is so important to fundamentalists, why do we use a Bible tranlsated by the Church of England. This has nothing to do with the KJV as a translation. It has to do with consistancy in our view of separation.
There is no attack on the Bible in that question.

If everyone would look very carefully at the way the name of this thread is worded "Using the KJV is compromise, 2nd Attempt" you would see it is a very subtle attack on the KJV. If somebody who is KJV Only posted a thread "Using the NIV is compromise", that thread would be IMMEDIATELY closed.

This has nothing to do with the KJV as a translation. It has to do with consistancy in our view of separation.

If this thread has nothing to do with the KJV as a translation, why is it in the Bible Versions/Translations forum? If it has to do with consistency in our view of separation, then it should be in another forum. By putting this thread into the BV/T, it IS an attack on the KJV, no matter how anyone wants to slice and dice it.

It never fails--it is only the KJV Only people who are accused of "attacking" other versions of the Bible--not the other way around. Even a blind person can see that! It seems to be a one way street in this forum.

 

[John of Japan]

The basic premise of the OP shows a lack of understanding of ecclesiastical separation. It's really very simple. One does not ecclesiastically separate from a book, including a Bible translation. One reads it and then evaluates it. What one separates from is heresy (including liberalism) and those such as Graham who would force us to fellowship with it.

That's my opinion and all that needs to be said by me on this thread. I'm outta here.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Paul33:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keith M:
If no other version but the KJV was available in the middle and the latter parts of the 17th century, then it stands to reason that the KJV would become the Bible for people of that time - if you can get only one version of the Bible then that is the Bible version that you will read. Tradition also plays a very big roll in matters of choice - the idea that "if it was good enough for my parents and my parets' parents, then it's good enough for me." Humans in general are resistant to change. Generation after generation of Christians have read the KJV, and it is the only Bible version that many English-speaking folks have read. Many of today's modern separatists (fundamentalists) endorse the KJV so highly because, to them, the KJV is the Bible. Let's not throw it out yet for it (as well as other English Bible versions) still spreads the word of God - and that is a mighty purpose indeed! As long as one person is saved through the reading of the KJV, then it has not lost its usefulness - it isn't ready for the rubbish pile yet.

Using your logic, then why did the fundamentalists throw out Billy Graham? Certainly he has been useful to the spread of the gospel. </font>[/QUOTE]To sum up my original statement: availability and tradition.

I am unaware that anyone has thrown out Billy Graham, although he has now retired as I understand it. Billy Graham has absolutely nothing to do with your own OP, Paul33! Billy Graham is no one's Bible. If you are really so set against using the KJV, then why don't you just use the version you prefer without trying to convince others that they shouldn't use the KJV? That is your own personal preference, and as such you really should stick with it - but don't try to make it into everyone else's personal preference, too! In the respect that you want to win everyone else over to your own way of thinking, you have a lot in common with some KJVO supporters.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by C4K:
Let us get back on topic. No one is attacking the KJV.

If we as fundamentalists hold ecclesiastical separation so dear, why do we use a Bible translated by the Church of England? This is not a discussion of the translation, but our stand on separation.

If using it were a compromise brother wouldn't it be more of a compromise to use a bible with the Roman Catholic vaticanus manuscript for it basis along with a manuscipt found in a trash can in a monastary? I'm afraid there's going to be some kind of compromise whatever you do.

 

[Keith M]

If we want absolutely no compromise then we should all learn Koine Greek and Hebrew...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This has nothing to do with the KJV as a translation. It has to do with consistancy in our view of separation.

If this thread has nothing to do with the KJV as a translation, why is it in the Bible Versions/Translations forum? If it has to do with consistency in our view of separation, then it should be in another forum. By putting this thread into the BV/T, it IS an attack on the KJV, no matter how anyone wants to slice and dice it.

</font>[/QUOTE]It began its life in another forum but was moved here as the translation was the issue of supposed compromise.

Is it a compromise for fundamentalists to use a version translated by the Church of England? That is the premise of the OP.

I don't accept that it is compromise. Lets those of who are fundamentalists defend its use as non-compromise.

The author of the OP is trying to point out supposed inconsistancies in the IFB movement. Are we able to answer those charges?

Surely, there must be someone amongst us who are IFB, KJV users who can defend ourselves against that charge that we are comprosing by using a C of E translation.

[ February 13, 2006, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
The basic premise of the OP shows a lack of understanding of ecclesiastical separation. It's really very simple. One does not ecclesiastically separate from a book, including a Bible translation. One reads it and then evaluates it. What one separates from is heresy (including liberalism) and those such as Graham who would force us to fellowship with it.

That's my opinion and all that needs to be said by me on this thread. I'm outta here.

This is the kind of answer we are looking for, it addresses the issue posed in the OP.

 

[Paul33]

C4K,

Thanks for keeping the thread on track.

John,

One does not eclesiastically separate from a book?

Who are you kidding? In the ifb churches one most certainly separates from a book - the NIV, the NASB (in some), etc.

We also separate from song books, cds, dvds, etc that are produced by authors/artists that are off limits.

What world are you living in?

Are ifbs saysing that if compromise is more than 350 years old and forced on us by the state then it is no longer compromise? The pilgrims died for their stand on separation against the COE and its Romish positions!

Now we separate from Billy Graham because of his sponsorship, not his message.

Shouldn't the same be true for the Bible we use? Our pilgrim forebear's blood was shed for this stand and we ignore it.

Ecclesiastical separation in ifb circles includes people, institutions, magazines, radio stations, books, music, Bible versions, etc.

The question still stands unanswered. Isn't it compromise to use a Bible sponsored by the Church of England and rejected by the pilgrims (separatists)?

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
It's really very simple. One does not ecclesiastically separate from a book, including a Bible translation.

I guess I am confused here. If your statement is true, then why do many in the IFB separate from the NASB, ESV, NIV, etc?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

SBC, I can answer your question from my standpoint only.

To separate from an object, you first have to be attached to that object. Many in the IFB, including myself, have never attached themselves to the more modern versions or paraphrases of the Bible.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I am an IFB, and I think some of you are making the same mistake that the KJOnly make. I would say most of us use the translation we believe is best. Most of us have prayed over it. I use the KJV as I said 95% of the time because it is the best translation over all from my study. I preach out of it and write SS lessons from it. I also enjoy reading the ASV 1901 and have read a few others.
If someone else likes another translation better and God is using it with them, all I can say is great.
As W.A. Criswell said one time,"the reason there are so many churches, is because not all will grow and serve the Lord as well, some do better in one church than another." Wouldn't one say the same on translation of the Bible. Yes, I believe some are much better than others.
I will say it is much harder for me to follow a sermon from a translation that isn't KJ because I'm reading from the KJ and trying to follow.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Come on folks, the question here is why do we use a Church of England translation when we claim ecclesiasitical separation in so many other areas.

I think Paul's question is a valid one. We need to be able to stand up for what we believe.

Can't we just admit that maybe we are not as spearated as we claim to be? I have no problem admitting I use a translation developed by a Church of England translating team. I use commentaries by a wide variety of theologians. I have benefitted from brethren in many circles.

I use the KJV because I feel like it translates the best manuscripts using a sound philosophy of translation. I don't care what church the translators were a part of.

Now if THAT makes me guilty of compromise, so be it. I never claimed that compromise is always a bad word.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by C4K:
Come on folks, the question here is why do we use a Church of England translation when we claim ecclesiasitical separation in so many other areas.

I think Paul's question is a valid one. We need to be able to stand up for what we believe.

Can't we just admit that maybe we are not as spearated as we claim to be? I have no problem admitting I use a translation developed by a Church of England translating team. I use commentaries by a wide variety of theologians. I have benefitted from brethren in many circles.

I use the KJV because I feel like it translates the best manuscripts using a sound philosophy of translation. I don't care what church the translators were a part of.

Now if THAT makes me guilty of compromise, so be it. I never claimed that compromise is always a bad word.

Amen brother!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If the KJv was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, and the translators did not sway in their intrepretation of the texts set before them, is it truly compromise to use the KJV?

Or is the true compromise in the use of the more modern versions?

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by C4K:
Can't we just admit that maybe we are not as spearated as we claim to be? I have no problem admitting I use a translation developed by a Church of England translating team. I use commentaries by a wide variety of theologians. I have benefitted from brethren in many circles.

I use the KJV because I feel like it translates the best manuscripts using a sound philosophy of translation. I don't care what church the translators were a part of.

Thanks that is the best answer I have seen.