Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt!

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Excellent point Bitsy and I think it one which we fundamentalists can certainly identify with.

Good answer

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by C4K:

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

Bibles are NON DENOMINATIONAL, no matter who does the translation. Why not call the KJV, The ANGLICAN VERSION? Why not name every bible translation according to the denomination of the people doing the translations?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If I as a Baptist Minister were to rewrite the KJV taking out the thee's and the thou's and replace with appropriate you, your and yours, would it be a Baptist Bible? Just because an Anglican Team of Translators translate does not make it denominational. Especially if they were translating word for word and not putting in their own interpretations of what they thought the Greek meant.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Because very few are done by denominations. The new HSCB is a Southern Baptist Bible. There are also Catholic Bibles, etc. The KJV is an Anglican translation, but it is a particularly excellent translation.

No more takers on my scenario?

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by C4K:
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.

Thanks for pointing that out. I should say "in some of our churches."

 

[Paul33]

Linda,

For all intents and purposes, they did call it the Anglican Bible. It was called, "the authorized version."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Exactly, it was "appointed to be read in churches" and the only recognised churches were Anglican.

Personally I am grateful for the efforts of these men to produce the KJV, no matter what their denomination. It is the primary Bible I use everyday and have used all my Christian life.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:

No, I do not beleive it to be compromise. I am a strong believer in the KJV and IMHO the KJV was written FOR freedom. Freedom for people to actually be able to read the Word of God instead of being blinded by the RCC repetitive scaraments.

You'd be wrong. That would be the Gutenburg Bible, the first Bible printed on a moveable type press (for which Time Magazine called Johan Gutenburg the Man of the Millenium). And it's a patent falsehood that people were "blinded" by the RCC. The fact is that few people own bibles because books were extremely expensive. Plus, the ability to read and write was a privilege afforded only those who could afford it. The printing press, not the KJV, changed both of those things.

The KJV was one in a line of several English-language translations, following a translation by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. The King James version became popular only after England made it illegal to own or possess any translation other than the KJV. That very fact refutes fully any notion that the KJV was written for the purpose of freedom. It actually became a tool for oppression.

The KJV is a free bible. Just like our country is a free country.

I beg to differ. My KJV cost me $40. Hardly free.

Now, all that being said, it is by no means a compromise whatsoever to use any faithful bible translation, in any language. The KJV was translated by Anglicans. So what? The Sanctus Vaticanus was compiled by the RCC. So what? The Webster Bible was compiled by Daniel Webster. So what? The Nederlandse Staatenbijbel is used by the Dutch Reformed Church. So what? The NIV was published by Zondervan. So what?

So long as it's a faithful translation, the Word does not come back void, regardless of denominational origin.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If I as a Baptist Minister were to rewrite the KJV taking out the thee's and the thou's and replace with appropriate you, your and yours, would it be a Baptist Bible? Just because an Anglican Team of Translators translate does not make it denominational. Especially if they were translating word for word and not putting in their own interpretations of what they thought the Greek meant.

No offense, but there is NO translation that is word-for-word of any Greek Text. It is impossible to translate from one language to another, especially two as diverse as English and Koine Greek "word-for-word".

 

[Scott J]

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Linda and C4K,

My point was this: Here we have claims of being separatists, and claims that some here choose not to use any bible derived from work by W&H because they feel those 2 were heretics.

Yet, those same people chose to either live in ignorance, or flat out dishonestly DENY the facts surrounding the KJV.

Linda's false claims that I have disdain for the KJV and those who use it is just another way for those who wish to remain in ignorance to avoid answering simple questions. There are MANY beliefs held by the KJV translators that Linda would CRINGE at, but instead of addressing that issue, when asked in good faith, she chooses to lie about my motivation.

My question was on topic. I was asking about why she would not want to "separate" from the false doctrines of the anglicans if she wishes to "separate" from the false doctrines of everyone else.

Its the same ole song. 5 pages, and topic closed because the KJVO wont address a simple question. Cry foul, and make up lies, do whatever you need to do, but by all means, make sure you dont have to answer any questions.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Actually, Linda has answered my question in a PM. I am very happy to say that I stand corrected. Thank you for answering a direct question.

Im sure we will soon share the dicussion.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by C4K:
As you open the new translation you discover that it has the Apocrapha inserted between the Old and New Testaments.

Just a note that this would not have been a significant factor at that time since every other Bible in existence had the Apocrypha in the OT while the Coverdale and Geneva bibles had it between between the OT and NT like the KJV.

I know this has nothing to do with the issue but I thought it might be an interesting fyi.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
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.

So is the NAB a Catholic version? Or is the NJB a Catholic version? Or how about the NWT is it a Jehovah's Witness translation?

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If I as a Baptist Minister were to rewrite the KJV taking out the thee's and the thou's and replace with appropriate you, your and yours, would it be a Baptist Bible? Just because an Anglican Team of Translators translate does not make it denominational. Especially if they were translating word for word and not putting in their own interpretations of what they thought the Greek meant.

As C4K pointed out is the HCSB a SBC translation? Or is the NAB or NJB Catholic translations?

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by C4K:
Exactly, it was "appointed to be read in churches" and the only recognised churches were Anglican.

Personally I am grateful for the efforts of these men to produce the KJV, no matter what their denomination. It is the primary Bible I use everyday and have used all my Christian life.

Likewise!! I do not use the KJV that much anymore but it is an excellent translation.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

IT is funny. The answer to both of your questions is yes, Yet the KJV is geared toward any denomination.

If I might add, the NIV is almost identical with the NWT... are the SBC's becoming Jehovah's Witnesses? Will the next convention be held at the Kingdom Hall?

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
IT is funny. The answer to both of your questions is yes, Yet the KJV is geared toward any denomination.

On what basis do you make this assertion.

Originally posted by sandingfirminChrist:
If I might add, the NIV is almost identical with the NWT... are the SBC's becoming Jehovah's Witnesses? Will the next convention be held at the Kingdom Hall?

On what basis are you making this assertion? The SBC didn't have anything to do with the NIV translation process. Although there were Baptist on the translation committee but I'm not sure which denomination.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And with these posts, which inidcate why we have a five page limit, we close this discussion.