KJV only??

[dcorbett]

I don't understand how there is any connection.

The parables and Bible stories are the same no matter what language they are translated into. The KJV English does not use the same English as the Wycliffe Bible, but the Bible stories did not change. The time frame from the Wycliffe Bible to the KJV is roughly the same as the KJV to today. The stories don't update just because the language does.

My connection is: Why should the language that the stories were told in require an update if the stories are still true??? (which they are, of course) The KJV Bible is the only Bible I have ever read those stories in, and they are alive and pertinent today, and they are beautiful in prose and poetry of the KJV Bible.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The KJV Bible is the only Bible I have ever read those stories in, and they are alive and pertinent today, and they are beautiful in prose and poetry of the KJV Bible.

That's fantastic for you, but I would dare say there were people in 1611 who felt the same about their older translations. If the KJV translators could give the people a Bible in the English of their day, why can it done be done today? Did the KJV translators change the stories by updating the English? English has changed since 1611, just like it changed from 1235 to 1611. The truths of God's word transcend human language. They don't depend on any single translation.

It is wonderful that you love your KJV, so do I, but one need not change the stories when updating the language. After all those stories were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Did they lose they power and beauty by being translated into English?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ok so I have a question my chuch is a KJV Bible user only are all Baptist churchs that way?? Just wondering?? I love this bord becuse I have some many questions I feel stupid too ask elsewere lol

No, not all churches are like that. Some churches have a statement in their statement of faith saying that the KJV is the only English translation that preserves the word of God. Some use the KJV almost exclusively, but it is not a matter of doctrine. Some use other quality translations.

 

[David Lamb]

Ok so I have a question my chuch is a KJV Bible user only are all Baptist churchs that way?? Just wondering?? I love this bord becuse I have some many questions I feel stupid too ask elsewere lol

First, don't ever feel stupid for asking questions! You might think that you're the only one who doesn't know the answers already, but you are probably not. (Because I am British, I'm often asking questions about meanings of American words and expressions, like "101", "Redneck", and so on - things that Americans take for granted). :laugh:

Now for your question. No, not all Baptist churches use the KJV. Apart from anything else, there are plenty of Baptist churches in countries that don't speak English, so they would use a bible in their own language.

But even among English-speaking Baptist churches, various translations are used. I've just looked at the first 75 Baptist churches listed in the on-line Church Directory for England published by Evangelical Times.

Of those 75, 23 say they use the NIV, 18 the AV, 25 the NKJV, and 2 the ESV. 7 of the 75 did not state the bible versikon they use.

 

[DiamondLady]

Ok so I have a question my chuch is a KJV Bible user only are all Baptist churchs that way?? Just wondering?? I love this bord becuse I have some many questions I feel stupid too ask elsewere lol

To answer your question, No...not all Baptist churches use only the King James Bible. You're going to find, that on this board this topic is a hot bed of debate and no two people agree on any aspect of this topic. It's such a hot topic that it will get mean and nasty, and will include veiled name calling....each certain that the version they read is the right one, the most accurate, comes from the most accurate texts, and those translators were inspired. On the other side you'll see the exact opposite. It's a vicious circle, so let me just give you a piece of advice.....read the translation you're most comfortable with, and if that's the King James version, then more power to you. What's more important is that you actually READ God's Word and hide it in your heart. Glad you're here!! Oh, and the only stupid question....the one you don't ask

 

[Mexdeaf]

To answer your question, No...not all Baptist churches use only the King James Bible. You're going to find, that on this board this topic is a hot bed of debate and no two people agree on any aspect of this topic. It's such a hot topic that it will get mean and nasty, and will include veiled name calling....each certain that the version they read is the right one, the most accurate, comes from the most accurate texts, and those translators were inspired. On the other side you'll see the exact opposite. It's a vicious circle, so let me just give you a piece of advice.....read the translation you're most comfortable with, and if that's the King James version, then more power to you. What's more important is that you actually READ God's Word and hide it in your heart. Glad you're here!! Oh, and the only stupid question....the one you don't ask

Other than the purple font, this is POTD! (I am BFO- Black Font Only- much easier on old eyes.) :laugh:

 

[Mexdeaf]

First, don't ever feel stupid for asking questions! You might think that you're the only one who doesn't know the answers already, but you are probably not. (Because I am British, I'm often asking questions about meanings of American words and expressions, like "101", "Redneck", and so on - things that Americans take for granted). :laugh:

Now for your question. No, not all Baptist churches use the KJV. Apart from anything else, there are plenty of Baptist churches in countries that don't speak English, so they would use a bible in their own language.

But even among English-speaking Baptist churches, various translations are used. I've just looked at the first 75 Baptist churches listed in the on-line Church Directory for England published by Evangelical Times.

Of those 75, 23 say they use the NIV, 18 the AV, 25 the NKJV, and 2 the ESV. 7 of the 75 did not state the bible versikon they use.

Interesting statistics. I wonder how closely they parallel the stats of churches here in the USA.

 

[KobrinFamily]

If I understand your grammar correctly... NO not all Baptist churches are KJVOnly

Just too let you know I have some lurning disabiltys so sometimes its hard for me too put into words what I am thinking.

 

[KobrinFamily]

And it's Ruth that uses this bord not my Husbund :godisgood:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Just too let you know I have some lurning disabiltys so sometimes its hard for me too put into words what I am thinking.

Thanks for trying. I work with folks with disabilities so I can understand. I sent you a PM.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What's more important is that you actually READ God's Word and hide it in your heart. Glad you're here!! Oh, and the only stupid question....the one you don't ask

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner - give that lady a cigar!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thanks for trying. I work with folks with disabilities so I can understand. I sent you a PM.

What he said - thanks for posting and don't be put off by comments like you saw here. We are glad to have you.

 

[jbh28]

My connection is: Why should the language that the stories were told in require an update if the stories are still true??? (which they are, of course) The KJV Bible is the only Bible I have ever read those stories in, and they are alive and pertinent today, and they are beautiful in prose and poetry of the KJV Bible.

The stories were not told in the language of the KJV. You are making a terrible connection. I thought better of you than to stoop low like this. I have never once said anything negative about you or anyone using the KJV. It's a fine translation of the Bible. If the Bible was originally written in 1611, then you would have a point. But it wasn't written then. The KJV is a translation which itself was updated to current language (current versions much different that 1611). But no one though that updating the KJV would need to change any stories.

 

[sag38]

Ok Debbie, it's time to come out of the closet. Go ahead and admit it. You are KJVO. Only a KJVO would equate translating the orginal languages into modern english with changing the stories of the Bible. Only a KJVO would miss the fact that the KJV was translated in 1611 well over a thousand years after the canon was closed not to mention the fact hat the KJV came after previous english versions not to mention the fact that the 1611 KJV has undergone updates itself. The KJV you have is not the 1611 version. It is an updated version. So, based on your logic the KJV is also guilty of changing the stories of the Bible.

 

[David Lamb]

Interesting statistics. I wonder how closely they parallel the stats of churches here in the USA.

I didn't mean my figures as statistics. They don't necessarily represent version use in all UK Baptist churches - just some of those that advertise on the Evangelical Times site. These would tend to be Reformed Baptist churches - I don't know what the figures would be for Baptist churches generally in the UK.

I only gave the numbers as an example to show that not all Baptist churches use the KJV.

 

[webdog]

Dude, um, I wasn't doing any of that. I couldn't understand the question, honestly. There was something missing and I honestly wanted to know what the question was. I even included an appropriate emoticon to communicate.

Do you have something else you wish to talk with me about?

Nope...this is it.

There is no way you cannot understand... "Ok so I have a question my chuch is a KJV Bible user only are all Baptist churchs that way??"

I get sick of seeing people belittle others on here due to their spelling and grammar, it's uncalled for, and un-Christlike. The only 2 people here to even point out her grammar hold doctorates and have no problem understanding issues discussing post secondary education in great detail over in the seminary forum. Strange everybody else here understood exactly what she was asking...

 

[webdog]

Just too let you know I have some lurning disabiltys so sometimes its hard for me too put into words what I am thinking.

Don't pay them any attention, we knew what you were asking...

 

[Rippon]

The KJV is a translation which itself was updated to current language (current versions much different that 1611).

No,the KJV was not put in the current language of 1611.It was made to be slighly archaic. The Tyndale version which came out about 85 years earlier reads in a more contemporary fashion even today.

 

[Jim1999]

The KJV of 1611 was outdated before it was printed. It was not the common tongue and many words had changed meaning even before 1611.

Remember, royalty only changed from German during the First Great War, when it changed from the House of Hanover (German) to the House of windsor (English). Only the elite of 1611 used a form of English. I have copies of two business letters written in the 1600's and the language doesn't even come close to the 1611 copy of scripture.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jim1999]

To the Kobrin Family. Most of the Fellowship Baptist churches in Ontario remain true to the KJV, whilst many have adopted the NIV. I think it stems more to our historic stand against modernism than the KJV itself.

I prefer the KJV, with all my marginal corrections, than any modern version, but it does not exclude using many translations for good reading and learning.

Cheers,

Jim