You have absolutely no basis for believing or saying that it is the Lord's will that the KJV is enough for Christians around the world who can read English. The Lord has blessed us with a variety of English versions ...just the way He wanted it. And He has seen fit to particularly bless the NIV in its various forms (not quite as many as the KJV LOL) for the past 34 years or so. Or don't you think it was His will that it has been # 1 for so long? Your thinking is inconsistent if,on one hand you say that the KJV was particularly blessed by the Lord to have achieved its status as the most read English version for so long...and then on the other hand the Lord has had nothing to do with the success of the NIV.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
On Bibles
- Thread starter Ryan.Samples
- Start date
You have absolutely no basis for believing or saying that it is the Lord's will that the KJV is enough for Christians around the world who can read English. The Lord has blessed us with a variety of English versions ...just the way He wanted it. And He has seen fit to particularly bless the NIV in its various forms (not quite as many as the KJV LOL) for the past 34 years or so. Or don't you think it was His will that it has been # 1 for so long? Your thinking is inconsistent if,on one hand you say that the KJV was particularly blessed by the Lord to have achieved its status as the most read English version for so long...and then on the other hand the Lord has had nothing to do with the success of the NIV.
is it the KJV or the Greek/Hebrew texts that are actually the word of God to us for today?
Is the KJV superior to them?
isn't that what KJVO hold as truth?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
To Clarify...
I, as an adherent of the KJVO position, (and I speak only for myself), believe the KJV is at least equal (in the english language) to the Greek and Hebrew in the sense of equivalence. I'm just saying that I don't believe I need the Greek and Hebrew to understand the mind of God (since real understanding comes ONLY by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and NOT by any natural or "scholarly" processes) because I have an equivalent of it IN MY LANGUAGE by the divine hand of God's "preservation". Speakers of other languages can say the same if they have a faithful translation from the right family of manuscripts. I'm thankful that is not a problem for us in our language. I confess I don't know enough about other languages and their translations to be able to comment on them.
One other thing...inspite of what I said above about the Greek and Hebrew (not feeling I need them) I don't have a problem with preachers or people sharing their (supposed) knowledge of them ( I do find it interesting) UNLESS they are using them to supposedly CORRECT my Bible and attack it's authority as the Word of God. My brain usually goes on "lockdown" when I hear somebody do that.
Bro.Greg
raying:
I, as an adherent of the KJVO position, (and I speak only for myself), believe the KJV is at least equal (in the english language) to the Greek and Hebrew in the sense of equivalence. I'm just saying that I don't believe I need the Greek and Hebrew to understand the mind of God (since real understanding comes ONLY by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and NOT by any natural or "scholarly" processes) because I have an equivalent of it IN MY LANGUAGE by the divine hand of God's "preservation". Speakers of other languages can say the same if they have a faithful translation from the right family of manuscripts. I'm thankful that is not a problem for us in our language. I confess I don't know enough about other languages and their translations to be able to comment on them.
One other thing...inspite of what I said above about the Greek and Hebrew (not feeling I need them) I don't have a problem with preachers or people sharing their (supposed) knowledge of them ( I do find it interesting) UNLESS they are using them to supposedly CORRECT my Bible and attack it's authority as the Word of God. My brain usually goes on "lockdown" when I hear somebody do that.
Bro.Greg
raying:Translations are only approximations.
From "the right family of manuscripts" huh? So you are dependant on five or six manuscripts, the oldest of which dates to the 10th century?! No thanks. I would rather have a translation based on manuscripts that are much older and closer to the time of the originals.
And you are aware, I hope, that some verses translated in the KJV were from no Greek manuscripts.
The KJV is not the be-all and end-all of Bible versions. It is not the Word of God in the singular sense for the English language. The NIV,HCSB,NLT,ESV,NASBU and many other translations are the Word of God.
Of couse the KJV can be corrected in the course of a sermon as much (if not much more so) than other versions of the Word of God. That's because no version is perfect. All are in need of improvement. There is an air of arrogance to say otherwise.
I think the lockdown phase happened at a much earlier date in your life. You need to divest yourself of the man-made malady of KJV Onlyism.
Case in point. Something one would probably never realize if one never knew of some of the neuances that are inherent with the various Greek verb tenses is this translation of Acts 16:30-31 (courtesy of Wuest's Greek to English translation works):
16:30b "...Sirs, what must I KEEP ON DOING (emp. mine) to be saved?"
16:31b "...believe ONCE FOR ALL (emp. mine) on the Lord Jesus Christ...."
IOW, the jailer was so used to a "works"-based "religion" that he apparently thought that Biblical Christianity was like that as well.
OTOH, Paul and Silas knew better.
Now, could one have inherently know such a "gem" as that if all one knew was how the English verbs are structured???
I seriously doubt it.
16:30b "...Sirs, what must I KEEP ON DOING (emp. mine) to be saved?"
16:31b "...believe ONCE FOR ALL (emp. mine) on the Lord Jesus Christ...."
IOW, the jailer was so used to a "works"-based "religion" that he apparently thought that Biblical Christianity was like that as well.
OTOH, Paul and Silas knew better.
Now, could one have inherently know such a "gem" as that if all one knew was how the English verbs are structured???
I seriously doubt it.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Yaaawn !
Yes Rippon...that lockdown happened sometime around 1981 or so when I came to the settled conviction and peace in my heart that the KJV was the only Bible I needed. You can say what you will...it really matters not to me. For the record...(and I'm gonna attempt to NOT carry this conversation any further forward with you....)....I think it takes a LOT MORE ARROGANCE to say you (or any preacher or scholar you know) are wise enough or smart enough to continually correct God's Word than for me to say that I believe I hold one version of God's Word that GOD has made sure was perfect and without error in the language that I speak.
The position I hold says that God SUPERNATURALLY inspired, protected the transmission of, and preserved the perfection of His Word down through the years. Your position (after the initial inspiration of the "Autographs" which no longer even exist) leaves the protection and preservation of it in the hands of and at the mercy of fallen men and in our day, even profiteers who see the different new translations,versions and paraphrases as a source of income. That has been my personal observation and has led to the opinions and convictions which I hold as a Bible Believer.
My position will not change and unless some miracle happens I'm sure yours won't either. I wish you well and have no ill will toward you but as I see it is is completely unprofitable spiritually or otherwise for you and I to continue any further discussion about this particular subject. I'm done...as respectfully as I know how to be.
Bro.Greg
Yes Rippon...that lockdown happened sometime around 1981 or so when I came to the settled conviction and peace in my heart that the KJV was the only Bible I needed. You can say what you will...it really matters not to me. For the record...(and I'm gonna attempt to NOT carry this conversation any further forward with you....)....I think it takes a LOT MORE ARROGANCE to say you (or any preacher or scholar you know) are wise enough or smart enough to continually correct God's Word than for me to say that I believe I hold one version of God's Word that GOD has made sure was perfect and without error in the language that I speak.
The position I hold says that God SUPERNATURALLY inspired, protected the transmission of, and preserved the perfection of His Word down through the years. Your position (after the initial inspiration of the "Autographs" which no longer even exist) leaves the protection and preservation of it in the hands of and at the mercy of fallen men and in our day, even profiteers who see the different new translations,versions and paraphrases as a source of income. That has been my personal observation and has led to the opinions and convictions which I hold as a Bible Believer.
My position will not change and unless some miracle happens I'm sure yours won't either. I wish you well and have no ill will toward you but as I see it is is completely unprofitable spiritually or otherwise for you and I to continue any further discussion about this particular subject. I'm done...as respectfully as I know how to be.
Bro.Greg
Rippon, I can't tell you how strongly I object to you saying to another Christian that he has absolutely no basis, in a matter such as this one, for what he/she believes. You have NO WAY of knowing what the will of God is in his heart. You say Greg has no basis for believing the KJB is enough, yet, you promote/defend another version based on YOUR beliefs and opinions. If he has no basis, neither do you. You are talking about God's word here, not second rate science fiction thriller that's the current rage of the secular world.
Have you ever, for one second, considered that just possibly the Holy Spirit can/will guide brothers and sisters to the version they can best use to mature in their faith? That's the only reason why I haven't become a KJVO, as those opposed to the KJB describe that position to make their points. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that the KJB is the version best for me to use to grow in God's word. Why is spelled out somewhere in these threads, so I won't repeat it here.
Yet, according to your words to Brother Greg, I have no basis to believe the KJB was enough for my mother and especially my grandmother. God called both of them home before the NIV went to press. My grandmother was born before the ASB appeared in print. While I can't know for sure, I doubt that she ever saw an ASB or any other version, except the KJB. How dare you imply the KJB wasn't enough for them to grow in wisdom of God's word. To imply that it wasn't God's will for my grandmother, especially, to read the only Bible version that was commonly available to her. If His will had been otherwise, she would have had access to the NIV, for example, before her death. Thankfully, she doesn't need any of them now, as she can talk to the Author now.
How do you know, with absolute certainty, the variety of English versions is "just the way He wanted it" and we are blessed by them?
A blanket statement like that gives support to every modern English version on the market today. Are there any that you don't endorse? Can you say with certainty that our Lord has blessed the NWT translation produced by WatchTower? That it is "just the way He wanted it." What proof can you offer?
Can't help but smile. Comparing 34 years of usage to 401 years.
However, your quip/laughter about "various forms" spoke volumes. In this discussion, trying to be funny does not lend credibility to your position. There aren't many things that are more serious than discussing God's word. While you may think "laughing out loud" at the history of the KJB has merit, I wonder how our Saviour views this method of contempt of a book containing His word?
As to the NIV being #1 at 215 million sold worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version
Call the NIV number one when its total sales are comparable to the AV.
No further comment.
Let's see now, if "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by THE Word of God," and "For by grace are ye saved BY FAITH," and "Without FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God," and since the KJVO 1611 is "THE inspired Word of God," how then were English-speaking people saved BEFORE 1611? And, even if by some un-explainable reason they did get saved, how then were they able to please God?
IOW, if the KJV 1611 was THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, what was THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD before AD 1611?
Or, are you implying that it somehow took God some nearly over 1,500 + YEARS to realize that, "Oh no!!! I FORGOT, N - O - W, here's MY WORD!!! N - O - W here's how you English-speaking can be saved!!! N - O - W here's how you can please Me!!!"
Boy, I sure do feel sorry for those English-speaking dudes who were born, lived, and died PRIOR TO 1611!!! After all, they NEVER HAD THE Word of God, NEVER KNEW ABOUT how to be saved, much less how to PLEASE GOD!!! Them poor English-speaking dudes just never had a chance because they never had THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!!!
Right?!!?
Or, if they somehow DID HAVE the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD back prior to 1611, what was so WRONG with that INSPIRED WORD OF GOD that God felt it necessary to produce a NEW INSPIRED WORD OF GOD???
You're not implying that the INFALLIBLE, OMNISCIENT GOD some how goofed up "BIG TIME" are you?
Please explain, giving VERY SPECIFIC BIBLE REFERENCES to defend your position that the KJV 1611 was THE ONLY INSPIRED "Word of God" for the English-speaking world!!!
Can't have it both ways, now, can we?!!? :smilewinkgrin:
IOW, if the KJV 1611 was THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, what was THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD before AD 1611?
Or, are you implying that it somehow took God some nearly over 1,500 + YEARS to realize that, "Oh no!!! I FORGOT, N - O - W, here's MY WORD!!! N - O - W here's how you English-speaking can be saved!!! N - O - W here's how you can please Me!!!"
Boy, I sure do feel sorry for those English-speaking dudes who were born, lived, and died PRIOR TO 1611!!! After all, they NEVER HAD THE Word of God, NEVER KNEW ABOUT how to be saved, much less how to PLEASE GOD!!! Them poor English-speaking dudes just never had a chance because they never had THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!!!
Right?!!?
Or, if they somehow DID HAVE the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD back prior to 1611, what was so WRONG with that INSPIRED WORD OF GOD that God felt it necessary to produce a NEW INSPIRED WORD OF GOD???
You're not implying that the INFALLIBLE, OMNISCIENT GOD some how goofed up "BIG TIME" are you?
Please explain, giving VERY SPECIFIC BIBLE REFERENCES to defend your position that the KJV 1611 was THE ONLY INSPIRED "Word of God" for the English-speaking world!!!
Can't have it both ways, now, can we?!!? :smilewinkgrin:
Were the originals inspired? What about the immediate copies that were made and given to local churches?
What about the Vulgate/Bishop/geneva bibles?
Last edited by a moderator:
Other believers see a great deal of arrogance in inconsistent, modern KJV-only opinions.
It is the KJV-only view that suggests that the work of a group of Church of England scholars in 1611 in effect corrects the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. It is the KJV-only view that suggests that only an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 were wise or smart enough to translate the Scriptures perfectly. It is the KJV-only view that would suggest that the KJV always corrects the pre-1611 English Bibles when in some places one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles is in closer agreement with the original language texts than the KJV.
There is no sound scriptural basis for suggesting that God made sure the KJV was perfect instead of one of the earlier English Bibles such as the Geneva or a later English Bible. God was just as concerned about English-speaking believers in 1560 as in 1611.
How is it scriptural to suggest that God showed partiality or respect of persons to English-speaking believers in 1611 or afterwards compared to English-speaking believers before 1611?
How is scriptural to suggest that God's Word in English is bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars?
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
The Lord has blessed us with a variety of English versions ...just the way He wanted it.
In my opinion, the statement to which you objected does not given support to every modern English version. In my opinion, your assertion is a clear distortion and misrepresentation of what was stated.
Saying that more than one English translation or a variety of translation is a blessing is not a recommendation or endorsement of all English translations.
The KJV itself is a revision of a variety of pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops']. The KJV even borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Thus, the KJV is a result of the use of renderings from a variety of earlier English translations.
Would you assert that the KJV translators were wrong to borrow or follow renderings from a variety of English translations?
The Lord has blessed us with a variety of English versions ...just the way He wanted it.
In my opinion, the statement to which you objected does not given support to every modern English version. In my opinion, your assertion is a clear distortion and misrepresentation of what was stated.
Saying that more than one English translation or a variety of translation is a blessing is not a recommendation or endorsement of all English translations.
The KJV itself is a revision of a variety of pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops']. The KJV even borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Thus, the KJV is a result of the use of renderings from a variety of earlier English translations.
Would you assert that the KJV translators were wrong to borrow or follow renderings from a variety of English translations?
Think many KJVO folks hold that was the edition Moses brought down from Sinai, leather bound of course!
Your question here is good, as even theKJV had to be built on perior works, and ina sense "updated" them, so why can't the Nasb for example be seen as updating their work in same fashion?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Interesting paradox..
I find it an interesting paradox that someone with a screename such as yours would resort to glib sarcasm to attempt to make a point about a subject as important as this. That sarcasm is not appropriate or appreciated (at least by me).
The list of English versions that Logos listed have all had their place in God's time and purpose. It is God Himself that purposed, for reasons known ONLY to Himself, to bring the KJV to the forefront in the history of the New Testament church. It is God who saw fit to see to it that the KJV was to be and still remains, the predominant english language version for our time. (although I have no doubt that there are those even in here on the BB that will belittle that assertion and attempt to refute it) I contend that if, for instance, the Geneva Bible..or Tyndales, or any of the other earlier english translations had been THE one that God chose to bring to the forefront, then without doubt, it would have been one of those we'd be reading from and discussing today. As it is, all the other EARLY english versions are today mere stepping-stones (albeit,important ones) in the transmission of God's Word down through the ages to the present time. The choice was God's. I try with all my heart, in all my flawed and imperfect ways to want and pursue the things God wants me to have, do and be. I pray He will lead me and show me what He wants me to have, do and be. I asked Him,with an honest heart as far as I know, to show me the truth about His word. I believe He did. That is why I stand where I do.
Bro.Greg:saint:
I find it an interesting paradox that someone with a screename such as yours would resort to glib sarcasm to attempt to make a point about a subject as important as this. That sarcasm is not appropriate or appreciated (at least by me).
The list of English versions that Logos listed have all had their place in God's time and purpose. It is God Himself that purposed, for reasons known ONLY to Himself, to bring the KJV to the forefront in the history of the New Testament church. It is God who saw fit to see to it that the KJV was to be and still remains, the predominant english language version for our time. (although I have no doubt that there are those even in here on the BB that will belittle that assertion and attempt to refute it) I contend that if, for instance, the Geneva Bible..or Tyndales, or any of the other earlier english translations had been THE one that God chose to bring to the forefront, then without doubt, it would have been one of those we'd be reading from and discussing today. As it is, all the other EARLY english versions are today mere stepping-stones (albeit,important ones) in the transmission of God's Word down through the ages to the present time. The choice was God's. I try with all my heart, in all my flawed and imperfect ways to want and pursue the things God wants me to have, do and be. I pray He will lead me and show me what He wants me to have, do and be. I asked Him,with an honest heart as far as I know, to show me the truth about His word. I believe He did. That is why I stand where I do.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles Spurgeon observed: "If you make apparent providence your guide, you will make a thousand mistakes, but if you follow 'It is written' your steps will be wisely ordered" (The Infallible Word, p. 40). Spurgeon pointed out: "Too many direct their ways by what they call providences" (Ibid.). Spurgeon continued: "I wonder whether Jonah, when he went down to Joppa to flee to Tarshish, considered it a providence that a ship was about to sail. If so, he was like too many now-a-days, who seek to lay their guilt upon God by declaring that they felt bound to act as they did, for providence suggested it. Our Lord was not guided as to what he should do by the circumstances around him" (Ibid.).
Samuel Rutherford asserted: “God’s providence, as providence without precept or promise, can conclude a thing is done, or may be done, but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully or warrantably done, else you might say that the selling of Joseph, the crucifying of Christ, the spoiling of Job, were lawfully done” (Lex, Rex, p. 49).
Samuel Rutherford asserted: “God’s providence, as providence without precept or promise, can conclude a thing is done, or may be done, but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully or warrantably done, else you might say that the selling of Joseph, the crucifying of Christ, the spoiling of Job, were lawfully done” (Lex, Rex, p. 49).
I have no objection for you thinking that the KJV is the only translation that you are satisfied with. but you went a lot more extreme than merely that mid statement,and you know it.
May I remind you that the KJV is not the sole repository of the Word of God.
If you ever dare to correct the NIV,HCSB,NLT etc. then you are being very inconsistent,very.
You and your cronies are very,very wrong and your view of perfection is fatally skewed.
How do you know that they don't exist? you are being speculative.
You have more errors than one can shake a stick at. So its your contention that that the KJV revisers were not fallen men? you don't know much about their lives do you. LOL!
No,God did not halt the production of English Bibles after the original 1611 came out. He has blessed us with multitudes of Bible versions. Many have come to a saving knowledge of the Lord through them. Others already regenerated have come to a fuller understanding of His revelation. Don't curse what the Lord has manifestly blessed. it's a very dangerous position for you to be in.
Logic sure hasn't opened your mind. Showing the inconsistecy of your view in a number of ways has not dented your hide. The Lord will have to open your heart/mind. He certainly didn't reveal KJV Onlyism to you.
LOL! The 'time' of the KJV was then,not now. The NIV has been #1 in the rankings for almost 40 years ( for the N.T.) 30-some for the Old and New Testaments.
God did not rerveal to you the errors and flaws of the KJVO position.
And probably with the "'Orginial' notes of one C. I. Scofield no less!!"
If the KJVO 1611'ers would actually take time to read the preface "Translators to the Reader," even the KJV translators themselves claimed NO UNIQUE, DIRECT "Inspiration" FROM GOD!!!
One would think that if the KJV 1611 was "THE inspired WORD OF GOD," one would have thought that its translators would have known that, wouldn't one??? :smilewinkgrin:
Kinda smacks of a sort of "MY MIND IS MADE UP, don't CONFUSE ME WITH THE facts!" mentality to me. Talk about the height of ARROGANCE!!! :tonofbricks:
As I've mentioned earlier in several related posts, I (ktn4eg) am not a "KJV hater"!!! I received Christ as my Savior when someone showed me his KJV bible way back in April, 1966. What few "memory" verses I've retained over the years since then have been from the KJV. My "signature" below is a quotation from the KJV.
I even wrote, and had published years ago, a "scholarly" paper proving that the words "baptism," "baptize" were CORRECT USAGES by the KJV 1611 translators when it came to the PROPER MODE (i.e., immersion) of that ordinance at the time when they did their original translation of the NT!!
In fact, I've made a 2d, more updated, version of that "scholarly" defense that has 8 pages of text, 4 pages of "end notes" [of which there are 61] and 1 page of "Contents and Summary."
(N. B. --- If any out there in BB land is interested in having a copy this updated [but, as yet, unpublished], feel free to PM me. [Cost will only be for the paper, copying, shipping/handling, since I have no real desire to make any actual monetary "profit" from the many hours of research I put in at about a half dozen different libraries located in several different states to cite both "secular" and "religious" sources for this work.]
i was just trying to make the point by humour!
That many who hold to the KJV as being ONLY English version to realise that unless Moses received the 10 Commandments in the Ole King English, was not valid! Not saying you personally, but have met KJVO holders who said that was version God gave Moses!
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
OK...Got It!
OK...You get a pass on that one....I guess I ought to have thicker skin than that by now....particularly after hanging around this forum for around 8 years now. I'm just not too sure that humor is appropriate about this kind of stuff because the implications of it (on both sides) are serious and have some eternal results and/or consequences. I do love God's Word and I'm sure you would say the same.
Now...just to clearly state....A N Y KJVO person who would say that God gave Moses the KJV is more than slightly DAFT!
Bro.Greg
OK...You get a pass on that one....I guess I ought to have thicker skin than that by now....particularly after hanging around this forum for around 8 years now. I'm just not too sure that humor is appropriate about this kind of stuff because the implications of it (on both sides) are serious and have some eternal results and/or consequences. I do love God's Word and I'm sure you would say the same.
Now...just to clearly state....A N Y KJVO person who would say that God gave Moses the KJV is more than slightly DAFT!
Bro.Greg
Bronconagurski
New Member
The translators of the KJV disagree. ...About the need for Scripture in vulgar (common), everyday language, not some archaic language or dialect
"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"
"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."