Question for KJ only crowd

[steaver]

It's not necessarily evil. They had to work within the restraints that were put on them. Most of the translators were high Anglican/Catholic. Some of them may not have even been saved. Granted, they were the great scholars of their time, but that doesn't speak for their walk with God. There are many that simply assume they were very Godly men, when the very opposite may very well could be true. I have a book that points to this evidence.

But the reality of the situation was a matter of political correctness. They were bound by their religion, as well as the other religions to be politicall correct. I mentioned some of the more obvious examples before:
church should be assembly.
baptism should be immerse.

Our concepts in ecclesiology would be greatly cleared up and much different in many people's minds if those two words had been translated properly. But instead of translating baptidzo they simply transliterated the word into baptism, which has a wealth of meanings and is very ambiguous. It accomodates all the religions, and certainly would not go against the Anglican or Catholic forms of baptism. Had they faithfully translated it immersion, as the word means, what an uproar it would have caused in those two churches for whom they were working for!!
Call it dishonesty and evil intent if you like. They were bound by political expediency; the political climate of the day. Many words were translated with the bias of their own religious background, and/or because of the political restraints that were put on them at the time. I hope that makes some sense to you.
DHK

Excellent post DHK! Now this is what I am looking for in a deliberation with a fellow brother or sister in Christ. This is a informative post and it carries a probable scenario of thoughts of the seventeenth century translator. This doesn't mean I am ready to embrace it as the way it went down, but at least it is a reasonable alternative view to the issue.

This is what I mean by calling something an "error". Maybe it isn't such a big deal that they said Easter or unicorn if one is able to explain the circumstances. Do these two words change any sort of doctrine? Think about this though, it is just as damaging for a Christian or a non-Christian to hear a leader say "all bibles are riddled with hundreds of errors" as it is to hear one say "all MVs are of the devil".

Both are very misleading and would make a new convert or unbeliever cringe at the thought of even bothering to read any bible.

If one can extract the Gospel and sound doctrines of Christian living out of the bible they use then praise be to God and none of us should be telling others that our English bibles are riddled with errors. Tell them that they need some understanding , that is why God gave us so many outside resources and helps, but let's not tell the world that our bibles are riddled with "error". We should be on the same team, calling any and every bible worthy of sound doctrine "The Word of the Lord".

Even the KJB which I highly value needs some help here and there from the Greek and Hebrew as well as from the historical perspective of the time in which it was written. I don't call this "error" (just me maybe) I see no helpful value in trying to prove it riddled with error in the sight of others. It can only do harm.

Satan is probably having a good laugh at us Christians going at each others bibles. It began with the KJV crowd declaring all MVs are of the devil. So to counter, the MV crowd began to rip appart the KJV. Who is winning? That would be Satan.

Personally I do not care what version my brothers and sisters study out of. The only other bible I ever studied was an NIV and as I said before it left me wanting. The KJB made it easier for me to understand doctrines. I am not sure why, it just makes things clearer for me.

God Bless!

 

[DHK]

I agree with you that the KJV is still the most accurate translation. For the sake of others, I often say: "A better translation is...," or "the word also has this meaning..." etc.
It is true that in feeding the sheep it is not necessary to blatantly say this book has errors in it. That is not our intent. At the same time our people ought to be educated enough to know that the Word of God in preserved in the original languages, and from those languages we can have a trustworthy translation that we can call the Word of God.

Now to be a "Ruckmanite" that's a different story.
DHK

 

[steaver]

There is extreme misleading rhetoric coming out of both camps on this issue. This is why I believe we should not lay lables on each individual simply because they defend certain parts of either sides view. I have talked with other folks on these boards which state that the KJV is the WORSE translation ever produced. These folks are in the MV camp so to speak yet I see from your own words that you are not with them on this. Some in the MV camp believe the Critical Text trumps the Recieved Text, yet again you do not believe this either. Maybe we are not in any "camps" but simply desire to understand the truth of these matters knowing full well that each side has taken things a bit to far, some way to far!

God Bless you brother DHK. I sense you are a good keeper of the Word.