The case for the KJO belief

[rsr]

Recently came across a copy of the classic 'How We Got Our Bible' by Smyth. Not dated but looks like late 19th century. Amazing book.

First edition in 1899, revised in 1912, so it includes nothing on the Dead Sea finds or other recent scholarship. If you want to see it, it's at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh...&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Baptist4life]

Would you like to retract all your comments made on 2/10/09, or some of them? Be specific.

How about instead of "retract" them, I "rephrase" them?

I think the multitude of versions of Scripture in English are
A. Unnecessary
b. Cause confusion
C. Cast doubt for new Christians on the inerrant nature of God's Word."



You have the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB...........I think those Bibles are enough to cover all the English speaking people. I really don't see any need for any more than that. At least in English anyway. They cover most of preferences of everyone, manuscript preference, modern language, archaic word updates, etc.
Of course, that's my personal opinion, and you are free to disagree.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You have the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB...........I think those Bibles are enough to cover all the English speaking people. I really don't see any need for any more than that. At least in English anyway. They cover most of preferences of everyone, manuscript preference, modern language, archaic word updates, etc.
Of course, that's my personal opinion, and you are free to disagree.

A good list, but I would add the NIRV for those to whom English is a "second language" and the ESV as an alternate to the HCSB. There's also not a lot of difference between the KJV and NKJV.

So I guess my list would be NKJV, ESV, NIRV, NASB- in no particular order. I used three of those in my sermon today as well as a Sign Language Bible.

 

[Baptist4life]

A good list, but I would add the NIRV for those to whom English is a "second language" and the ESV as an alternate to the HCSB. There's also not a lot of difference between the KJV and NKJV.

So I guess my list would be NKJV, ESV, NIRV, NASB- in no particular order. I used three of those in my sermon today as well as a Sign Language Bible.

But do you see my point, Mexdeaf? I'm not asking you to agree, just understand where I'm coming from. There are, IMHO, ENOUGH good translations in English, that I see no need for more. I believe that "can" cause confusion and doubt because I've witnessed it.
Why not put your energy into getting more Bibles translated into OTHER languages? Not everyone speaks English, and we have more than enough already.

 

[Mexdeaf]

But do you see my point, Mexdeaf? I'm not asking you to agree, just understand where I'm coming from. There are, IMHO, ENOUGH good translations in English, that I see no need for more. I believe that "can" cause confusion and doubt because I've witnessed it.
Why not put your energy into getting more Bibles translated into OTHER languages? Not everyone speaks English, and we have more than enough already.

I understand. Not sure I agree. How many is too many? And if we are honest, just reading ONE translation can cause "confusion and doubt", so that is a non-sequitur.

I'm all for getting more Bibles translated onto other languages. I pray for John of Japan regularly- thank God for men who are willing to do the grunt work!

 

[TomVols]

Rippon, B4L has said he has softened his views and I take him at his word. Of course, the real test will be what is articulated in the future (as is the case for ALL of us).

How about instead of "retract" them, I "rephrase" them?

I think the multitude of versions of Scripture in English are
A. Unnecessary
b. Cause confusion
C. Cast doubt for new Christians on the inerrant nature of God's Word."

If this is new, I'll interact. A is possible. B? I think it's loaded. C? I don't think that has to be the case. I think if anyone wants to doubt God's Word, they'll do it irrespective of the number of translations. Adam and Eve did it with no written Bible.

You have the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB...........I think those Bibles are enough to cover all the English speaking people. I really don't see any need for any more than that. At least in English anyway. They cover most of preferences of everyone, manuscript preference, modern language, archaic word updates, etc.

I don't think that covers the whole gamut but I get your point. I'd like to see some of those revised more than new translations. I do think we can easily get to a point of overload.

Why not put your energy into getting more Bibles translated into OTHER languages?

I'll second that motion. I think the folks who translate the Bible into languages without it are really doing great Kingdom work.

There's also not a lot of difference between the KJV and NKJV.

Well, I think there is a fair amount...to be fair

 

[Bro K]

But do you see my point, Mexdeaf? I'm not asking you to agree, just understand where I'm coming from. There are, IMHO, ENOUGH good translations in English, that I see no need for more. I believe that "can" cause confusion and doubt because I've witnessed it.
Why not put your energy into getting more Bibles translated into OTHER languages? Not everyone speaks English, and we have more than enough already.

Could we also say that previously newer English translations have caused confusion and doubt?

 

[TomVols]

Could we also say that previously newer English translations have caused confusion and doubt?

previously newer? Like the Bishops, Great and Geneva Bibles, forerunners of the KJV? Or subsequent revisions of the KJV?

 

[Bro K]

previously newer? Like the Bishops, Great and Geneva Bibles, forerunners of the KJV? Or subsequent revisions of the KJV?

I don't believe that the "Bishops, Great and Geneva Bibles" would qualify to be classified as 'newer'.

 

[TomVols]

I don't believe that the "Bishops, Great and Geneva Bibles" would qualify to be classified as 'newer'.

Then what did you mean??

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

First edition in 1899, revised in 1912, so it includes nothing on the Dead Sea finds or other recent scholarship. If you want to see it, it's at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh...&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thanks. Looks like mine is the 1899 one.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Quote:

"

There's also not a lot of difference between the KJV and NKJV.
Well, I think there is a fair amount...to be fair"

Perhaps there is. I have not read the NKJV cover to cover as I have the other versions that I mentioned. I need to do that and perhaps my opin will change.

 

[Rippon]

What English translations are not the Word of God?

B4L, could you please give me a reponse to this question? For instance, is the NRSV,NLTse, and MLB fully the Word of God as is the KJV?

 

[TomVols]

Quote:

"

There's also not a lot of difference between the KJV and NKJV.
Well, I think there is a fair amount...to be fair"

Perhaps there is. I have not read the NKJV cover to cover as I have the other versions that I mentioned. I need to do that and perhaps my opin will change.

While they are not identical, they're not polar opposites. That's why I used the term "fair".

 

[robycop3]

bRO. k: "I'll take God's Word instead" Where can we find God's Word? Which translation should we read and study; or does it really matter which one, since they all claim to be the right one.

ANY valid version.

"That claim is not much for a KJVO'er to hang his hat on" What are we to hang our hat on? Surely God would not allow his children to wander aimlessly through life without any guidelines; like a ship on the ocean without an anchor or rudder.

What KJVOs hang their hats on is a MAN-MADE theory that has absolutely NO Scriptural support, not even from the KJV itself, whose current edition is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, that book being 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 goof-filled volume, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

"It is claimed that the underlying Greek TR is the 1516 text of Erasmus but the publishers of the TR " Who are these publishers of the TR and where can I find out about them?

Just Google 'textus receptus' & you should find your answers. If you don't believe the Internet sources, just do the footwork at your local library.

"Sad to spend such time supporting bad man-made theology instead of lifting up the glory of God" Which translation reveals the TRUE theology; where we can find the glory of God.

Every valid translation.

I willing admit that I know very little about the various translations. But I do know that one day I will stand before an all knowing and all just God and be judged. Wonder which translation he will use to show me what He told me to do and not to do? HOPE I PICKED THE RIGHT ONE!!

If you KNOW(not just HOPE) you are saved by JESUS CHRIST, then you picked the right one. However, if you diss any perfectly-valid versions because of what some man told you, ya might have some tall explaining to do. While it shouldn't affect your salvation, it could significantly diminish your reward. After all, all valid Bible versions are here by GOD'S WILL. after all, the Scriptures are HIS word.

 

[robycop3]

I use a variety of versions/translations for various purposes, my reason being the many, MANY possible correct English renderings of many, MANY Hebrew Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases. Also, GOD gives each of us different abilities and viewpoints, and this included Bible translators also. For example, Myles Coverdale translated slightly differently from his teacher Tyndale, and Launcelot Andrewes rendered the same Scriptures differently in English than Coverdale did.
It's beneficial to study several different translations, old and new, to increase one's knowledge and overview of the Scriptures. After all, each translation is based largely upon the opinions of their various translators, and the AV translators advised that "variety of translations is profitable for the Finding Out of the Sense of the Scriptures".

 

[Cutter]

I found the following statements from the article to be very telling.

Why does the English language need over two hundred translations when there are over 3,000 ethnic languages that do not have one word of Scripture? I suppose the money that should have been used to publish God's Word in these languages has been used up on English language readers who want their ears tickled by yet another trendy translation.

The many translations have robbed the Word of God of its authority and left man's intellect in charge of deciding whether he would have this version or that version to rule over him.

Since 1881 there has been controversy and confusion (which by the way, is reflected in the many modern translations all claiming to be the Word of God and all different from each other). Some say it is the United Bible Society's Greek text and the English translation of it that is God's Word. Others say, no, it is the Nestle Greek text and the English translation of it that is God's Word. Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts. What do the scholars say? Each scholar says something different than the other.

So now, the correct reading is "up for grabs." One Greek scholar says one reading is right, while another says it is not. There is mass confusion much like the ridiculous uncertainty of modern art. Well, that is how the situation came to be, but that does not mean that is what it should be. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[annsni]

It can be, but it can also go the other way. I've watched people start to doubt the validity of God's Word when different translations either say something differently, or have/have not certain passages. And it has nothing to do with KJVO. So.........please.

I honestly have to say that if you have people in a Bible study like that, it is very easy to give a simple explanation of textual criticism and if after that they doubt the validity of the Word of God, then they have a bigger problem on their hands. I've been a Christian for almost 40 years and I've not seen anyone doubt the validity of the Word of God because translations word things differently (not that they don't say the same thing because they do - just word it differently). And I've been amongst a LOT of different kinds of people even those who are just learning English.

 

[Baptist4life]

What I get the most is something like this:


"how come your Bible doesn't have that passage in it?"

"how come mine does, but your's doesn't?"

"Who's version is correct?"

"should that be in the Bible or not?'

"that doesn't mean the same thing as what mine says"


That type of thing.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What I get the most is something like this:


"how come your Bible doesn't have that passage in it?"

"how come mine does, but your's doesn't?"

"Who's version is correct?"

"should that be in the Bible or not?'

"that doesn't mean the same thing as what mine says"


That type of thing.

All good questions. I can't think of a better place to deal with them than in Bible study. Folks will have these questions whether we deal with them or not.