What is the Worst Bible Translation?

well thanks, i can hardly wait!

 

there wasn't much harm in the religious leaders in Jesus' day tying false obligations n burdens on people's backs which they wldn't lift w their fingers, nor in their locking the door of knowledge n throwing the key into the sea, was there?

i'd suppose that the Reformers also risked (or gave) their lives in vain to get the Scriptures readable to the ploughboys of their day?

o no, there's no harm in getting God's children to put their faith in something other than the truth--something that KJBOs themselves admit they have no evidence for beyond a vague FEELING of "onenesses"! wow, that's less than what the Nehushtan provided.

it might be just a harmless, frivolous game for them, as they may feel that "once saved, forever saved." however, we know that lives are at stake here w the translated Scriptures that can make so many more readers of English wise unto salvation.

that's the tragedy of KJBOism.

 

But how do you know this? You have yet to give one reasonable, defensible, scriptural answer. Why?

The mishandling of God's truth, the misleading of little ones (like your cybergranddaughter as you called her), the division of the body of Christ over something neither Christ or Scripture talk about, the denial of God's word to millions of contemporary English speakers, etc. In short, there is a lot at stake and much harm to be done.

Are you under the impression that one is saved by the Bible version they use? We are saved by Christ, not by the Bible version. There may well be eternity to pay for some who don't read the Bible because its in 400 year old English (or even older according to some). There may well be eternity to pay for those who think God is old-fashioned because of the way he "speaks."

 

But how do you know this? You have yet to give one reasonable, defensible, scriptural answer. Why?[PLarry]

Whenever these "apostolic/onenesses" try to force the issue of being bapized in Jesus'Name, they say "show me in the Bible where it's done any other way"... Okay? Go ahead, sir. Prove it to them. Show them the EXACT scripture they are asking for.

You have your way, I have mine. What's the big problem? I am NOT the one who started these threads. But I WILL continue to hold to the old paths, where is the good way. "God Bless"

 

Matt 29:19-20. Did you not know that?

But that is not the issue. The issue is that you have built a doctrine that God did not establish and then you judge people's spiritual condition by your doctrine rather than by God's. Analogous to the Pharisees, you have established as doctrines the commandments of men. They were not rewarded for doing such nor did Jesus commend them for their standing for the old way. He condemned them

1. You are not holding the "old way." This way did not exist until very recent times.

2. The problem is that you are involved in misleading people as to God's word. I love the KJV and if you love it, read it, memorize it, and live by it. But do not condemn those who use God's word in another translation.

 

Matt 29:19-20. Did you not know that?[PLarry]

No; is that in one of those other brands? , jus'kiddin'ya! I know which chapter ya meant! And of course, I'm aware of its meaning---but go on down in the other threads where the tongues' discussions & Acts 2:38 & water baptism-for-salvation topics are discussed. Go talk to them about that Scripture. There's MEE & Oneness, & others I'm sure, who'll be glad to help ya out with your thinking.

The KJBible's not been around too recent-it was here before I was born, haha, & it is STILL the "good way" even for the 14yr. old saved by grace 1999. Smart little cookie, that one is & she'll go far in this life, should our Lord tarry His coming. Did you know Jesus is coming soon???

Oh, & one other thing, pastor; I have NOT built a doctrine or judged nor condemned anyone-you & they have done that all by your/themselves. I simply have firmly stood my ground for the way I believe the Lord would have me to live my life & satan has done his best to get me to change.

Apparently by the number of threads that have opened up on the subject of the KJBible, someone out there seems to have a problem; but this granny is settled in her life with the way it's always been & has no need of all these "helpers", etc, that's been mentioned. Thanky, anyway.

 

I am sure they would like to but we do not allow their illegitimate interpretations to run us off; nor should we with those KJVOnly crowd.

I was referring to the KJVOnly position that is recent. It never existed historically. Everyone accepted that the KJV was a translation ... a good one but a translation none the less. It was never accorded perfection nor should it be. Any translation that is faithful to the original language texts is the Word of God, just as teh translators admitted.

Granny, earlier charges of heresy, false teaching, corruption, etc were flying fast and free. Surely your memory is not that short. Will you admit that faithful MVs are the Word of God? If not, you have built a doctrine of man. If you further condemn those who use them (as Ernie did earlier), then you have judged us by a non-biblical standard. I preach from the NASB without apology and read the NIV without apology. I love them both becuase they are the Word of God. I do not condemn nor speak against those who use the KJV. I enocurage them to use it, love it, memorize it, preach it, etc. But do not condemn those of us who like the Word of God in the language we speak.

 

Will you admit that faithful MVs are the Word of God?[PLarry]

"Does that(MVs) stand for "My Versions"?

 

Nope .... it stands for modern versions, such as the NASB, NIV, NKJV. So is that a yes or a no?

[ July 14, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Nope .... it stands for modern versions, such as the NASB, NIV, NKJV. So is that a yes or a no?[PLarry]

And which one of these do YOU consider "faithful"?

 

i thot that was a rather direct n simple yes/no question PLarry asked.

 

If you are not doing battle, why are you defending?

I am not sure whether you are being sincere or otherwise but to clarify, my family and I moved to Missouri this year from Georgia. Finding a sound fundamental church has proven to be a big challenge. I am "searching" because I want to discern God's will and be sure that we are in the right church. I have been on this search for about 7 months now... I am not lazy nor careless about such an important matter.

Are you suggesting that the KJV should not be my primary Bible??? It is the Bible I grew up with and know best. However, I respect other good translations like the NASB and NKJV and use them regularly with the KJV in my personal studies. There is no doubt in my mind that we are in Missouri, about 900 miles from our extended families, due to our faithfully seeking and accepting the will of God.

My wife helped lead a young lady to Christ today. I have confidence in our "roadmap" which ever version strengthens us.

... as best as I am able, I won't compare something as important as choosing a good Bible version (based on facts) to choosing which brand of soda to drink. One decision can be based on sound facts, the other is purely a sensual preference.

You acknowledge you haven't searched like the Bereans but are none the less correct!! You have believed the lies of men.

By the way, I think you have your words misplaced. We "know" not "feel" that you are wrong. Without accepting and handling facts truthfully, you can never "know" you are right. All you have is a "feeling" which comes from the flesh.

[ July 15, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Could it be the reason KJVonly (as you put it) didn't exist historically is because there was no need for it? However, since the publication of all these so-called versions, good sound KJBible teaching has dwindled to almost non-existant...as one man said earlier it's taken him nearly 7 months to find ONE good sound Bible believing church in his area! How can all these so-called versions be the true Word of God when they blatantly contradict each other on many accounts? God does not contradict Himself nor is He the author of confusion and I can assure you that when every body in the congregation has different so-called versions of the Bible and are trying to follow along with what is being preached...there is MUCH confusion especially when they contradict each other.

I've never heard (not one time) any person, who believes that the KJBible is the Word of God, say that God's Word didn't exist before 1611. That's something y'all have come up with evidently. Psalms 12:6-7 clearly states the God will preserve His words for ever! Some of you say that means the "original manuscripts", well, where are the original manuscripts and if God's words is only the orginal manuscripts then whose words are in the KJBible we have today?

 

//i thot that was a rather direct n simple yes/no question PLarry asked//

"Well, then, I must directly & simply say 'no', which I thought was pretty obvious. [IS there a sky?]

Mr.ScottJ~I do apologize for seeming a little gruff. Whenever my family has ever made a move, it was because the Lord directed it & He always supplied us with a place of worship right away-sometimes whether or not there was a church nearby regulated as to which town to live in. The FIRST thing was to check to see if there was an ABA work, using their directory(we no longer fellowship with ABA in this area, as the Lord has led my family into a new [unregistered]independent work). In the early years, we too, lived hundreds of miles away from family, until we built our own ; btw, I have family in Georgia & my husband & his hail from Columbia, Missouri. And finally, I HAVE & DO search like the Bereans, & the Scriptures are the KJBible.

 

Granny's Daughter said,

OK, all we want to know from the KJVO folk is which version was it before 1611 which could be held in one's hands that was the fulfillment of the psalm 12:6-7 passage you have cited.

HankD

[ July 15, 2002, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hank, I believe Mr. Tyndale1946 stated that he is researching an answer to that question for y'all. Be patient. As for me, I'm talking about the so-called versions that have been printed since 1611. The KJBible is for English speaking today. Can you imagine how God's Word would be written if It were written everytime the lingo changed as some of y'all have said It should? I mean, really... Yo bro pass the KFC we be hungry! (In referrence to feeding the 5000) See what I mean, I'm pretty sure at least some of y'all would object to that...everyone has a line. Where's yours?

 

All of them are very faithful to the original language texts. But that was not the question. Do you consider modern versions that are faithful to be the Word of God? Option 1: Yes; Option 2: No.

 

No. I believe it didn't exist because fundamentalists were committed to Bible teaching. Since the KJVOnly doctrine cannot be found in the Bible, it wasn't taught. There are a plethora of bad translations out there that we should not support or recommend. But there are also some good ones that we should encourage our people to use and have.

I think this is because the good sound teachers of Scripture have all switched to moderns versions. It is very hard to find good teachers/preachers who use the KJV. There are some to be sure, perhaps even many. The existence of bad teaching is not due to the version they use but rather the depravity of their heart. They are either not willing to study, unable to teach, or scared to teach it. Whichever the case, it happens regardless of which version they use.

First, I don't know where these contradictions are. Second, my church members carry anyone of three different versions and there is never any confusion.

You perhaps are not recognizing the point we are making. If the KJV alone is the word of God, and all things that differ from it are perversions, then there can be no Word of God before 1611. If you admit that the word of God did exist before 1611, then you must of necessity abandon the position that the KJV is the only Word of God for the English speaking people.

Here is an example of why it is hard to find good Bible teaching. Ps 12:6-7 does not refer to the preservation of the words but to the preservation of the godly man. The psalmist appeals to the nature of God's promises are proof that the godly man will not perish from off the earth. If you study the psalm in its context, this becomes very apparent. It is a twisting of Scripture to make this verse apply to the words.

However, even at that you have a problem. That verse was written c. 1000BC. Therefore, many "words" have existed since then, all different. According to you, they must all match perfectly because "Things that are different are not the same." But all these "words" differ so you are back to my position ... that any faithful translation or transmission is the Word of God.

 

Do you consider modern versions that are faithful to be the Word of God? Option 1: Yes; Option 2: No.[PLarry]

"Good morning, Pastor, and it IS a good morning here, as the Lord blessed us with some much needed rain last night... Now, let's see~on to your quiz: (1)Yes, I consider there are modern versions out there (2)No, I do not consider them faithful (3)The KJBible is the Word of God.