Where Do You Stand on the Version Issue?

YOu have a problem with three. Question three should make answer 1, 3 and 4 all available since all are true. But you, for some reason, set it so you can only choose one. In several of these, the choices presented are not comprehensive and do give real solid choice.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry on question 3. Answers 1, 3, and 4 are all true but we are limited to only two.

 

Why on Earth would someone want to translate the KJV into another language rather than translating the Hebrew/Greek mss into the target language? Do some of you think that the KJV is actually better than the original manuscripts?

Joshua

 

I with Joshua, use the Greek and Hebrew

 

As for me I found this a fair and interesting poll.

Harald

 

I think we have a number of excellent translations, yet we need to realise that some of these are meant to be used differently. Sometimes we need to understand that say "The Living Bible" is a paraphrase, and not meant for expository study. Some bibles are written and prefaced to be relevant to a teenager. Others are designed for intensive study.

A good Australian slang term could apply here "Horses for Courses Mate" (Different racehorses go better on different racetracks)

 

Pastor Bob,

I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to trick someone or be unfair about it. I apologize if that came across. I didn't intend for it to. Perhaps I could have better worded it by suggesting that it might have been done differently to be a more accurate representation of people's views. I believe 1,3 and 4 about number 3 but could only check to.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

VERY GOOD POLL PASTOR BOB!!!

 

I had a bit of difficulty taking the poll. The only answer to any question that I could choose was to #2. Original manuscripts were inspired. I guess I am too picky. For instance, on #1 my position is I like the KJV the best but don't think it is the best translation and don't use it exclusively.. I think there are only a few good translations, not many. I don't think it is hard to understand (any more than other translations). I am a unique individual and I am either proud of that or embarrassed, I don't know which.

 

The original mss are lost.

Yes.

 

I am always amazed when I see such statements.

If you sincerely believe that the KJV is better than the originals, you deny the clear Scriptural teaching on the matter for sensationalism and heresy.

God moved men to write the Scriptures. This was accomplished in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. None of it was written in English. When you say that some English translation is better than the originals, you are saying that God did not perfectly inspire men to write Scripture.

It is kind of a reverse liberalism. This kind of KJVO is just as bad. Both deny inerrancy. Both deny that God was able to actually write the Word.

It is precisely at this point that many KJVO do not wish to go but must constanty defend. It is the logical conclusion to their position.

It is also at this point that I rejected KJVO and will never be apart of again. Your view of preservation (which is incorrect) has dictated your view of inerrancy.

This is all just so sad

 

I don't think it's reverse liberalism. I think it's an example of conservative extremism. There have been several statements by a handful of folks that speak of the KJVO view as biblical doctrine. This is an example of adding to scripture, and, in agreement with you, it's inappropriate and heretical.

 

Got to agree with PTW. KJVOnlyism is definitely liberal. It is a new doctrine that steps outside of scripture for its authority and depends completely upon someone deciding what God meant rather than just trusting what He said.

 

i tried to vote but got stuck at Question 1: what can one do, who believes in the inspiration n inerrancy of the King James but doesn't use it exclusively--i.e. not an Onlyist?

 

As Baptists, we believe that the Scriptures teach 'believers baptism', right?

Here is what actually happened in our home.

Our grandchildren were raised Catholic, and I have not nagged them, but tried to tactfully help them with Scripture when I can.

Our oldest grandchildren are twins and both have had problems with the priest about their children's "baptism" (sprinkling)

Our great grandaughter was born with a black tumor on her leg. Her dad had been divorced before he married her mother, so Father Pat would not "baptize" her. Our grandaughter was distraught, to say the least.

I was able to witness to her about believer's baptism along with the true plan of Salvation.

Then our grandson's wife left him the day of their son's first birthday, and took the baby with her as she lived with several men and finally married again.

Father Pat would not confirm the baby because our grandson couldn't promise to raise him as a Catholic.

He had left his 'Jerusalem New Testament' here, so I was going to show him in his own Bible, Acts 8:37. We turned to it together and to my utter amazement, there was no verse 37 in Acts 8 in his Bible.

I thought it was a Catholic thing and was telling my Sunday School class about it. They all looked it up and about half of the Bibles in our Baptist class did not have verse 37 in Acts 8.

They were NIV.

 

Well, Forever's remark about 'onlyist' captured my 'one track mind' and I forgot that I was responding to the poll.

The incident I wrote about above has almost made an 'onlyist' out of me, but I felt the same way about question 1.

I use the Gateway Online Bible with all the translations and compare them often, but I use Bible Study Tools with Strong's definitions and Strong's defines words in KJV only.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?


http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/

I have the New King James with all the explanations about the translations in the Preface pages.

There was nothing in the poll about the Textus Receptus that the KJV Translators used before these Alexandrian manuscripts were found.

The problem with polls is that the answers are so rigid, it is the 'poll's way or the highway' and this one wouldn't let me vote unless I voted on all the questions. There was one question that didn't have an answer that I wanted to use.

 

Alliswell said:

They all looked it up and about half of the Bibles in our Baptist class did not have verse 37 in Acts 8.

They were NIV.

Perhaps if you had researched the subject more, you would have realized that the doctrine of believer's baptism does not stand on the presence Acts 8:37; nor do the doctrines of paedobaptism or baptismal regeneration stand on its absence.

 

Question number 4 does not give enough options. I don't believe ALL modern versions are correct or incorrect. I, personally, only use the New King James Version but would never use certain other new translations for study!