Why I believe that using the KJV is not a compromise

[mcdirector]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Bitsy,

You look familiar...ever live in Greensboro?

NO, but I live in Winston Salem and go to Calvary Baptist Church. Have we met? (I wouldn't be at all surprised -- the world is such a small place!)

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Well, time for me to back out for a few hours. Have to go to Paltalk and co-host in a bluegrass gospel room.

be blessed.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
God did not mean for His Word to be for clerics alone, but for all mankind.

Then using Chick's logic, God should have endowed man with the printing press long before its advent. Further, the fact that the KJV did not arise until 200 years after the press refutes his own false claim (one of many false claims).

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by robycop3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Jack Chick's statement that the KJV is for the common man is a true statement. God did not mean for His Word to be for clerics alone, but for all mankind.

Well, even JUDAS got one right every now-n-then. </font>[/QUOTE]Be nice RobyCop.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Have preached in a few Baptist churches from Reidsville to Winston Salem.

Possible in a revival in one of those churches.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The first common bible was the Gutenburg.

The world vulgate means common in latin because Jerome and the church wanted a bible that the common person in the western world would understand since the greek in the Septuagint was not understood by the common person in the western world at that time.

 

[Johnv]

Oh, good point, GD.

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

Originally posted by Johnv:

You are completely wrong on your history. COMPLETELY WRONG.


The Puritans left England and sailed to the New World with their Geneva, CHOOSING TO REJECT the KJV outright. They landed at Plymouth in 1620 (not 1611, ad you falsely claimed). [/QB]

http://www.historyisfun.org/jamestown/jamestown.cfm

This was NOT hard to find.......
Jamestown Settlement
In 1607, 13 years before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, a group of 104 English men and boys began a settlement on the banks of Virginia's James River.

I was wrong about the 1611 date in plymoth but not Jamestown. Also, since the last edition was not printed until 1769, how many copies do you think people had to reject in 1620? If the KJV was translated in 1611, how many bibles do you think rolled off the press by 1620?
hmmmm.

Bottom line, just because the pilgrims rejected the KJV does not make KJVO people not "seperated" as the original thread was trying to claim.

W

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
for a history on the translation of the KJV or AV Click here

I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that the English Standard Version, let alone the NASB were influenced as much as the link would like to make us believe making them "somewhat revisions of the KJV."

The following quoted statement is certainly IN QUESTION: "Modern Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version are largely revisions of its text; it has deeply influenced Bibles such as the New International Version that do not claim to be revisions of its text."

Both were TRANSLATED from the original languages. The underlying manuscripts may have been consulted and compared, but "revisions"? I don't think so. </font>[/QUOTE]I think revision may be too strong a word in describing the influence of the KJV on the ESV and NASB. However the RV is a revision of the KJV. The ASV a revision of the RV. The RSV and NASB are revisions of the ASV. And the ESV is a revision of the RSV. So there is some validity to that statement. </font>[/QUOTE]GD,

Thx. I was going to post something on that. The AV was a fairly free revision of the KJV. I've heard them all described as being in the King James tradition.

I guess due to the popularity of the KJV for so long translators were hesitant to translate something not in the tradition of the KJV.

There have been so many informative posts here today that I can't keep up with them all.

FA

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
Bottom line, just because the pilgrims rejected the KJV does not make KJVO people not "seperated" as the original thread was trying to claim.

I agree with you there. What I disagree with you about is your contention that the pilgrims were somewhat ignorant of the KJV. They were not. They rejected it outright, as many did.

As for KJVOism, it cannot be denied the KJVOism is false doctrine, because it adds to scripture. However, individually choosing to use the KJV exclusively as one's personal bible is perfectly fine. Requiring that all others do the same is simply not scriptural in any manner whatsoever.

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

As for KJVOism, it cannot be denied the KJVOism is false doctrine, because it adds to scripture. However, individually choosing to use the KJV exclusively as one's personal bible is perfectly fine. Requiring that all others do the same is simply not scriptural in any manner whatsoever. [/QB]

I disagree with you stating that KJVO is false doctrine. This is not about KJVO and whether or not its false doctrine. This is about whether or not it is a compromise for KJVO people to use the KJV after the pilgrims rejected it. If you want to start another thread about how you believe that KJVO is false doctrine feel free to.

W

 

[rsr]

Originally posted by mcdirector:
I just bought an ESV and the only issue I've had with it so far is the print is too small (or maybe I'm just getting to old to read it).

I agree, and admit that the case is the latter, not the former.

 

[rsr]

Yes, using the KJV — and other versions — is a compromise. Most are works of great scholarship and faith, but thay have not been perfect.

The KJV, for example, testifies to an ecclesiology that is foreign to Baptists; what in the world, you say, is a bishop? Certainly not what the Anglicans thought it was. But the translation rules forbade a straightforward translation that ignored the clerical hierarchy.

And remember that many Baptists withdrew support from the American Bible Society and formed their own association, (eventually the American Bible Union), to translate baptism as immersion.

All the versions are compromises; some are better than others. With translations, there is no alternative.

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
http://www.historyisfun.org/jamestown/jamestown.cfm

This was NOT hard to find.......
Jamestown Settlement
In 1607, 13 years before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, a group of 104 English men and boys began a settlement on the banks of Virginia's James River.

I was wrong about the 1611 date in plymoth but not Jamestown. Also, since the last edition was not printed until 1769, how many copies do you think people had to reject in 1620? If the KJV was translated in 1611, how many bibles do you think rolled off the press by 1620?
hmmmm.

Bottom line, just because the pilgrims rejected the KJV does not make KJVO people not "seperated" as the original thread was trying to claim.

W

W,

Perhaps we should look at the original premise:

Why would you use a Bible that the pilgrims (separatists) rejected. They died for their convictions.

Fundamentalists talk about separation from apostates and those who fellowship with apostates (neo-evangelicals).

Well, then, isn't using the KJV compromise? The pilgrims refused to use the KJV for this very reason. They were not about to compromise with the Church of England and use their translation of the Bible.

Shouldn't fundamentalists recoil at its use in their churches?

The question is whether or not using the KJV would be compromising the values this country was founded upon based upon the Pilgrims refusing to use the KJV.

The settement in Jamestown is not relevant to this discussion since it was not a movement motivated by the search for religious freedom. But those there who had any Bibles had the KJV - since the Church of England was the only church allowed in that province.

Now I do not see how the fact that the last revision before the war for independence was in 1769 relates to this issue. It was a minor revision - dealing mainly with errors, spelling changes, etc.. The question still remains whether it is a compromise to use the KJV based on the fact that the Pilgrims rejected it (which they did).

I just do not see the value in debating whether or not the Pilgrims rejected the KJV.
1 - They did reject it. Hence the availability of the KJV at the time is not the issue.
2 - How does this relate to KJVO people?
3 - Also, something to keep in mind is that Jamestown doesn't really relate to this question. The spiritual force behind this country did not come from there, but from Plymouth.

As a thread here describes, there are different types of KJVO. Some merely prefer it and think it is the best Bible or think that the textus receptus is the most reliable Greek source for the NT.

Now, I agree that those using the KJV, whether they be KJVO or not, are not compromising the heritage of this country by such usage. They are also not upholding it by such use. It is completely irrelevant.

As you pointed out earlier, The Great Awakening probably had a greater impact and influence on our country than anything else. I am not saying that we can ignore the significance of the fact that Plymouth was founded by those seeking religious freedom. As a result of so many who came to this country to escape religious persecution, our country maintained the separation of church and state in the Articles of Confederation and later in the Constitution as a result. And that was critical to the country we are today.

Our country established several universities whose purpose was to train people for the ministry. As a result training in the original languages as well as Latin has set a focus in this country on the Word of God.

What does it matter what particular translation was used by our founding fathers? What is important is their attitude and respect for the Word of God, since that was passed on to their children. When we lift up one translation, any translation, above God Himself that does not honor Him. The original autographs were inspired. No translation into any language is inspired. And praise God that we have the Holy Spirit to enable us to understand His Word.

If some people feel that only the KJV must be used (for English-speaking people) then I feel sorry for them. Before I succombed to such a position I would choose to read the NT in the Greek only, or even in another language, such as German or Spanish. (I hear that Luther's original translation of the Greek and Hebrew into the German Bible in 11 months was a masterpiece. But there are probably better translations available in Germans now than then.)

Are not those KJVO who say such doing much the same as King Henry VIII and King James? They did not permit any but the Bishop's Bible and later the KJV to be used. And when we call those who use the KJV compromisers of our heritage, aren't we guilty of much the same thing ourselves?

I have learned that those who insist on the KJV are really not open to the opinions of others, so to try to upset them by saying that they are compromising the principles of our founding fathers is a waste of time... they're not listening.

FA

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

Thanks for your repsonse FA.
Your are right. This thread is totally fruitless.

 

[mcdirector]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
Thanks for your repsonse FA.
Your are right. This thread is totally fruitless.

Wow! Totally fruitless? Well, personally I don't think it is. I do think that the people on the KJO side will have a difficult time changing their minds -- just as I will have a hard time changing mine about good modern translations, but I've still learned a bit, I still did some more digging on my own. So at least for me, it wasn't fruitless. I didn't know that little tidbit I posted about the NIV.

AND while I don't use the KJV except as a comparison during study, I don't think it's use today is a compromise. We are in a different time and place than were the pilgrims. As I've said before, for most of us, our separation is well established.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
I disagree with you stating that KJVO is false doctrine.

You bet it is! Single-translation-onlyism is not in scripture. Neither can it be inferred from any scripture. I have asked on not less than 100 posts for scriptural proof of KJVOism. Never has a single person provided any.

KJVOism is not in scripture. Hence, it's false doctrine. Period.

If you want to start another thread about how you believe that KJVO is false doctrine feel free to.

No thanks, there have been many on this board, and, as I have said, no scripture has ever been provided.

However, on the topic of THIS thread, I agree. It is obviously not a compromise of any kind to use the KJV, or any other faithful translation of scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
Also, there isn't much difference from the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the King James. All of them used a large portion of William Tyndale's translation of 1525 AD. (If I'm not mistaken, the KJB has more than 90% of Tyndale's New Testament in it and the King James used 95% of the Geneva Bible.) W

The 1560 Geneva Bible would be overall more in agreement with Tyndale's than the 1611 KJV is.
The 1537 Matthew's Bible would be the earlier English Bible that is closest in text to Tyndale's. It is at least overstatement to claim that 90% of Tyndale's N. T. is in the KJV. It is especially inaccurate to claim that the KJV "used 95% of the Geneva Bible." The KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible.

One reason that the KJV differs more from Tyndale's than does the Geneva Bible is that the KJV took a good number of renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament. The influence of the 1582 Roman Catholics Rheims N. T. on the KJV may be one of the reasons that the Puritans and Pilgrims did not favor the KJV over the Geneva Bible. There are several important differences between Tyndale's and the KJV. The KJV has some renderings that William Tyndale would disagree with according to his own writings.

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Single-translation-onlyism is not in scripture. Neither can it be inferred from any scripture. I have asked on not less than 100 posts for scriptural proof of KJVOism. Never has a single person provided any.

KJVOism is not in scripture. Hence, it's false doctrine. Period.

[/QB]

I am sorry, but I still disagree with you. I understand your opinion, but I cannot say I agree. I don't want to break any rules in this thread debating with you why I don't believe it is as you say "false doctrine" to believe that there is one bible that is without error and inspired, perfect.

IF the subject comes up in another thread, I'll meet you there!

 

[Faith alone]

I don't mind at all if someone prefers the KJV over other translations. I don't mind if he feels it's more accurate. I do mind when he tells me that the KJV is the only one to be used - that God will not bless my study of His Word if I do not read in the KJV. (Does that mean that the studying I do in Greek won't be blessed?)

I have found some Christians to be very set-in-their-ways about certain practices and theology, but it has been my unfortunate experience (my opinion only) that none are as set-in-their-ways as the KJVO group. I've learned it's a waste of time to interact with them. When I participate on a thread related to the KJV it's usually to defend the NIV (the KJVOers have chosen that translation to vilify more than any other), though I do not particularly like the NIV, because I am concerned about those lurking who may be led astray.

I also on occasion defend the KJV from attack, as in this thread. IMO the best Bible for a person to use is one that he will actually read. There are a handful of distorted translations out there - I'm not referring to them. (Such as the New World Translation.)

Now this thread isn't really about the KJVO group. (Except that perhaps it was started IOT show some flaws in their reasoning.) It's about the KJV and how God works.

FA