Why?

[Rosell]

I do not understand why this particular debate is so divisive. I guess I've been observing this debate on this board for six or seven months now, and I simply cannot understand why there seems to be so much animosity between believers over Bible translation, to the point where some actually declare their belief that others who don't accept their view are lacking in the qualities of salvation.

I can understand why some people might feel quite strongly about their preferred English translation of the Bible, but most of the posts in these threads--either favorable toward modern translations or favorable toward King James--reveal a general lack of knowledge about the whole process of Bible translation.

I'm sure the occasional outsider who comes here and views these threads is not getting a good impression of the Baptist brand of Christian faith.

 

[Johnv]

The issue in question, Rosell, is not an issue over a specific bible translation. The issue stems over whether single translation onlyism (regardless of the translation) is either scripturally supportable or acceptible as doctrine.

As a nondoctrinal individual belief, however, every person is allowed to use a translation which he/she feels is most suitable to him/her. Lacking scripural support for anything more, to assert that the translation any one person uses is to be the only translation used by everyone else is improper doctrine.

 

[Trotter]

Rosell,

It is not the translation that is opposed, but the worship of it.

When anyone takes something and elevates it to a point above itself, it becomes an idol. If you have followed this forum for any length of time, surely you have seen this first-hand.

By claiming that the KJV is 'inspired', 'without error', 'God's only bible', 'perfect', whatever, the "King James Version Onlyists" are making an idol out of a translation of the bible.

If you look further, you will see some of those who hold to the KJVO position actually claim that the KJV translation is equal to, or supercedes, the texts it was translated from, or, according to some, the originals!

And many claim that the source texts used for the KJV are the purest and closest to the originals...totally ignoring the few Greek manuscripts that Erasmus used (of only one family), or his heavy reliance on the Latin Vulgate. These individuals totally disregard any other manuscripts on the basis that "they are not the TR."

The animosity is not over a bible translation, but over a false, man-made lie that several have bought into.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[AVL1984]

Rosell,

To elevate the kjVERSION to the position of the only version of the Bible that has been preserved by God is ludicrous and idolotry (better known as bibliolotry). There are some here who would have us believe that God only preserved His word through one line of texts, tearing down believers who use the modern translations. They also refuse to acknowledge what ever the translators of the KJV acknowledged, that it is just a version. It had many updates over a period of 200 years or so, so we've asked them to prove which one of the kjV's is the perfect, preserved WOG, which they cannot answer.
To imply people are deceived because they do not use the kjV only , or depend on it as their final authority is foolish at best.

AVL1984

 

[robycop3]

Rosell,

The reason the issue is so divisive is that the devil has tricked some of our brethren into believing a totally false, completely man-made doctrine. Yes, unfortunately, there are a few who actually BELIEVE that stuff! And I can safely declare the KJVO doctrine false by the FACT that it's NOT SUPPORTED WHATSOEVER in Scripture, either empirically or by implication. Thus, when a KJVO tells someone using another version that "You don't got no Bible there", we know the KJVO is wrong. As Christians and Baptists, we have a D-U-T-Y to fight this and other obviously-false doctrines that have invaded our churches.

 

[DeclareHim]

I think the whole debate got started when KJVO sects began telling everyone they had to use one version.

 

[dianetavegia]

Excellent Answers, All!

 

[michelle]

I have a different take on this, as I believe God provided for all of us his inspired words in our language. I believe that God provided us, who speak English his words error free. If God did not provide for us scriptures error free, then we are left believing half truths and lies, and have no defense from the wicked who would prevert the word of God, to decieve us. I also believe God provided his word of truth error free, so that we would be able to live our lives according to his perfect will, and to also give us the perfect revelation of Jesus Christ.

Many talk about a man made myth, but they are looking at this in the wrong and twisted manner. The only man made myth being believed here, is that all versions are the pure word of God. They all cannot be the word of God, as they all conflict with one another, and many of the mv's today have left out verses of scripture, or changed meanings of the scriptures that are contrary to, and different from what the believing churches for generations have believed, preached, lived, loved and had known and still do today. Many must then turn and hide behind foriegn languages that most common folk do not know, understand, nor have the ability to, to tell us that we cannot have the inspired word of God in our language. Many expect us to believe that God would allow errors in the scriptures. This cannot be, as the word of truth is God's word, and has not any errors. Many must justify the alterations that are evident in the mv's and to do this they must make up a false man made label to attack the truth, and then attack those who believe it, and try to share with them the truth. It is a very sad thing that is happening within the churches today. And the saddest thing is, in all of this, that God is left out of this whole issue. God has no part, nor power or control over his word in a translation, so we are told. Many unfortunately relegate men to the power of preservatiion in the translation, and attribute to men, what God provided. Many are sadly doubting what the true word of God is for us in our language, and claim there are errors, where there are none, but then excuse away the obvious errors evident in the mv's. All in trying to prove and fight a false man made label. God's word of truth, doesn't have a label, nor is God's word a choice of preference. God's word of truth is evident to the believer. He doesn't give me a choice of what flavor I choose his word to be in, or the choice to pick and choose what I believe to be God's word, and what I don't. He doesn't give me an option to decide well this version seems better than the other. God gave us his word of truth, so that we study it, and learn of Him and his will for us, so that we not only Know him, but obey him.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

Again, michelle, which version of the kjVERSION is the inspired, preserved Word of God. You refuse to answer a simple question. With all of the changes that were made over a 200 year period of time, I don't see where you are coming from.

Again, you are using inflammatory language, false accusations against those who use the MV's and call them deceivers and deceived. You state they believe "a myth", yet they believe the very Word of God you believe, perfect and entire lacking nothing in the form of the MV's.

You really need to do some studying on honest presentation of your case. Your continued misrepresentation of people who use MV's will not be tolerated without some kind of statement from this poster.

AVL1984

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have a different take on this, as I believe God provided for all of us his inspired words in our language.

I am not sure just how to express this, because it is very difficult for me to do so without breaking any rules of the BB, but it seems very clear to me from this post, and other similar posts, that Michelle believes that those who do not speak English are not fully human, and that Michelle believes that God shares that opinion with her.

I can not imagine a more severe doctrinal error than that. I have other things that I would like to say about this post and the woman that wrote it, and I believe that they need to be said, but I respect those in authority over me on this message board, and I shall not say them.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Again, you are using inflammatory language, false accusations against those who use the MV's and call them deceivers and deceived. You state they believe "a myth", yet they believe the very Word of God you believe, perfect and entire lacking nothing in the form of the MV's.

There is no "inflammatory language" in the above post. michelle is simply stating what she believes. Her position has every bit as much scriptural support as your position does.

Your continued misrepresentation of people who use MV's will not be tolerated without some kind of statement from this poster.

Yet, you feel free to misrepresent the KJVO and stereotype us all into one group. In another thread you said:

KJVOnlyists remind me of democrats. They talk loudly, try to overpower everyone else and use circular reasoning, hoping their opponent will eventually give up in frustration. They post long threads of scripture of which maybe one or two verses have relevence, if any at all, and then continue on with their circular reasoning, never really going to the underlying issues.

If you really believe what you say, it shouldn't be that difficult to defend with the Word of God.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Pastor Bob,

You're right that not all KJBO are the same. I have encountered many who are quite willing to discuss things in a Christian manner. Certain posters do, however, like to enter into the thick of the discussion and then answer with things like, "If you don't want to believe the truth then you'll never understand (paraphrase mine)". This kind of statement is both demeaning AND reflective of a lack of knowledge of the subject being argued. If one cannot answer the question then he/she says something like the above quote.

 

[dianetavegia]

We have a number of KJVO in our homeschool group. I have a signature line on my emails. One lady got very upset because I sent out info about some happenings in our area for homeschoolers and she thought that my NKJV signature would imply the whole group used that version. She was quite ugly about it and was demanding I not use anything other than KJV on my personal emails! Needless to say, I ignored her demands but I also have only attended one of the groups activities since then (2 years).

No mere person will tell me which version is for me. BTW..... this board is the first place I had ever heard of the great divide between KJVO and all others.

Diane

 

[HankD]

I can not imagine a more severe doctrinal error than that. I have other things that I would like to say about this post and the woman that wrote it, and I believe that they need to be said, but I respect those in authority over me on this message board, and I shall not say them.

This is becomming very similar to a past dogma of the RCC, that the Latin Vulgate is/was written in the language of heaven superceeding and superior to the Greek and Hebrew of the original laguage texts to be kept from the flotsam and jetsam of the ignorant masses never to be translated into a local tongue under the penalty of death and/or excommunication.

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
michelle is simply stating what she believes. Her position has every bit as much scriptural support as your position does.

Sorry Pastor Bob, but with all due respect this is a categorically false statement. There is no scriptural support for the notion that God would re-inspire His "words" through the KJV translators. She persistently asserts that the KJV is not only God's Word (which I would agree with) but also His words.

She has never been able to answer my objection that the KJV translators do not biblically qualify as recipients of direct inspiration.

OTOH, the beliefs that the non-KJVO's espouse in here are all biblically consistent.

Were the originals inspired? Yes. The Bible says so.

Were the originals unique in that respect? Yes. The writers of scripture were specially chosen and biblically qualified as no one since John wrote "the end" have been.

Is it possible to have more than one legitimate "word" on a single event? Yes. The Gospels yield numerous examples.

Is it possible for two or more different wordings for the same passage to be both/all be considered the Word of God? Yes. Within the KJV itself, almost none of the OT quotes in the NT are exactly worded the same.

 

[AVL1984]

I agree, Scott J. This is better worded. Michelle has made constant attacks on those who use MV's as deceived, questioning not only their salvation, but their standing with God, declaring them as deceiving others, etc. It has gone on for many weeks now. She has posted many many long quotes of scripture that have nothing to do with the subject, (which the posting of scripture to support her point would be fine if it actually supported her point). I, too believe that Pastor Bob is incorrect, with all due respect. I've never stated that ALL kjVO's are obnoxious. I know many who aren't. Yet, Pastor Bob would intentionally misrepresent what I've said.

Pastor Bob states that there are no inflammatory words, which again, is not the case. Accusing MV translators of "leaving out words", "leaving out verses", again implying that they are deceived. Why? Because they don't follow the same line of preservation as those who wrote the king james VERSION. So, Pastor Bob would say that those who use MV's are not stereo-typed by the KJVO's such as himself.

Fact: The MV's have all doctrines intact, as well as all of the fundamentals of the faith.

Fact: The kjVERSION has all doctrines intact, as well as the fundamentals of the faith.

So, why the attacks on those who use the MV's as deceived and unGodly, deceivers, Bible changers, leaning only to human understanding??? Those saved through the ministry of the MV's are every bit as saved. Those living Christian lives through the ministry of the MV's are every bit as Holy.

Cults have used the kjVERSION for years. Remember the David Koresh? Remember Jim Jones? Many others could be named, especially Mormonism, JW's, etc.

Intentional misrepresentation isn't just a belief, it is ignorance. As stated here several times before, I am kjV by preference. I am not an apologist for the MV's. But, I will not stand by and let KJVO's intentionally misrepresent those who use MV's, implying they are deceived, deceivers themselves, unGodly, relying only on human reasoning (when the kjVo's won't even admit that they have nothing more than a version, which even the translators admitted), quetioning their salvation, their service to God, etc.

AVL1984

 

[TC]

Originally posted by michelle:
I have a different take on this ... Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

In other words - The scholarship that produced the KJV is perfect and is of faith and all other scholarship is evil and not of faith.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Michelle,

Your line of reasoning is not half bad actually - at least as it relates to the word of God having been preserved through the years. The KJB was the only English version available (there were others in existence but arguably the KJB was THE English bible for several hundred years). That gives us every reason to see it as a translation approved by God.

The problem is that even the KJB type manuscripts are not all equivalent. The KJB revisions are similar but not identical. It would be nice if God had preserved the originals, or if Paul and John and others had written in English - but this just isn't the case.

God's word comes to us in several English versions. In truth can any written human language claim to 100% contain all of God's word? I agree with Jeremiah - the word is written in the heart!

 

[pinoybaptist]

Funny thing, Michelle, and anyone who knows, but, I remember that in the KJV Romans 5:10 has the following:

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his blood.

In today's KJV the last word, blood, is now, life. Am I correct ? That it used to previously be his blood and not his life ?

Reason I recalled this is because I remember reading a KJVO argument that the MV's have changed blood to life [/b] and this kind of waters down the doctrine of salvation thru the blood.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So, Pastor Bob would say that those who use MV's are not stereo-typed by the KJVO's such as himself.

You are exactly right. I do not stereotype those who use Modern Versions. I have many preacher friends who use the NASB and the NKJV. John R. Rice, whom I read quite often was fond of a Modern Version.

That is between them and the Lord. I will defend what I believe when asked, and sometimes even when I'm not asked, but I totally support each one's right to choose their own Bible.

I seldom get drawn into an argument on the version issue, but I do enjoy a good debate.