[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism  (Read 35168 times)

iGreg

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2004, 01:35:58 PM »
I never said the 1611 version is the version I use. Mine is the 1769 edition. I have seen the 1611 version. The differences are primarily spelling. I believe Nelson or Zondervan publish a copy of the 1611 for sale.

The KJV in common use today is just fine, God's word comes through. That it is written in a flowing and beautifully poetic English is just icing on the cake & helps to differentiate it from the mere writings of men. Even biblically illiterate folks can often tell a quotation comes from the bible when a verse from the KJV is quoted, which is another added benefit.

P.S. It is my understanding that the KJV was often in use in schools before recent so-called modern times, and is there any doubt that folks spoke better English in the earlier days of this nation.

Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2004, 02:15:45 PM »
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?

 It's troubling to me that so many seem to think that every word in the bible is not divinely inspired and so it's completely proper to rework words or even remove them entirely in order to get to what the author of the text really meant. This is a problem for me. And frankly, I'd rather have King James Onlyism than this dry rot in the church with regards to inerrancy.
Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2004, 04:37:21 PM »
JD@ wrote:
Quote
Did you have a particular reason for picking the longer variant, Dave?

Simple,
Give me all that is available, from both textual families, (footnoting differences is OK) and allow me to study the full effect of the passage and to study it in light of other passages and come to a conclusion on it; rather than omitting part of it all together as the Critical text family often (but not always) does in comparison to the Majority Text and TR.


iGreg

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2004, 07:43:11 PM »
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. ...

Not exactly, I have no problem in saying that the King James version is the "only" English version I use or recommend.

Beechwood

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Fishers of Men
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2004, 05:46:10 AM »
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?

I agree Kenneth. There is no question but that this idea that the King James Bible only is a perfect translation is without merit. There is no perfect translation, but all things considered the KJV is the best. With people like Brandplucked making these unjustifiable claims, it's difficult to ingage in a meaningful discussion about the KJB without being linked with his KJ-onlyism. Personally I don't think that the NIV is either biblical or useful, but many of Christians do. You just can't talk to them about its flaws and errors because they are so use to using it and have it in their mind that the KJV is antiquated.


Quote
It's troubling to me that so many seem to think that every word in the bible is not divinely inspired and so it's completely proper to rework words or even remove them entirely in order to get to what the author of the text really meant. This is a problem for me. And frankly, I'd rather have King James Onlyism than this dry rot in the Church with regards to inerrancy.

I don't know about that, but I do understand what you are saying. There is a different breed of translator on the scene today, and he's not really good for the church. I think that we should all work individually to fight against this trend of attacks upon the KJB and get out the information that it is the best version available. Without the tag of KJ-onlyism to dirty the waters. Because there is no perfect translation.



brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2004, 09:15:11 PM »
Beechwood posts: "Quote from: Kenneth White on April 15, 2004, 02:15:45 PM

I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?
I agree Kenneth. There is no question but that this idea that the King James Bible only is a perfect translation is without merit. There is no perfect translation, but all things considered the KJV is the best. With people like Brandplucked making these unjustifiable claims, it's difficult to ingage in a meaningful discussion about the KJB without being linked with his KJ-onlyism. Personally I don't think that the NIV is either biblical or useful, but many of christians do. You just can't talk to them about it's flaws and errors because they are so use to using it and have it in their mind that the KJV is antiquated.

I don't know about that, but I do understand what you are saying. There is a different breed of translator on the scene today, and he's not really good for the church. I think that we should all work individually to fight against this trend of attacks upon the KJB and get out the information that it is the best version available. Without the tag of KJ-onlyism to dirty the waters. Because there is no perfect translation."


Hi B and others, its seems none of you believe that any Bible is the perfect word of God. "there is not perfect translation",  "KJV Onlyism is fatally flawed" yada, yada.

Yet you all here seem to profess a faith in the Sovereignty of God.  Did God lie when He said He would preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away or not?  If the King James Bible is not your final authority for the words of God, then it is your own minds and each of your resultant "bibles" will be different from everybody else's.  You are no better off than the Whateverists.

God didn't promise to give us an almost perfect Bible or to almost preserve His words.  Do any of you KJV preferred types really stop to think about what the Bible says about itself regarding the true words of God?  Do you believe the Book?  It is obvious that you are fence-sitters who ultimately place your own minds above the written words of God.

Will Kinney




Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2004, 03:36:37 AM »
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?
I agree Kenneth. There is no question but that this idea that the King James Bible only is a perfect translation is without merit.

Very true. This is the real crux of the matter. It's philosophers like Brandplucked that do more to harm the KJV than it's detractors. Because their unsound and often cultish ideas give bulletin board material to KJV detractors.So when rational people like us try to tell people the KJV is the best translation, they immediately assume KJVOnlism. There are good, rational intelligent reasons why the KJV should be the Bible of choice for serious Christians, but being a perfect translation is not one of them.

The KJV is a great translation, but it's not the original language where every word was God breathed and inspired. It is a "translation" of the inspired text, and thus the words are not always perfect. Just as when the Bible is translated into the spanish language. The translation is not always going to be perfect. those who claim they are following scripture of a kept word of God are actually using scripture out of context. The reason that we know the KJV is not perfect is because we can compare it's words to the Greek and Hebrew words from which it is translated. Then it is obvious to any intelligent person that it is not always perfectly translated.

Quote
Hi B and others, its seems none of you believe that any Bible is the perfect word of God. "there is not perfect translation",  "KJV Onlyism is fatally flawed" yada, yada.

Yet you all here seem to profess a faith in the Sovereignty of God.  Did God lie when He said He would preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away or not?

Brand, that kind of philosophy will not work with intelligent God fearing people. God in fact did preserve His Word. And that is how we know that the KJV is not a perfect translation. It is the best translation without question, but not a perfect one.


Quote
God didn't promise to give us an almost perfect Bible or to almost preserve His words.

As I said, this tactic doesn't work with intelligent people. And I've found that most of those here are wise in the Spirit. God gave us the perfect scriptures, and the KJV was "translated" from those perfect scriptures. I wonder if you would think that Spanish Bibles are not perfect, because it wasn't translated by King James Translators? That logic makes no sense.

Having said that, I do disagree with those who tout the side by side versions as useful. I would never have side by side Bible versions to help me, because it is confusion both to myself and others. To say other versions are unfaithful, and yet support other versions by use of them as reference, is hypocritical in my view. I believe that if we are unsure of what any word in the KJV means, we should buy a good concordance, not a side by side bible to compare different versions. especially any Bible with the NIV in it.

But to call a translation perfect is overstepping what God says.
Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2004, 03:45:26 AM »
Which brings me to this point. Everywhere we look today pastors and church goers alike are now using the NIV. It's almost the standard bible for reformed theologians it seems. If that is not a sign of the creeping apostasy in the church, I don't know what is.

I believe that any really knowledgeable person can understand that the NIV is a horrible translation, and no self respecting and conscientious Christian should use it. Yet it is used routinely, and not just by liberal theologians anymore but by otherwise intelligent Reformed ministers. It is now firmly placed in what use to be solid biblical Churches. In my view, this is a far greater horror than KJV Onlyism. And far more sinister. That's my view.
Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2004, 07:47:08 AM »
Quote
Having said that, I do disagree with those who tout the side by side versions as useful. I would never have side by side Bible versions to help me, because it is confusion both to myself and others. To say other versions are unfaithful, and yet support other versions by use of them as reference, is hypocritical in my view. I believe that if we are unsure of what any word in the KJV means, we should buy a good concordance, not a side by side bible to compare different versions. especially any Bible with the NIV in it.

Kenneth, I find this view to be both arrogant and presumptuous.  As you yourself have noted, most here use their brain, and aren't easily swayed by this type of high-minded, judgmental attitude.   Since I'm the only one here to my knowledge who posted the fact that I prefer the KJV, yet also have a parallel Bible that I have on occasion found helpful,  I take exception to such statements.  So...  you find this to be confusing?  Well that's you; another is hardly a 'hypocrite' because they have the unmittigated gall to make comparison of various translations.

I would rather that you quote me word-for-word rather than 'translate' what I've said in my posts, for I did not 'tout' parallel Bibles, nor did I say "other versions are unfaithful".  We're talking degrees here, not absolutes with respect to the various English translations.

I also have and use a Strongs concordance -- contrary to your implications.

Let me ask you this...  Snce most don't know Greek/Hebrew nor have access to the oldest manuscripts -- upon what basis can we say the KJV is the most accurate?  Do we simply accept that any particular translation is the 'best' on the basis of the popular view?  Consider for a moment the ignorance and 'hypocrisy' of that, and of whatever personal agenda you may have for making such statements as those quoted above.

Pro 25:2 
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Mat 7:2 
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.



judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2004, 02:46:23 PM »
Quote
Yet you all here seem to profess a faith in the Sovereignty of God.  Did God lie when He said He would preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away or not?


Please list all the perfect Bibles preceding the KJV of 1611. If God will preserve His words through a perfect Bible, then what are they?


Quote
If the King James Bible is not your final authority for the words of God, then it is your own minds and each of your resultant "bibles" will be different from everybody else's.  You are no better off than the Whateverists.

It is not a matter of "if" the KJB contains flaws -- it does -- and you've been shown the flaws, but you choose to pass them by as it destroys your theological view. Thus your personal view on the inerrancy of the KJB is rejected because most people accept the facts rather than ignore them.

Further, you do harm to the real issue: the inferiority of the Alexandrian text types over against the Byzantine, the manuscripts that underlie our modern versions. This is where the focus should be, not on a wild unfounded claim. The reason the KJV is superior is not that it is perfect but that it has better Greek attestation than other modern versions.

Another issue:

Quote
Having said that, I do disagree with those who tout the side by side versions as useful. I would never have side by side Bible versions to help me, because it is confusion both to myself and others. To say other versions are unfaithful, and yet support other versions by use of them as reference, is hypocritical in my view. I believe that if we are unsure of what any word in the KJV means, we should buy a good concordance, not a side by side bible to compare different versions. especially any Bible with the NIV in it.


I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct. Of course we can take the simpleminded viewpoint that only the KJB is the correct one and anything that varies from it is ipso facto wrong. Ah, if life were only that easy.

God preserved His Word in over 5,300 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts. That is the reality. Every person who sought to put together a Bible in their language had to make critical decision concerning the best Greek text. That means that Desiderius Erasmus's, Robert Estienne, and Theodore Beza each looked at the Greek text they had available to them and decided based on the evidence and their opinion how and into what word(s) to translate the Greek into English. They had to create a "Critical" Greek text to work from -- each Greek N.T. text is created based on the authors rules, rules that may or may not be entirely correct.

Having the studied the matter I reject the Alexandrian Greek texts and the critical texts derived from them. Therefore I reject the modern versions (most all) that translate English from them -- bad data in means bad data out.

Yet, there are differences (many minor variants) between the 1550 version of the Greek text called the Received Text (Robert Stephanus's third edition). Today we refer to the F.H.A Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Received Text rather than the earlier 1550 version.

The RT is a critical text: meaning many decisions were made to produce it. The whole mass of manuscripts of the Byzantine family is called the Majority Greek texts. There are differences between the Majority and RT and therefore a Bible made from the Majority text (ALT) will differ from the RT (KJV) and both will vary GREATLY from the Critical Text (all texts are critical texts but it was meant to degrade the TR which where textual decisions were supposedly made only on choosing the word with the greatest attestation -- that is, it appears most often in the Greek manuscripts. Thus "critical" means "thought out" by some while the RT was just non-critical bean counting -- this however is not true.

The Critical Text (Alexandrian family) is based on a few supposed older Greek texts that are significantly different (shorter) than the Byzantine family of texts. Because these texts are missing so many verses and words and disagree between themselves and have no parentage nor were they descended down by copying -- it is probably true to say that these Greek texts were radically chopped by editors (with an axe to grind) from a more complete Byzantine type text. There is evidence that the Byzantine is earlier than the Alexandrian texts and are distortions of it. But, Wescott and Hort sold its superiority (they hated the TR) and we now we have our damaged modern versions based on it, thank you very much.

So what to do?  I am creating a parallel Bible for my own use. It has the MKJV, YLT, KJV+, and the Greek TR (with strong's numbering) side-by-side. When you can't find a study Bible on the market sometimes you have to design your own. I hope to get permission from the copyright holders -- but first I'll make it then I'll ask permission (it's not for sale).

Since I'm learning Greek, having the KJV with Strong's numbering beside the Greek will help in recognizing the meaning of the Greek words. I'll probably put a Greek concordance in the back. I have no problem with parallel Bibles, it is even better if we can go back to the underlying Greek (either MT or TR) and see some of the textual decisions made by the authors. Sometimes the English word or phrase used is not as accurate as it should be when we look at the Greek. It is interesting to see how different scholars attempted to render English from Greek (no easy task).

Isn't this far more complicated than just pretending the KJV is correct and that's that. God wants us to study and study you must.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2004, 07:30:24 PM »
Please forgive me for jumping in here, but I don't understand. 

We are constantly being told to stick with the Scriptures, to use no man's opinion or commentaries, or secular history, etc., and to compare Scripture with Scripture...all of which I agree.

But then so many only believe that the King James Bible is the best translation, but that there are errors in it.

So how can this be?  If there are errors, how do we know what part of Scripture we can trust as being the Word of God, and what parts have errors in them?  What good would it do us to compare Scripture with Scripture if part of that Scripture has errors in it?  How can we search out a matter if in the back of our minds we feel that there may be errors?

I just don't get it.  Didn't God promise to preserve His Word?  Do we not have the Word of God now?  If not, what is to be our Final Authority?


Luke 21:33

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


(Please don't be angry at me for posting this.  It is not aimed at any individual, but rather at the issue.  Thanks.)

Blessings,
Minna

Sandy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
  • I Stand Coram Deo
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2004, 08:02:36 PM »
John,

I was recently told that part of the difficulty in translating of Greek into English is the Greek itself.  I'm told that Greek is a language that has definately evolved.  We have the Modern Greek, the Ancient Greek, and Biblical Greek.  I was told that often times the nuances of Modern, or Ancient Greek are being forced into Biblical Greek.  The NT writers would not have known anything about the nuances of tenses derived from Modern Greek.  And we/they cannot know whether a genitive is objective or subjective without considering the context.  This is why most of the modern translations have reduced 'faith of' Christ, to 'faith in' Christ.  Can you tell me if this is so?  I would say what I know about Greek you could put in a thimble, but truth is I don't even know that much.  Your help would be greatly appreciated. 

I am in the process of attempting to show other members of our church that saving faith can never originate from us.  It would be much simpler if I can only tell them why virtually everyone of their translations of Scripture are inferior, if for no other reason then on this one issue, those modern translations have actually changed doctrine.

Sandy         

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2004, 09:12:16 PM »
I'm re-posting this here, as recent posts under this related topic of "What Happens if you are Not a KJB only?" thread seem to have gotten buried under the flurry of other posts today.  Minna, this will hopefully help address some of your concerns. ...


Hi Judy, there is much that you said I agree with. However, you also closed with this:
"Lastly and in conclusion,  when it comes to translations, the issue is not one of perfection (which can only be said of the original texts),  but one of relative faithfulness.  Like Christ_Alone, my preference is the KJV for reasons of overall faithfulness.   However, I am not going to lie and say I have never found other translations helpful.  I have invested in a parallel Bible which has about 6 translations (with KJV being the first) side-by-side for comparison.  As someone else mentioned in one of these 2 related threads,  such comparisons can be useful in our understanding of Scripture."

Judy, there is no such thing as "the originals", so how do you know what "relative faithfulness" is? God's true words are perfect - "the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul" Ps. 19.

The bogus bibles like the nasb, nkjv, niv, rsv, esv etc. all have proveable errors and are each one translated from different texts in both the O.T. and the N. T. Not one of them agrees with the others 100%. I have a multitude of examples of the Bible Babel that exists if you think all these versions are equally the words of God.

Are you admitting that you do not believe any Bible or any single text is the preserved, inerrant words of God? I think this is what you really believe, so why don't you just come out and say it?

Don't be afraid to admit what you really believe. More and more Christians are now openly taking this view - "There is no inspired, inerrant, complete, totally accurate Bible on the earth today, nor has there ever been one." At least in this way we will know where the other person is coming from.

Will Kinney,

I think you undersood perfectly what I referred to, when I said 'original manuscripts', even though I more accurately should have said the oldest available manuscripts.  So don't waste everyone's time playing this type of game.

So then, using a bit of common sense, ALL of our English Bibles -- including the KJV -- are translations.  And even the translators of the KJV made a few errors (although you choose to ignore this fact).  I'm sure God had a hand it their endeavor, to the extent that the KJ translators approached this monumental task in the manner of the honorable Bereans of old.  But they were not the men God is referring to when He said...

2Pe 1:20-21
20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


A translation is itself an interpretation of sorts … interpreting the Hebrew or Greek word or phrase, to the most accurate, comparable English word or phrase.  Furthermore, even though I prefer the KJV for its overall accuracy, I also recognize that most of God's truths are spiritual in nature, and that it's GOD who opens the eyes of the blind to His truths.  Therefore, even if one were to agree with you... that the KJV is totally, 100% devoid of errors in translation, that would not bring anyone any closer to understanding or being transformed by God’s Word unless GOD prepares the 'soil' of their hearts to receive it.

Mat 13:13-16
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Eze 36:26-27
26  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them
.

Consider this…  how did God save His elect BEFORE the Bible was completed?

As to your attempt to twist this around with the ridiculous question of...
     "Are you admitting that you do not believe any Bible or any single text
     is the preserved, inerrant words of God? I think this is what you really
     believe, so why don't you just come out and say it?”
Let me just say that I have said exactly what I mean, and don’t appreciate your trying to put words in my mouth, which reflect your own distortions and biases.  You don’t need to concern yourself with others’ Bible preferences; that’s not your job!
And as you appear to be so preoccupied with a particular version of the Bible, you would do well to ask yourself these questions…
Who do you worship--  the Lord God our Creator, or a particular version of the Bible? 
Upon whom/what does your faith rest?  Does your faith rest upon the faith of Christ, or upon the accuracy of Bible translators?

1Co 4:20  
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

1Th 1:5 
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power[/u], and in the Holy Ghost[/b][/u], and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.



judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2004, 10:31:15 PM »
Hi sister Minna, thanks for your comments.  I agree with you totally.  You ask simple questions that would arise in anybody's mind if they actually believed the Bible and what it says about itself.

John, you post: "So what to do?  I am creating a parallel Bible for my own use. It has the MKJV, YLT, KJV+, and the Greek TR (with strong's numbering) side-by-side.
Since I'm learning Greek, having the KJV with Strong's numbering beside the Greek will help in recognizing the meaning of the Greek words. I'll probably put a Greek concordance in the back.,,, Sometimes the English word or phrase used is not as accurate as it should be when we look at the Greek. It is interesting to see how different scholars attempted to render English from Greek (no easy task).
Isn't this far more complicated than just pretending the KJV is correct and that's that. God wants us to study and study you must."

John, what a funny guy you are.  So, you are just now learning Greek as you say, and yet you are ready to correct the translations made by others who knew far more than you will ever know.  You are now in the process of a Do It Yourself bible version.  I congratulate you.  At least you are following your thinking process to its logical conclusions.

By the way, which texts will you employ in making up your peculiar bible version?

See, all you "KJV preferred but not perfect" people really don't believe any Bible is the complete, inerrant, preserved words of God.  God apparently is out of the picture and all you focus on is the Elizabethan, Episcopal, Catholic tainted translators of 1611.  How pathetic.

The true Bible believer first looks to God Almighty who promised to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away.  He either did this or He lied and failed.  You pick which one you prefer to believe.

As for where was the word of God before 1611, I will go ahead a post a separate thread on this one.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Blessings,

Will Kinney

Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2004, 04:11:35 AM »
Kenneth, I find this view to be both arrogant and presumptuous.

Not surprising. Of everyone here, you seem the one most easily and most often personally offended by one thing or another. I certainly don't mean to be arrogant. But having the good sense to understand that one excellent bible translation is both good and sufficient for the church, is not arrogant. And being wise enough to know that many different bible versions within one language is confusing and unwise for the church is not presumptuous. I do believe that even Tony Warren said that this proliferation of Bible versions has led people to wonder what is the word of God, and which one is the bible. Because they can't all be God's word when they are so different. This is not arrogant and presumption, it's just plain common sense. Do you think God wants 100 different English versions of his word? No, I sure don't. That's not presumptuous, that's using my head.


Quote
I prefer the KJV, yet also have a parallel Bible that I have on occasion found helpful,

I have on occasion found tragedy to be helpful in some way, but that doesn't mean that I would go out and support that tragedies be encouraged. The greater point here is parallel Bible versions and if God is happy about them, not if you are happy about them.


Quote
I would rather that you quote me word-for-word rather than 'translate' what I've said in my posts, for I did not 'tout' parallel Bibles,

Touting means to publicize or praise, and it is my view that your witness for your use of parallel bibles and how helpful they are, is touting them. Perhaps you should work on not being offended by every little thing someone says. It's my view your comments fell into the category of touting parallel bibles. You may disagree. But that hardly makes you arrogant. Or me.


Quote
nor did I say "other versions are unfaithful".

Well maybe that's the "real" problem. Because they are! Perhaps you are unaware of the unfaithfulness of the modern versions, or perhaps you like the modern versions so do not care. I do not know. But I do know that these modern versions are a stain on the fabric of the church, and no matter what you say, it is neither helpful or healthy for the church to have all these different versions.

That you didn't say "other versions are unfaithful" is probably the true cause of your animosity. Because they obviously are, and it "seems" you are in denial of that fact.


Quote
Let me ask you this...  Snce most don't know Greek/Hebrew nor have access to the oldest manuscripts -- upon what basis can we say the KJV is the most accurate?

By studying the issue. You don't have to know Hebrew and Greek to understand how the modern versions were put together from the inferior texts. Tony Warren has numerous articles on the subject of versions in his search, I would suggest at least a summary examination of the issue. It's not even close. An honest examination shows the unfaithfulness of the modern versions stems from the corrupted copies that they used, as compared to the authoritative text the KJV and a few other versions used.


Quote
I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct.

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture.


Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]