Call me King James Only! But only if....

Great find Krispy!

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

Had been musing on just this the last go around on this matter, seems quite obvious enough but ...

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am [b][i]not[/i][/b] "King James Only." The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am [i][b]not[/b][/i] "King James Only." It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and [u]even[/u] a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.

Ah, at last! Honesty! And right there comes that nagging suspicion of a lurking question; "Then what does it matter?" or "It doesn't matter then". But it does matter enough for attention, just not to the absurd and dishonest levels that make pragmatism warranted for the warring camps, that is what is most troubling of all, that the very heart and soul of spirit and truth can be trampled over, missed, Katz put it as;

[i]"It is vain to boast about having the "Full gospel" when you have only the smallest part of the character of the One that gospel is about."[/i]

The disdain for the branding and labeling of "Christian" catch phrases, modes, banners to file under, camps to join, constructs, self -centric, out of context, 'Only', 'Always', on and on it goes ... There is something diabolical that is being missed in this day and with a bit of irony to all this, from the NASB ...

[i]They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially...[/i] Jer 8:11

What is your response to this criticism of the KJV-only crowd?

" The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/ All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus."

The above is quoted from:
http://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

What is wrong with the [b]NEW[/b] King James Version of the Bible? It simply updates the archaic language of the 1611 to our modern usage.

There is mention of another modern translation of the King James Version called the 21st Century King James Version. I have never seen this new translation and I don't suppose you have either, so I am not going to ask you to comment on it. Just address the issue of the NKJV. If there is nothing wrong with the NKJV in your eyes, then indeed you are not KJV only.

Krispy,
What do you think of the "Evidence Bible" from Ray Comfort's ministry? Or J.P.Greens Literal Version of the Holy Bible? Any insight on those like you gave on NKJV?

Interesting found this on websearch for different translations that are based on Textus Receptus:
[url=http://www.biblestudysite.com/adulter.htm]http://www.biblestudysite.com/adulter.htm[/url]

I also found interesting in my search that there are "KJV 1611 only" people. However, I could not find anywhere why 1611 only? What do they see wrong with the updated KJV's?

Hi Krispy...

Thank you for the article. I am glad that you have clarified your position much more than some of the KJV-only guys that sometimes write posts. In my opinion, you do not fall into the KJV-only crowd, but rather a "strongly preferred" crowd.

Me? I am still content (in good faith) to prefer the KJV for study -- while also consulting the NIV. I still believe that the KJV is the best translation derived from the Textus Receptus, while the NIV (1978) is the best translation taken from the other sources.

If someone (like a new convert) asks me which version they should read, I often tell them a little about the versions themselves. I tell them that the NIV is a good choice if they have trouble with archaic early 17th century English. But I also make them gently aware of the opinions of various academics. I suggest that they eventually learn to use the KJV.

:-)

Hi NLONG,

I'm not Krispy but I do have a pocket Comfortable KJV Bible. I really don't know much about it but I believe that only the heavily repeated Archaic words such as Thou, Thine, Hast, etc. are changed into easier English. I have some family that are KJV lovers and they don't have any problems with this versions texts. I think they are the same as the KJV.

In Christ, bro Doug

Hi Krispy...

KrispyKrittr wrote:
I understand why you would say that, and I wont suggest that you're wrong. Me, personally, I just get them a KJV and they read it. It's amazing to me that I really havent had anyone I've given a KJV to come to me and have any problems understanding it. Yet... Christians who have been believers for a long time claim they cant understand the KJV. That always baffles me.

I understand your point about Christians that have known the Lord for a while. However, my experience with new converts is different. I have known quite a few that have had difficulty with the 17th century language of the KJV (including well educated individuals).

While I do believe that the KJV is the best translation taken from the Textus Receptus, I feel that the present language of the KJV is not "common" anymore. In the Preface of the KJV, the translators made it clear about their intentions for a translation that would negate the need for any sort of ecclesiastic or "scholarly" interpretation. They endeavoured to create a translation in the language of "common man."

Today, the KJV often requires a dictionary, Bible dictionary, or a person to explain the meaning of a word, phrase or passage. While this is quite understandable for sincere believers, it is not for the unbeliever. If an unbeliever has difficulty with the language of the KJV, then it seems plausible that they might have difficulty in understanding the truth. Of course, we know that it is the Spirit who leads us and guides us into all truth. However, the Word of God is the only "truth" that is beyond reproof. One of the biggest problems in the Church today (in my opinion) is the fact that too many people have the Word of God interpreted (or "[i]explained[/i]") to them.

Whenever I explain the differences in translations (including how different versions have been derived from different sources), I am quick to interject that the Word of God is certainly TRUE. I let them know that the Word of God is not confined to a language, a translation or a set of copied sources. I explain that, from the beginning, the Word of God has been translated many times into many languages -- and that understanding it will come through practice reading it with much prayer. I also explain that people should be cautious about listening to too many preachers in various media -- and implore them to seek God first and foremost for understanding of His Word.

:-)

From what I have read about Green's Bible, it is "ok", but does have some issues. I dont remember right now what they were, but I remember thinking that in my opinion they were not big issues. I think Green is headed in the right direction.

Scrivener reconstructed a Greek text that he believed must be the text from which the KJV translators produced their version. And how did he do it? Well, he used several manuscripts from the Byzantine Textform family and chose put together extracts from those which would have supported the KJV translation, thereby creating the FHA Scrivener Greek text. This is why I referred to a 'can of worms', there is no single manuscript which can be called the 'Received Text'. The so called 'Received Text' was itself the product of editors who examined different manuscripts and came to a 'textual critical' judgment about what they believed best represented the "autographs" (the originals). So the 'Received Text' itself was the product of 'textual critics' and is not itself a specific manuscript.

Scrivener had strong confidence in the edited Greek text known as the 'Received Text' although he himself was a member of the revision committee which produced the English 'Revised Version' of 1881 (a older twin of the American Standard Version). Scrivener also tried to discover what 'edited form of the Received Text' the KJV translators had used as none of the known manuscripts or edited Greek texts would give exactly what they produced in the KJV. Scrivener was really asking the question 'where did they get this translation from?'. He then created his own Greek Text which was a collation of various manuscripts in the Byzantine Textform family.

Green uses this as his basis for his translation and his Interlinear has the following explanation. [color=0000ff]The Greek text herein is purportedly that which underlies the King James Version, as reconstructed by FHA Scrivener in 1894. [/color](RB comment: 13 years after the publication of the RV) [color=0000ff]It thus differs to a degree from all previously printed versions of the Received Text (there are more than 250 differences, most of them quite minor, between this text and the Stephen's 1550 'standard' [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus]Received Text[/url])...

...Careful study, however, will show that this present text does not agree 100% with the text used by the KJV translators, though virtually always it does so. [/color](RB comment: in other words Scrivener's attempt to recreate the exact Greek text behind the KJV was not a 100% success)[color=0000ff]

...Although it is admitted that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus]Erasmus[/url] has added to his Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate, without Greek manuscript authority (eg Acts 9:5,6); and, also one from the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complutensian_Polyglot]Complutension (sic)[/url] Bible has virtually no no Greek manuscript authority (1 John 5:7). We have not delelted these from the Greek text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society, though we do not accept them as part of the true deposit of the Holy Scriptures.[/color]

The underlying point to this post is to draw attention (again) to the fact that the 'Received Text' is not an ancient manuscript but was the product of Bible scholar linguists who created a 'best fit' Greek text; from the several individual manuscripts they were using. Having said this my personal view is that they succeeded, broadly, in doing just that. Scrivener's text built upon theirs and the work goes on with the likes of Pierpont and Robinson who are strong advocates of the Byzantine Textform. You may have noticed the phrase in the Green's quote which refers to "Stephen's 'standard' Textus Receptus". This phrase is admitting that there is no definitive 'Textus Receptus'. It was and will always be a 'work in progress'.

For those who really want to get to the nuts and bolts of this topic you might try [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/robinson-scrivener.html]here.[/url]

There is definately two differing schools of manuscripts, thus the sharp division between the KJV/Reformation Bibles and the Modern Versions from 1881 on.

[color=0000ff]“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the [u]church of God[/u], which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 KJVS)

“Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the [u]church of the Lord[/u] which he purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 ASV)[/color]

Note the switch from the God to Lord which weakens the Trinitarian position.

[color=0000ff]“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [u]God[/u] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1Tim 3:16 KJVS)

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; [u]He[/u] who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” (1Tim 3:16 ASV)[/color]

...where the switch from 'God' to 'He' again weakens the Trinitarian testimony.

A comparison of different versions shows that many modern version have not gone totally with the Sinai/Vatican manuscripts. eg

[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Act&chapter=20&verse=28&version=KJV#28]Acts 20:28[/url]
[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=3&verse=16&version=KJV#16]1 Tim 3:16[/url]

Must applaud all who have contributed to this post. Of the many discussions on what has become such a volitale issue, this I believe will go a long way in communicating an understanding and that without hostilities.

A great deal of time in the past there has been such an emphesis on particulars as to only confuse the issue beyond recognition. Will make it 'sticky' for future reference.

TAG'D

KrispyKrittr wrote:

There are other examples in the NKJV that cause me to reject it. NOT because it's in modern English, but because it changes the meanings of many passages and that has the effect of changing some doctrines.

KK, just curious as to which Christian doctrines have been "changed" in the NKJV? NIV? NASB?

I agree with Krispy on this subject. I believe that it is dangerous to change the DOCTRINE of God's Word. My opinion about the NIV version is that it is a "Religious Book" more than a Bible, because it is not the ORIGINAL text. In John 3:16, the NIV describes Him as the 'one and only' Son of God, dropping the significant word 'begotten.' Not only is it not true that Jesus is the 'one and only' Son of God, since we are also the sons of God, but this is not faithful to the Greek text which uses the word 'only begotten.' This is a weakening of the truth of Christ's deity. I could show you many concerning the NIV scriptures, but I'm tired of typing :-) . It was also said that new born again believers may not "understand" the KJV. I believe that if you make a strong effort to read your Bible DAILY, God will help you to understand His Word. I have heard of people that were illiterate, but when they made an attempt to read the Bible along with fasting and praying, God would teach them how to read the Bible. That thrills my heart! I don't want to be repeatative, but if you will make an effort God will reveal His Word to you! :-)

Question:

Am I sinning by reading and studying with an NIV translation?

JaySaved, I would not go so far as to say you are sinning. I would say however, you are reading and studying some false doctrine that could, if you are not careful lead you astray. Am I saying that every scripture in the NIV is situated in such a way that everything in it is false doctrine? No. However, I would rather stay AS CLOSE AS I CAN to the exact translation. I believe it is important to stay as close as you can possibly get to the Word of God because it is the most important tangible thing a believer can have. Wouldn't you agree?

logan_trky wrote:
I agree with Krispy on this subject. I believe that it is dangerous to change the DOCTRINE of God's Word. My opinion about the NIV version is that it is a "Religious Book" more than a Bible, because it is not the ORIGINAL text. In John 3:16, the NIV describes Him as the 'one and only' Son of God, dropping the significant word 'begotten.' Not only is it not true that Jesus is the 'one and only' Son of God, since we are also the sons of God, but this is not faithful to the Greek text which uses the word 'only begotten.' This is a weakening of the truth of Christ's deity. I could show you many concerning the NIV scriptures, but I'm tired of typing :-) . It was also said that new born again believers may not "understand" the KJV. I believe that if you make a strong effort to read your Bible DAILY, God will help you to understand His Word. I have heard of people that were illiterate, but when they made an attempt to read the Bible along with fasting and praying, God would teach them how to read the Bible. That thrills my heart! I don't want to be repeatative, but if you will make an effort God will reveal His Word to you! :-)

In the foot notes to John 3:16 the NIV says "or the only begotten son". Please demonstrate an actual Christian doctrine that has been "changed" in the NIV, NKJ, or the NASB. Since I only use those three translations, maybe I lack some sort of enlightenment from not using a bible with a language that is 400 years old? I'm guessing not though. My big problem with the KJV is that I don't speak to God using "thees" and "thou's", and He doesn't speak to me that way either.

BTW, does God teach illiterate people how to read only the Kings James Bible? Just food for thought, because I personally know someone who was mentally handicapped, became saved and learned to read... the NIV! Maybe I should follow up and make sure she has her doctrines straight!

thingsabove wrote:
Thought some might find this new article on new version disturbing. basically a cut and run version.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52536
God bless, John

Read carefully, it's satire....

logan_trky wrote:
My opinion about the NIV version is that it is a "Religious Book" more than a Bible, because it is not the ORIGINAL text. :-)

No one on this earth has the ORIGINAL text, therefore you can't prove the accuracy of ANY translation when compared to the ORIGINAL, sorry folks but that is a fact. ALL the biblical manuscripts that exist today are copies of copies, so no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with 100% accuracy what the originals contained. Thats not heresy that's the truth.

My big problem with the KJV is that I don't speak to God using "thees" and "thou's", and He doesn't speak to me that way either.

Let me illustrate...
Here are almost a hundred places where the KJV has 'ye' and 'thee' in the same verse..
Gen 17:10; 43:29; 50:17; Ex 3:12,18; 9:30; 12:24; 23:25; 25:9; 30:37; 33:5; Lev 10:9,14; 19:19,33; Num 16:10; 18:7; Deut 1:31; 4:23; 5:28; 6:3,17; 7:12,25; 8:1; 12:1,7; 18:15; 23:4; 25:17; 27:2; 28:68; 32:6; Josh 2:14; 7:13; 8:2; Judg 14:15; 15:12; 18:24; 1Sam 9:19; 14:40; 25:6; 29:10; 2Sam 11:20; 2Kings 2:16; 6:2; 9:11; 19:10,29; Neh 1:8; Job 42:7; Psa 27:8; 32:9; 116:19; Song 6:13; Is 30:21-22; 37:10,30; 41:14; 44:8; 48:6; 65:15; Jer 2:31; 3:22; 17:4; 22:26; 29:26; 34:14; 36:19; 37:18; 46:14; 49:5; Ezek 7:4,9; 35:9; Hos 5:8; 14:3; Mic 6:16; Zech 9:12; 14:5; Mal 1:7-8; 2:14; 3:8,13; Matt 5:39; 21:5; 23:37; Luke 5:24; 13:34; 22:11; John 3:7,11; Acts 5:9; Heb 13:5; Rev 2:10

This can only mean that in these verses it is distinguishing between the singular and the plural. This distinction is lost in modern versions. Here a classic example of the above..

[color=0000ff]“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have [u]you[/u], that he may sift [u]you[/u] as wheat: But I have prayed for [u]thee[/u], that [u]thy[/u] faith fail not: and when [u]thou[/u] art converted, strengthen [u]thy[/u] brethren.”
(Luke 22:31-32 KJVS)[/color]

It was not only Peter who went through the sifting but this is a word of personal encouragement to an individual. This is God's way. Our temptations and trials may be 'common to all men' but the word of God must come to me personally to sustain me in the hour of trial. This is lost in the modern versions.

[color=0000ff]“And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.”
(Ex 3:12 KJVS)[/color]
This is a promise that God's faithfulness to an individual will result in blessing for a nation. It is a similar truth to that found in..

[color=0000ff]“Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.”
(Heb 11:28-29 KJVS)[/color]
Moses' faith was the seed to that of a nation.

[color=0000ff]“And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.”
(Ex 23:25 KJVS)[/color]
This is a promise that if the nation keeps the law of God, God will preserve the individual from sickness. It would take the obedience of the whole nation for this to come true.

Even at the time when the KJV was translated 'thee' and 'thou' had almost vanished from popular use but the translators still knew the difference between singular and plural and enshrined it in their translation.

It is important that we speak to God in our own language. For a reader of the KJV his personal language of devotion will change simply because he is meditating in the language of the KJV. This does not make his prayer more spiritual but it will affect the way he prays.

Additionally, and this is almost always forgotten in this context, 'thou' is linguistically more personal and intimate than 'you' which is part of the reason it has survived in romantic poetry. Many think that 'thou' is more noble and magnifies God more effectively; it does not. If rightly understood, 'thou' is the personal pronoun that a child would use in addressing its Father, 'you' is the personal pronoun that a subject would use in addressing his king. Their is a closeness and intimacy in the one that is missing from the other.

I could go on... but you will see my point. One of the main reasons I continue to use the KJV is that I believe it encourages my intimacy with God and his with me. It is the language of lovers.

If you would like to know more please read this pdf... [url=http://ncw.biblebase.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=3&lid=3]Teach thyself olde Englishe[/url] :-)

Even at the time when the KJV was translated 'thee' and 'thou' had almost vanished from popular use but the translators still knew the difference between singular and plural and enshrined it in their translation.

‘thou' is linguistically more personal and intimate than 'you' which is part of the reason it has survived in romantic poetry.

One of the main reasons I continue to use the KJV is that I believe it encourages my intimacy with God and his with me. It is the language of lovers.

Great motive! It’s not merely about preserving the appearance an ancient relic, but about a dynamic living relationship via language.

I know an elderly man who prays with Thee’s and Thou’s. I believe that it would be respectful to pray likewise in his presence, because for him the “you’s" would seem so casual.

It’s good to see meaning in the Thee’s and Thou’s come alive. When for years you hear the Lord’s prayer, and other thee/thou lingo spoken by those who do not love the Lord intimately, those words gradually become about as dead and cold as the stone walls in a long-abandoned monastery.

Obviously word usage is very powerful. You can’t assume that the speaker or the listener grasps original meaning, or for that matter, that both mutually understand any word in a dialogue. Thus you have constant communication challenges. Ex:

A lady once shared with me that when she first came to Canada from Germany some years ago, she was baffled with the way we addressed people – like they are all our buddies and close family, even if we’ve never met them before. She was accustomed to addressing formal relationships differently from close relationships. At first she thought Canadians were insincere, but she soon realized that was not the case at all.

The point perhaps is that we need to get off of our own map and on to the map of others, and that we communicate in ways most meaningful to them. And that is what I believe that modern translators are sincerely trying to do regardless of language, whether Papiamento, Mandarin, Bengali, or whatever.

A thought: How do you tell a tropical jungle villager that our sins shall be as white as snow.... . snow? What’s that? Would it be sacreligious to use another word for snow, even if it would better illustrate the meaning?

I guess there is always a tension of priorities: purity of the language, or clarity of the meaning to the recipient.

I trust that God has been preserving HIS GOOD NEWS!!!! After all, he is not willing that any should perish!

Diane

Yet, there is much deception concerning the differences between the KJV and the modern versions.

Makes me think of music. It bugs me when people put all music in two boxes: comtemporary and traditional. Some think that all the music that was written over hundreds of years (which they know little about) is suddenly obsolete, and only a certain kind of music written in the last 10 years is meaningful. I've heard this: "God doesn't speak through hymns any more." My how we create a God after our own image.

Diane

The Old Rugged Cross is one of my favorite songs of all time.

You’re kidding! That song is idolatrous! Check the words carefully: I will cling to what?… I will ever be true to what?

See how we can be killjoys – robbing the joy that the Lord has given someone through a song or even (pardon me) a translation. Now you will never enjoy “The Old Rugged Cross” again, right? Actually I play it when requested for funerals, etc, because I know the song is meaningful to many, and they don’t see it the way I do.

hymns and country gospel

What about Swahili, Cree, Dutch (old and new versions) …..

Diane

JaySaved, I would not go so far as to say you are sinning. I would say however, you are reading and studying some false doctrine that could, if you are not careful lead you astray. Am I saying that every scripture in the NIV is situated in such a way that everything in it is false doctrine? No. However, I would rather stay AS CLOSE AS I CAN to the exact translation. I believe it is important to stay as close as you can possibly get to the Word of God because it is the most important tangible thing a believer can have. Wouldn't you agree?

But you admit that it is not a sin to read and study with the NIV translation.

If it is not a sin and if I am not sinning, then why are the attention towards this particular topic?

If it is sin, then I understand where you are coming from...but if it is not sin, then why not let me read and study from this translation without rebuke?

Ok, I understand exactly where you are coming from. But as far as this goes, would it be a sin to read material by a Word of Faith evangelist saying foolish things such as we are "little gods with Christ"? I know this would seem like an extreme, but take this verse for example:

NIV translation of Mark 9:29-- He replied, "This kind can only come out by prayer."

KJV translation of Mark 9:29--And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and FASTING.

A big difference wouldn't you think? Some things come not only by prayer, but [u][i][b]fasting[/b][/i][/u] too.

I came from a word of faith church that taught only out of the King James...What say you...

I understand what you are saying. I do wish they would place 'and fasting' at the end of Mark 9:29.

However, this does not cause me to disregard the NIV. Namely because 'and fasting' is in the footnotes at the bottom. This might cause some people problems but it doesn't cause me problems.

Do you honestly think there is an NIV conspiracy to keep Christians from casting out demons? Seems ridiculous doesn't it?

A better example would be the following:
NIV
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

New World Translation (JW trans)
John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

JaySaved, I know what you are saying trust me. But, I don't think you can deny that some of the NIV verses are situated in such a way that it contaminates the Word of God. If you have footnotes that is great! But, say someone does not have the footnotes. Might that lead some astray? I am just saying I would rather stay as CLOSE AS I CAN to the original translation as I could. Like I said before, the Bible, along with understanding it, is the most important thing for a Believer. I understand how you say that the NIV is "easier to understand." Perhaps so, but are you reading the ACTUAL WORD OF GOD? I know that we don't have the original translation, but like I said, try to stay AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. I would hope you would agree. As far as understanding the KJV, I think that most of the Bible is very easy to understand. This is of course with the exception of Revelation and certain prophecies and diffeent visions. I think it is VERY important to have commentaries or a GOOD KJV study Bible. I would hope that you would agree on this.

I know what you mean by 'close as you can'. That I understand. We just disagree on how 'far' the NIV is away from the original text.

If you have footnotes that is great! But, say someone does not have the footnotes. Might that lead some astray?

Are there NIV translations that do not have footnotes? Everyone I have seen contains the footnotes.

No, some do not. I have a Bible given as a gift that is an NIV version. It does not contain footnotes. I hope you will consider the translation you prefer. It is not the translation that i'm emphasizing on. It's the [u][i][b]DOCTRINE[/b][/i][/u]

JaySaved, I know what you are saying trust me. But, I don't think you can deny that some of the NIV verses are situated in such a way that it contaminates the Word of God.

I strongly deny that some of the NIV verses are situated in such a way that it contaminates the Word of God.

I have seen the documents Stever has brought forward. I have read the Krispy's posts on why he prefers the KJV. I have studied this and I do not agree that the NIV is a contamination of God's word.

Let me provide an example of the charges that are leveled against the NIV.

People will read Colossians 3:5-7 in the King James Version as follows: (all emphasis mine)
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

Then they will read Colossians 3:5-7 in the New International Version as follows:
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived."

They will notice that the 'children of disobedience' is not mentioned and say that the NIV is corrupting the Word of God in that it is not linking the wrath of God to the children of disobedience'. (Even though there is a footnote at the bottom of the page that says: [Some early manuscripts coming on those who are disobedient]

What they fail to realize is that their 'conspiracy' logic fails because the NIV actually says what they claim it does not say.

For example a similar account is found in Ephesians 5:5-7. In the King James Version it reads"
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them."

But in the NIV Ephesians 5:5-7 reads:
"For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.

So, to say that the NIV has a corruption in that it doesn't link God's wrath to the disobedient is faulty because the NIV does link them. This is one of the 'corruptions' that the KJV only/preferred advocates cite and it is clearly refuted.

But one might say, 'Why not include them in both places? What is wrong with that?'
Here in lines the NIV's presentation: It is not found in all manuscripts therefore it is not presented as if it WAS. It is more honest in that there is question about it's origin. It might fit in that verse, but that does not mean that Paul placed it there. It could easily have been inserted by a scribe who--seeing both verses parrallel--thought it was a good fit.

Krispy said,

I dont think the author of Rugged Cross was saying we should worship the cross.

So, your saying that we should go back to the INTENT of the original author? Now, doesn't that make a lot of sense!!!! Wouldn't that clear up a lot of misconceptions. Isn't that maybe one reason God gave us his Spirit - to help us understand his word as he intended it to mean?

I think you're reading too much into it.

We can find something wrong with anything if we think about it long enough.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not "King James Only." God's people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools.

Jay, I understand what you are saying. I guess we just have two different views, and that's fine. But, you said yourself that you wished they would have added some words in Mark 9 similar to the KJV. Like I said, if you have the footnotes that [u][i][b]properly[/b][/i][/u] illustrate the Word of God, as you have stated, great! I think you should understand the text by reading it ONCE instead of constantly having to look at the bottom of the page to see if the translation actually lines up with the real scripture. Make sense? I just think some could be confused if the footnotes were not availible. I just believe that the KJV properly illustrates the Word of God hands down.

I came from a word of faith church that taught only out of the King James...What say you...

oops? ;-)

A subtle point Matt is making. Had thought about at one point going through some of the excerpts from the past 'greats' here and attaching their particular flavor for versions. Chambers (RSV) and Tozer for instance who, by the way, loved reading new 'versions' and if I recall correctly generaly felt unimpressed for the most part but was something of a translation junkie, always having high hopes but... He also didn't come apart at the seams the way some are want to over the whole matter.

Surely that all might raise the cry of "Who cares" what they thought, but it might add just a bit of perspective or a challenge to those holding to all kinds of presumed notions about conspriacy and corruption. The greater errors are matters of the heart not the stringing together of words necesarily.

Some irony? Think this original article was well spoken on a number of levels and speaks to more than a few that have pondered long here. There is a strong sense that Krispy and others would be booted out of the KJV 'only' camp for agreeing with them!

Of course that is some hyperbole, the length's and absurdities that some have gone to defend or even more ridiculously claim the KJV as somehow inspired and authoritative ... I am quite sure we have run the gamut here, especially in the realm of "proof's"... Not sure what can be added to all this, one thing that may be something of a rareity is just to hear ...

"I like it, that's all"

A dangerous comment I realize but this is close to the thought, from Philologos;

I could go on... but you will see my point. One of the main reasons I continue to use the KJV is that I believe it encourages my intimacy with God and his with me. It is the language of lovers.

I love that! The irony I hinted at earlier was also my own. Long before I even realized there was such a controversy afoot had been brought through the early stages with a Charismatic styled NKJV .. "Spirit Filled Life" bible I believe the title of it was. It, I would imagine had certain leanings towards all this (not being purposefully vauge, just forget much about it now). Recall that it was edited by Jack Hayford and others of this ilk (no problem with Jack) and had it's own 'take' on things in the footnotes ...
What made that bible so precious and meanigful to me? It was given to me as a gift by my soon to become wife on our first anniversary "month" of dating.

I have since 'replaced' it with the more scholorary NKJV from John MacArthur a number of years ago on the pendulm swing out of the WOF to my then new perception and realisation of apologetics ... I still use it and love it.

The former bible meant and means a great deal though it resides on a shelf (might be interesting to go back to again, now some years removed and a great deal of the Lords thought having had His way through this bewilldered mind...). It is not the words in and of themselves that remain ... boy, tortured that expression didn't I... Will try again. This all has been such a peculiar walk. I belive there was a 'night' when everything came to a head, tears of repentance ... the whole 'testimony' if you will. That night was the true 'begining', though it is also one that has been going on all life long before hand ... But it wasn't until over a year later that this precious gift was given to me by my wife to be and then everything just went haywire... What a nightmare! What an incredible wonder! What a train wreck! What awe and wonder and depravity and ... confussion! I lost and gained my mind at the same time ... What great hope and collosal failure. The things I believed ... Healing and prosperity and .. disappointment. "Dark nights of the soul" and great elation! Anguish and struggle, misery and rejection ... and the great bulk of this all inside of my own head, or was it? Changed? Goodness it was acomplete overhaul ... Issues with honesty, piercing honesty that still goes ever on to dizzying heights and lower, dark places, places unknown ... the sheer possibiltiies. Certainly a progress, but still, a different suspicion, self and selfish, for they are both. A heightened sense of awareness to take back the sentiment to it's rightful place. The new 4 am wake up call (Surely didn't cook that one up on my own)and it resides to this day, now some 8 years later. The joy and difficulty of prayer ... that compelling. So much ... So vast ... The turning of thought's towards God, more truly, more wonderfully, more desirably...

[i]And [u]this[/u] is eternal life ...[/i]

Or to put it in Katz' parlance; "To know God is everything."

If I know anything, this will turn out to be another one of those somewhat embarrasing things to look at later, am writting from a great deal of exhaustion, physically and perhaps mentally, the emotions seem fairly well in check (another area not even touched on). But nonetheless a compelling to bring it all out in this fashion.

There is such a great journey to all this. To learn and grow and wonder and muse on the Lord, to pray and walk with Him, though we can be assulted at any waking moment and generally speaking, are. The world is an affront to spiritual matters, we ourselves the greatest obstacle of all, bound up in all kinds of things, missing greatly others that have far more eternal varieties.

To get somewhat back on track...
One of the small ironies was to happen upon a KJV the wife had in her collection and I still remember the notice of poetry in the language, especially in the Psalms and I don't mean necessarly just those that are of a poetic 'style'. But it carried quite a bit throughout all the scriptures. I just liked it. And for no special reason really and really didn't even abscribe all that much thought to the poetry, it was just a notice. Having gone now much further along, I still don't have a personal copy or even use the aformentioned one, just comfortable using and ignoring the footnotes in the present NKJV. Here, on SI the KJV is almost always refrenced by way of that great and precious free gift of www.e-sword.net with all it's helpful versions and commentaries and add ons. But it's not forced or for everyones benefit or for worries about others being 'stumbled'.

Why say all this? It's just to get us to be more honest about matters, about the issues of the heart, where everything boils down to. It is not, not to contend earnestly for the faith, but to just learn and understand the emphesis ought ot be on [i]earnest[/i] and how close that is to honest.

Long before King James has the Lord spoken and long afterwords does He still yet speak. It is a beautiful language we have inherited, full of incredible meaning and meaning is the import regardless. Sometimes it is expressed poorly and sometimes more poignantly. It's not a simple matter and the KJV is a great opportunity to take our thinking into areas left largely out of the vehnacular. Words are tremendous, so much that can be learned ... Translation is something mystifying almost when one stops to think of it. Not the exercise, but the sheer thought spoken, written differently to different cultures and understanding. It doesn't have to be presented 'one way' and surely it is an impossibilty in many languages to convey King James 'thought' into languages that don't even have equivelant words inherant ... But the point can always get through somehow and I know the Lord has not ceased in getting to the heart of the matter, whatever the translation.

Then of course is the Greek and Hebrew, of which I know very, very little and suspect a great deal of the proponents of the KJVO do either.

Two bit's and a thousand words ...

philologos wrote:

My big problem with the KJV is that I don't speak to God using "thees" and "thou's", and He doesn't speak to me that way either.

There is a big difference between 'thee' and 'you'which is lost in all modern versions. The ESV has made a small effort in resolving it but it is very inconsistent and that to me is worse than what most other new versions do.

Let me illustrate...
Here are almost a hundred places where the KJV has 'ye' and 'thee' in the same verse..
Gen 17:10; 43:29; 50:17; Ex 3:12,18; 9:30; 12:24; 23:25; 25:9; 30:37; 33:5; Lev 10:9,14; 19:19,33; Num 16:10; 18:7; Deut 1:31; 4:23; 5:28; 6:3,17; 7:12,25; 8:1; 12:1,7; 18:15; 23:4; 25:17; 27:2; 28:68; 32:6; Josh 2:14; 7:13; 8:2; Judg 14:15; 15:12; 18:24; 1Sam 9:19; 14:40; 25:6; 29:10; 2Sam 11:20; 2Kings 2:16; 6:2; 9:11; 19:10,29; Neh 1:8; Job 42:7; Psa 27:8; 32:9; 116:19; Song 6:13; Is 30:21-22; 37:10,30; 41:14; 44:8; 48:6; 65:15; Jer 2:31; 3:22; 17:4; 22:26; 29:26; 34:14; 36:19; 37:18; 46:14; 49:5; Ezek 7:4,9; 35:9; Hos 5:8; 14:3; Mic 6:16; Zech 9:12; 14:5; Mal 1:7-8; 2:14; 3:8,13; Matt 5:39; 21:5; 23:37; Luke 5:24; 13:34; 22:11; John 3:7,11; Acts 5:9; Heb 13:5; Rev 2:10

This can only mean that in these verses it is distinguishing between the singular and the plural. This distinction is lost in modern versions. Here a classic example of the above..

[color=0000ff]“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have [u]you[/u], that he may sift [u]you[/u] as wheat: But I have prayed for [u]thee[/u], that [u]thy[/u] faith fail not: and when [u]thou[/u] art converted, strengthen [u]thy[/u] brethren.”
(Luke 22:31-32 KJVS)[/color]

It was not only Peter who went through the sifting but this is a word of personal encouragement to an individual. This is God's way. Our temptations and trials may be 'common to all men' but the word of God must come to me personally to sustain me in the hour of trial. This is lost in the modern versions.

[color=0000ff]“And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.”
(Ex 3:12 KJVS)[/color]
This is a promise that God's faithfulness to an individual will result in blessing for a nation. It is a similar truth to that found in..

[color=0000ff]“Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.”
(Heb 11:28-29 KJVS)[/color]
Moses' faith was the seed to that of a nation.

[color=0000ff]“And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.”
(Ex 23:25 KJVS)[/color]
This is a promise that if the nation keeps the law of God, God will preserve the individual from sickness. It would take the obedience of the whole nation for this to come true.

Even at the time when the KJV was translated 'thee' and 'thou' had almost vanished from popular use but the translators still knew the difference between singular and plural and enshrined it in their translation.

It is important that we speak to God in our own language. For a reader of the KJV his personal language of devotion will change simply because he is meditating in the language of the KJV. This does not make his prayer more spiritual but it will affect the way he prays.

Additionally, and this is almost always forgotten in this context, 'thou' is linguistically more personal and intimate than 'you' which is part of the reason it has survived in romantic poetry. Many think that 'thou' is more noble and magnifies God more effectively; it does not. If rightly understood, 'thou' is the personal pronoun that a child would use in addressing its Father, 'you' is the personal pronoun that a subject would use in addressing his king. Their is a closeness and intimacy in the one that is missing from the other.

I could go on... but you will see my point. One of the main reasons I continue to use the KJV is that I believe it encourages my intimacy with God and his with me. It is the language of lovers.

If you would like to know more please read this pdf... [url=http://ncw.biblebase.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=3&lid=3]Teach thyself olde Englishe[/url] :-)

That's nice and all, but not convincing to me in the least. Does the KJV really encourage your intimacy with God or does the Living Word encourage you? If you believe your relationship to God is enhanced through study of singular and plural forms of words, well God bless you... Hey, I have an even better idea... pray to God to open the eyes of your understanding and to give you a Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation in the knowledge of HIM, so that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened...

What did people do before the KJV came along? For that matter what did people do in A.D. 50? Did they study Matthew chapter 5, or experience the Risen Lord and then LIVE Matthew chapter 5?

Really, truly, consider that Christ was a carpenter and His followers fishermen, zealots, tax collectors and other sundry rif-raf, not a lot of theolodes and religious types. Our brain power and deductive reasoning will only get us so far and really doesn't produce love in action with our neighbors, which is His second great commandment.

Go visit your neighbor and ask him, "How art thou today? Dost thou require those who pisseth against the wall to bring their asses yonder to till thy soil whilst thou art sojourning in thy inlaws' city these seven days?" Your neighbor will rightly think your a religious fruitcake. I'll stick with "Hey, my boys will mow your yard when your gone."

Let's get down to it, how many here even know your neighbors name, the one who lives four houses or doors down from you? Are THEY in need? Do we drive by twenty Christian houses on our way to OUR church on Sunday, and yet we have never spoken to them, because they don't share our sectarian views of some petty doctrine that we hold dear? King James indeed.

Oh dear! Did a cloud just burst over my head? I’ve been dancing for joy after reading Philologo’s post, and now Csschk’s. Jimbob, why not just rejoice with those who rejoice, and respect their treasure? Why not rejoice that a brother is close to the Lord? (God knows, there are so few of those!)

I feel that your use, or rather, abuse of KJV language expresses an insensitivity to others and a disrepect for the language. (Might I suggest some pruning of your post?)

No one implied that you should speak to your neighbor in KJV sytle. Would you talk to your neighbor like you talk to you spouse during intimate times? I sure hope not!

Just yesterday, as I was walking down the street I tried out those Thee’s and Thou’s with my Lord. I sensed him cautioning me just like he has so many times in my past: “It’s not about trying to mimic someone else’s faith journey, but about being authentic.” And God knows how hard that has been for me.

God cares not two wits about our performance or our zealous quests for what is the most “right” for somebody else, but about our own relationship with him. He calls us to remove anything that comes between us and him.

If we keep focused on him, we won’t be so obsessed with everybody else’s opinions or perceived faults - while knowing and caring very little about their true hearts.

Now that's an area in which I need to grow.
Diane

Jimbob,

You ought to really consider your own words more carefully;

Hey, I have an even better idea... pray to God to open the eyes of your understanding and to give you a Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation in the knowledge of HIM, so that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened...

You are speaking to a man of God who has walked now some 40 odd years with the Lord, putting him squarely in the realm of;

[i]We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.[/i] Th 5:12,13

Take the log of pride out of your eye along with the unfounded criticism.

[i]*Edit; See where taking a statement on particulars and making a broad application by way of assumption can get us? Rather difficult to be charitable towards hostilities of this nature.[/i]

Just yesterday, as I was walking down the street I tried out those Thee’s and Thou’s with my Lord. I sensed him cautioning me just like he has so many times in my past: “It’s not about trying to mimic someone else’s faith journey, but about being authentic.” And God knows how hard that has been for me.

Another classic word, 'authentic'... Diane, does it seem more that the meaning get's more imbedded and in turn expressed than any recognition of the actually syllabales?

In other words, similar to "Abba, Father", times where it need not even be spoken from the lips or within the framework of the mind praying ...

[i]Oh Lord, thou knowest[/i]

No different than just...

Father

Have my own pride logs to deal with, regret that statement, forgive me. The criticism still unfounded and unwarranted brother.

Proverbs 13:10
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Have my own pride logs to deal with, regret that statement, forgive me. The criticism still unfounded and unwarranted brother.

Just as pride brings out contention, humility restores fellowship and manifests Christ's glory,every time.

May God help us not to miss this virtue whenever we glimpse at the Cross.

Praise God for setting the example on SI, Crsschk. (And you too Paulwest).

On another thread I noticed two comments about the Calvinist vs Armenian debate, which I feel apply here:

1. There are spiritual giants on both sides.
2. We need BOTH sides.

We cannot deny that there are spiritual giants among those who by practice and conviction are primarily KJVers and those who are primarily MTers. And both “sides” also have their vast entourage of deceivers and deceived.

Of course we are all the better for those who keep the KJV alive and the beauty of the old language; for those and strive to preserve Biblical purity. Where would we be without all the great authors and preachers, past and present, who quote from it? What about all those precious saints (KJV lovers) who have edified us personally?

And were would those many be without a Bible that speaks in their own language – modern-day English? And what about those among them who love the Lord and serve him faithfully, and contend with us in the faith?

In a sense the best defense for any translation is the lives of those who read it. I admit, I tend to appreciate someone’s Bible version when I see how marvelously it has impacted him.

Then again, one’s preference does not speak nearly as loudly as his love (or lack thereof) for God and fellow man. Of course it would by unloving (rude) to blurt a generalized put down of someone else’s beloved Bible, or tempt him to doubt God's voice within it. “Love is never rude.” (1 Cor. 13)

Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

I have a hunch that if we center our eyes on our OWN Bibles, and less on someone else’s, Christendom would be better off. After all, there is more than enough in any Bible to keep any reader broken and contrite for an entire life.

Diane

Outstanding article, Krisp!

I have listened to some David Cloud, and I like him. I have heard a lot of bad talk towards him, which I didn't know to be true or untrue. I like the way you didn't put his name on the top. I honestly would have looked at the article differently.

In a sense the best defense for any translation is the lives of those who read it. I admit, I tend to appreciate someone’s Bible version when I see how marvelously it has impacted him.

Then again, one’s preference does not speak nearly as loudly as his love (or lack thereof) for God and fellow man. Of course it would by unloving (rude) to blurt a generalized put down of someone else’s beloved Bible, or tempt him to doubt God's voice within it. “Love is never rude.” (1 Cor. 13)

Thank you Diane for sharing this. These are Godly words that I hope to take to heart.

I wonder what would have happened if Westcott and Hort had not gotten their way back in 1881 (when the Revised Version was translated from their Greek text, taken primarily from the 2 Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

If we look at the early great critics of the Alexandrian manuscripts, like Burgon, we find that they were not insisting that the Textus Receptus could not be edited, but rather that the Alexandrian text was just so corrupted that it should not be used. Had those two men (Westcott and Hort) been unsuccessful in their work, I imagine we would have somewhat of a different KJV than we have today.

One more thought that I have on the subject after reading the posts: The comment was made that someone could get saved from the NIV for example - of course that is true. However, we must remember that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God... That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) The day a person is born again by grace through faith, it is the first time in their lives that they did anything to please God (without faith it is impossible to please Him). In my humble opinion: preferences, or "what works for me," or "what is easier for me" should have nothing to do with the decision of which Bible to use, but rather we should desire only that which is closest to what God inspired.

I worked in a Christian bookstore and nothing bothered me so much as the war over translations.

I often saw new believers utterly cautious about picking a Bible (as opposed to overjoyed) because some 'translation-onlyist' had warned them about all the corrupt Bibles.

Let's get practical. The average believer doesn't have the time (and possibly intellect) to pour over argument, manuscripts, history, etc. and draw a conclusion about the 'most pure' translation.

In fact, in a faith where the weak are esteemed above all, scholarly nitpicking (in the public degree we see it) seems flat out wrong. Let's get people to read a Bible they can understand. What's more effective? Cracking jokes from the pulpit about the "Nearly Inspired Version" (I've heard a pastor do it repeatedly), or encouraging someone to read a Bible they can understand? Some translations are written at 12th grade reading levels. I've struggled to understand the NASB, NKJV and KJV and I graduated college with honors - how much less someone with a 7th grade reading level?

We can all agree on Christ crucified for our sins and all mainline translations get this right. There is consistency between translations! If one understands that some translations are done word for word and others thought by thought, that should be enough for the average person. There is nothing wrong with 'Let my word sink into your ears' being translated as 'Listen closely.'

As someone mentioned earlier, it is translations such as Joseph Smith's rendering of the Bible and the Jehovah's Witnesses' versions we should be keeping people from.

This debate hurts the common believer and is better suited for scholarly circles. Yes, we should be careful with new translations but where do we draw the line?

If everyone with his or her different opinion had their say at the bookstore I worked at, there would be no resources to sell. The KJV-Onlys would have removed all other Bibles (and often told us we needed to). The NASB-Onlys would have wiped out the KJV collection. The reformed churchgoers would have wiped out the charismatic books and the charismatics would have wiped out the reformed books. No resources for anyone because they are all corrupt and evil.

Somehow, God mightily uses people on both sides of many such debates...
Brian

scripture does not command that we read our Bible everyday. However, it does command that we "study to show thyself approved".

Very very few Christians I know really study their Bible. I mean dig in, pick apart, consult commentaries, use dictionaries, etc. In fact, I would dare say not even 5% of the believers I know do this.

The Precepts Ministry, founded by Kay Arthur provides tools and studies for thorough inductive study. I have really appreciated this provision. Over the years I have taken several of the Precept upon Precept Bible study courses on my own, and been blessed beyond measure. You learn how to discover the truths of scripture yourself, without being so dependent on pre-digested information. And you learn how to use tools like Strongs. I'm amazed at what I have discovered. You could never imagine how many times I would say, "Wow! That's in the Word, and it's very important, and I never heard about that in church!"

I praise God for leading me in that direction. If there is anything I have learned from digging in the Word it’s that the more I learn, the more I realize that I don’t know. (By the way Precepts uses the NASV).

I sense that many prefer “Bible studies” that facilitate social connection and sharing – not bad in itself. It is a legitimate need … but …. What about the Word! I feel that, for all of us, a deeper dependency on God and his Word would reduce the temptation to overly -dependen on others.

why not disciple them and teach them how to study God's Word?

Reading it is not enough!

Oh Dear God... forgive us for our luke warmness. May the people in other parts of the world forgive us when we meet them face to face and they realize that we had all of Your Word at our disposal, and yet we were fat and lazy and did nothing with it. We wouldnt even study it! We thought 5 minute devotions was "spending time with God"!

Diane

Not to nitpick, brother, but Joseph Smith didnt re-translate the Bible, and in fact the KJV was the Bible of choice for the Mormon Church for over a century.

I had 2 Mormon missionaries over here just last week and they had the Joseph Smith translation of the KJV. To be precise, no he did not translate from original manuscripts - he knew not how. However, he went through the KJV and made 'revelatory' revisions.

From a Mormon website:

Joseph Smith, the first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made a "new translation" of the Bible, using the text of the King James Version (KJV). This work differs from the KJV in at least 3,410 verses and consists of additions, deletions, rearrangements, and other alterations that cause it to vary not only from the KJV but from other biblical texts. Changes range from minor details to fully reconstituted chapters.

In 1867, after considerable effort and expense, the RLDS Church published a copyrighted edition of the Bible, under the title Holy Scriptures, which incorporated the Prophet's translation into the format of a King James text.

Joseph Smith made extensive corrections and additions to the books of Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation. He also made many alterations in the writings of the Old Testament prophets and in Mark, John, Acts, and several of the epistles. He made no changes in Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John. He made some corrections in all other books of the Bible, and rejected the Song of Solomon as not being inspired scripture.

For more on the JSV: [url=http://www.irr.org/MIT/Joseph-Smith-Translation-short.html]irr.org[/url]

First, I respect your position and recognize the KJV as legit, poetic, classic, literal etc.

Instead, just like Minute Rice and instant oat meal, we think we need to simplify everything and package it up so it's more convenient.

Instead of having a new convert buy some "easy-to-read" Bible (or worse yet... those teen Bible-zines!)... why not disciple them and teach them how to study God's Word?

I will stick with the KJV, and I will point people toward it (even new converts) until something better comes along.

I receieve great blessing and eternal fruit from the zondervan NIV study Bible.

9 How can a young man keep his way pure?
By living according to your word.

10 I seek you with all my heart;
do not let me stray from your commands.

11 I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.

12 Praise be to you, O LORD;
teach me your decrees.

13 With my lips I recount
all the laws that come from your mouth.

14 I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.

15 I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.

16 I delight in your decrees;
I will not neglect your word.

from Ps. 119

The fanatical KJV-only crowd are doing the exact same thing as the serpent did in the Garden: "Hath God Said?"

And referring the non-KJV Bibles as Bible teen-zines is blasphemous in my opinion. The pharisee-arrogance is off the scale.

Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

Krispy

Praise God for your stamina and courage in contending for, in my mind, a very precious translation version of the Holy Word. Sigh..tolerance, just one of those things, charity vs tolerance, how far can one go with tolerance to things that are blatantly blasephemous.

"Depart from evil" , " flee from the appearance of evil",we must remember where God warns us throughout the Bible of these precepts,so few are willing to call evil evil these days. At times, it really feels like a losing battle, Christians are so often concerned of man's feelings than God's honor everywhere.

As for all these distorted and vulgar children and teen "jesus" products, concocted by those whose " god (obviously)is their belly", we as adults and parents must speak out against them, to be called a Pharisee for doing such is far too small a price to pay, so, let me join you in protesting against these blasphemous products and to be called whatever .

For those open to to it, I have found a good resource in James White's book The King James Only Controversy. The book seems fair, sensitive and is extremely informative on this issue. I suggest it to anyone who is in Christian leadership or who would like a clearer understanding about the KJV, modern translations, Textus Receptus, Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, early translators (Jerome, Erasmus), etc.

Brian

I have studied the versions quite in depth and have found many things my concience disagrees with in other "bible" versions. KJ all the way for me thats where my concience is, read to many other things I disagree with and my heart disagrees with in the others versions.

Its not that I think anyone cant be saved without a KJV bible or anything like that.

Intresting note:In Acts they had more power and influence than any other time in history and they didnt even have bibles LOL

But for my studies and convictions I do believe without a shadow of a doubt that the KingjJames version of the bible is by far the most accurate version.

But for my studies and convictions I do believe without a shadow of a doubt that the King James version of the bible is by far the most accurate version.

Here is another take on the references and source documents ...[url=http://audio.gracechurch.org/sc/2006notes/King%20James%20Only,%20Barrick.pdf]King James Only, Sometimes, Never : Examining the Modern Versions of the Bible[/url]

ALSO ... Are not all Christians, who have a right relationship with God and living a truly obedient life guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret the scripture they read?

REALITY CHECK! Thank you for your insightful question Krispy ...

:roll: sometimes while lurking and reading through the posts, one forgets that they are not actually physically engaged in the conversation and the principals do not know that others have involved themselves into the thought processes.

YES, I have done my reading of all of the texts, following the links and studying of the controveries surrounding the 'source documents' for the various 'translations' and 'interpretations' of the Holy Bible.

The heart of my [b]sincere[/b] questioning is that ...

Are not all Christians, who have a right relationship with God and living a truly obedient life guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret the scripture they read?

I know all of the well-worn parables about muddy water and the speck of dirt that contaminates the pure water but...if I know Christ as my Lord and Saviour and, through that Glorious relationship, my relationship with my God is right, and I every moment I live, walk, sing, pray in the Spirit ...then will this relationship not help me to see the truths with all that I read, see and hear? Does not my discernment of the scriptures come from an obedient relationship that truly seeks God's will for my life and His gifts that He has blessed me with?

Again I go back a few months to another post were it was discussed that in our search for the Word the Truth of God in many of the texts that we read, the speakers [and the music :roll:] we listen to, we have to "eat the meat, chew it well and spit out the bones."

Is it not the [i]meditation[/i] on the Word of God that is the most important part of the 'conversation' that we have? It is important to read to study the Word of God but, it is [u]as much[/u] [b]if not more [/b]important to spend time reflecting and meditating on the Truths that He reveals to us through the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

IMHO:It follows the truths of prayer... Prayer is not a one way discourse to God ; it is a relational conversation where we expectantly seek to know His heart and are expected to LISTEN for, and to [b]obediently respond/b] to His responses...

Yes, there are some interpretation and translations out there that some suspect are not "Kosher" but as they are not ouright heresy and allow PEOPLE to come to a relationship with Christ- that is a work of God and the Holy Spirit. Maybe they'll pick up a 'better' version later in their walk but for right now they are seeking a right relationship and actively want to know the crucified Christ. I will not set limits on His desire to see the lost come to him... God will use Whatever tools, 'programs' and vehicles that allows them to soften their heart to Him and His message of salvation.

Ah ... the sweetness of an understanding. I'm there bro'.

This is where we are in our journey and we are seasoned veterans of the battle. We do have obligation to follow Christ on the path that He leads us. He has shaped you as He wills and as you have allowed .... and your personal integrity is part of that completeness that He has forged you into. Our paths have brought us to where we are at this moment...with all of our personal seeking for the truth and studying the facts, our thought processes have brought us to these understandings and convictions.

I seek only to show that there are other perspectives and intelligent options out there and YES EVERYONE must do the research and discover for yourself what God's plan is for you and, as a witness to Him, how you live your life.

If for nothing else, and there is much more, but in the very least, the KJV is easiest to memorize. For me the poetic writing inscribes it into my mind. Because its different than normal language today, all scripture is easily identified in my mind. I prefer not to even read any other translation ever because i don't want to mix up my memorized scripture. I don't believe any other translation in necessary. They may help with understanding some phrases, but a dake study bible can easily help with that. And a greek lexicon or concordance should be considered a MUST with every bible reader.

Apart from all else, I agree with the saying that only the Holy Spirit can reveal truth no matter what translation, as the living Word is not written on paper. He sits in heaven. The Word is more than just words. Against my own argument i must confess that when i was a baby christian i had a living bible that was given to me and God spoke to me through the spirit using that book. I shutter to call it a bible :) You can also find words like "SOB" in that book. I through it away after i got "hooked" on the KJV. I must admit though, that God did speak to me, and he used to a paraphrased bible to do it. To testify this... the spirit told me to read revelation and i said, "I just did." but he said do it again. So after the seven churches, when i was in laodicea he told me "Thats you." I said thats not me, and it wasn't because i was a baby christian as zealous as could be. But he showed me that it wasn't me personally, but me as in the church age i live in. For a 3 month old christian thats a big revelation to get without anybody to describe it to you but the Spirit of God. And that was with a living bible. I've thrown it away now but i can't ever deny that experience, so be careful in speaking too strongly against other translations. You may think you know, but God is more than you think.

I don't believe i need a bible to learn God's entire Word. I just think its his most common way to show himself. I believe if i was without any scripture in life ever stranded on a desert island, i could learn God as well or better than the man who had a bible. Because God can speak through anything using His Spirit. Scripture is just his most common way in this age of time for most people. Moses wrote scripture and never read it first. So did paul. So did john. Yes i do believe the scripture is divinely inspired and totally from God so don't take me out of context please.

I don't believe i need a bible to learn God's entire Word. I just think its his most common way to show himself.

Hi Matt! Welcome!

Would like to comment a bit on your quote. I know what you mean, because I was saved without a Bible. I didn't yet know the written Word when I was born again (though I had heard the Word preached), so I may have well been on a desert island in that sense! But afterwards, God led me to the Book. You mentioned the "entire" Word. I would have to say that outside the Bible, it is quite dangerous to say a person can have full knowledge of and learn God's "entire" Word, for many cults claim to have this knowledge. Anything you receive in the spiritual must be measured up against Holy Scripture, otherwise how can you know whether you've heard from Jehovah God and not some familiar spirit? The Book, the Holy Bible, is indispensible, for it is the saints' food, medicine, shield, sword. I propose that the Bible is God's only means of revealing His whole heart and precepts and instructions to the world. Without the Bible you cannot grow, you are separated from the transforming Manna by which we mature in Christ. Independant revelations alone can never suffice; for God grows his children and imparts knowledge and wisdom through his Word alone, and anything imparted that will produce true spiritual transformations in the inner man can only come through the meditation of Holy Scripture. Otherwise it will not remain, nor produce the true fruit of the Holy Spirit which is acceptable to God.

Just a bit of commentary. What do you think?

Brother Paul

:-) Hi there MattChenier,

Your Statement are quite true. But that is the time of Holy Bible is not even written yet, that's why God uses those people to write the Bible for us, for this generation that full of destruction and diversity and corrupt influence to our mind that we can't even hear so clearly the wishper of the Holy Spirit, and not having the discerment to know if what you are really hearing and learning is from God. We are in the last days before the Lord return it is been warned us that the Evil one will come as a light. To much for me to go on best thing try to read Revelation might help a bit:-). Any way I pray that The Holy Spirit will entice you more to know and seek God word that you may know Him deeper and given you a clear vision of this matter, and it will not be sugar coated revelation either.

Have fun man, onward and upward for Christ Jesus.

the KJV is easiest to memorize. For me the poetic writing inscribes it into my mind

Oh Matt, I am glad to hear you say that. I love to memorize in KJV also. I practice the verses over and over and because it is a bit different than our current "Americanese" it kind of forces me to really consider what the Spirit is saying in the Holy Writ. It blesses me to no end and I am glad you like to memorize in KJV too!

i appreciate your comments, it appears you might have taken me as one that doesn't read "the bible." This is most definitely not true of my life :) I have at least 1 bible in my pocket at all times as well as memorization scriptures. (This doesn't make me spiritual i was just emphasizing my understanding of the need of the Bible.) My testimony is similar paulwest because i never ever had seen the inside of a bible when God began to speak to me. I heard a missionary tell me a testimony of hearing god's voice and i believed her. So God being "a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" began to speak to me. Without a bible I learned of God's consistent faithfulness, goodness, love, longsuffering, knowledge of my thoughts and actions, as well as his knowledge of future events. I learned i could depend on him and trust His voice with all everything in my life. However, I hadn't been told about jesus. It took 2 and a half years of me failing him and myself before the spirit led me to a pentecostal church with a discerning youth pastor. In his office he read from the bible to me and told me i wasn't saved and didn't know Jesus, (even if i had heard the holy spirit). So 30 minutes later i confessed my sins, like before, and believed in God, like before, only this time i accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour! My mind was freed and the burden of sin left my soul. A burden i never knew was there. I felt the same on the outside but my soul was cleansed and my heart was clean. I understand the importance of the bible, but my point was that its only a tool God uses to speak through using his Holy Spirit. My point of learning God without the bible was based on being on a stranded island without access to one. :) i would never choose to not use the bible.

MattChenier wrote:
i appreciate your comments, it appears you might have taken me as one that doesn't read "the bible."

I personally didn't think you were saying this, but the thought came, "Someone could get the impression the [b]they[/b] do not need to read the Bible" from reading your post, that's all.

I heard a man once say something to the effect of "Every bush is burning, the only thing is that some people pay to much attention to the flames, to take off their sandals and listen." You know, I am very careful who I quote that to, these days, and I always add, "but make sure that the words arer weigh in Scripture before applying them to your life".

Experience has told me, that if you lower the standard, people cast it off, but if you raise the standard, them people seek the One who'll carry them over it ... and He will.

Bless you Matt, I can see that you'll have alot to offer this place.

As much of a devout fan of kjv i am, and even though i only will read kjv and never anything else to help retain my memorized scriptures. Even though i highly favor the kjv and love it dearly, even though i greatly dislike almost every translation i have ever read but the kjv, I must say...

after much greek study I feel that there are many things, even in the kjv, that every bible translation could use improvements on. If you really want to learn the word, begin to study greek and hebrew very deeply. It will offer you a much deeper understanding of the scripture.

Ormly, as divinely inspired as and spiritually translated i believe the kjv to be, i believe if you would educate yourself extensively in the greek, you would agree.

Hi Ormly...

Ormly wrote:
Given the KJV as being our foundational transltion, will understanding MORE change what the KJV presents? Will it enhance or dimimish the message of the gospel, the main issue of both the OT and the NT? That's the key question needed to be asked by those intimadated by Greek scholars, willing to submit to Greek academia rather than revelational truth/insight.

While I study the KJV more than any other version, I still merely see it as the best translation from the Textus Receptus -- but that is all. The translation is [u]not[/u] above flaw (according to the flawed translators themselves in the Preface to the 1611 Edition). It was corrected and revised many times over a period of 150 years. The version we have today is NOT the version released in 1611. Most of the errors were minor -- but they were errors nonetheless.

I also use the NIV (1978). In my opinion, it is the best translation derived from the other sources that are deemed credible by serious academic Bible and manuscript scholars. I always compare Scripture between the translations. Why? I want to know what the other texts say. The differences between serious academic translations (such as the KJV and the NIV) were not the result of malicious men wanting to lead people astray. Rather, it was the honest work of honest translators. They used what they felt were the best sources, and translated accordingly.

When I read a passage in the KJV that differs from the NIV (and vice versa), I read it fully knowing and understanding the differences in translation and source material. However, I refuse to spit on a translation of the Word of God that (from all appearances) was created in good faith. The fact that there are some differences in no way will cause me to "doubt" or "be led astray" by various winds of doctrine. Why? I know the God in whom I serve.

:-)

Hi Ormly...

Ormly wrote:
Malicious men?? Your words, not mine.

I merely wanted to point out that the KJV is not the "foundational translation." It is simply an earlier translation based upon a seperate set of sources than the NIV. The differences can be attributed to the sources used, and not to the doctrinal preferences of translators.

In my attempts to study this issue of source superiority, I have found nothing that makes me conclude that the Textus Receptus is completely superior to all of the other sources. At the same time, I have seen nothing that makes me conclude that the other sources are superior to the Textus Receptus. When I study the KJV, I merely consider it the best translation taken from the Textus Receptus. When I study the NIV, I consider it a good academic translation taken from the other sources.

:-)

crsschk, i agree with your studies on the origins of the scripture

I also agree, to at least some extent, with ormly's belief that many modern translations seem to have a line of thought in their scriptures. With the greek studies I have done, which is in no way exhaustive, I have found that the NIV itself seems to be almost too translated. I feel as though they try to uncover what the scriptures are really saying by human interpretation, rather than a direct translation without any viewpoint added. I feel the NIV is explained, not translated. This of course is not 100% on every scripture, but certainly on many. I feel they try to relate their own ideas of the meaning in their translation.

However, I myself sometimes pick up a niv to see if what i think the kjv is saying is really what its saying. Although i feel the NIV authors usually are giving what appears their own interpretation.

This i know, God can speak though both. I don't care how good or bad the translation or paraphrase is, its the Holy Spirit that reveals the Living Word, not the quality of the translation. I believe the KJV is the best. I am not however, a professor or scholar. I just read a lot of the greek from the textus receptus.

I guess if the NIV came from different sources, maybe thats why the NIV seems to say somethiing different. I am not sure. This however, may cause me to wonder about the origins of these other sources. I haven't studied that much.

Hello...

You know, if there was only one thread about Bible translations, it would probably be the longest thread on this website. Sadly, there are few topics that are ever as fiercely debated.

I have little issue with either the KJV-only people or those that read other scholarly translations. My only contention is when we are ready to accept and submit evidence that is less than academic in this subject (or at best, suspiciously speculative), or we when lose all of our humility and "spit" on the opposing idea as ultimately flawed according to our own (sometimes limited) research.

I'm not saying that this is the case right now. However, it seems like there are individuals that have seriously studied this issue with great academic and spiritual care -- beyond merely consulting prejudicial books on the topic. Yet their opinions or positions can be refuted by certain novices on the subject by individuals that have purchased [i]Grey's Anatomy of Biblical Translations[/i] from their local Christian Bookstore, website or traveling evangelist.

When I first wrote my views about this subject -- my mail folder was immediately bombarded with emails from individuals hoping to "save me from error." At one point, I received emails from the same well-meaning individual for nearly two weeks (who warned me about believing "a lie"). When I explained the extent of my research in the matter (limited yet extensive), I was told that my position was based upon a "delusion."

I ask that we return to the humility of true faith -- even communicating love in issues as controversial as Bible translation. Often, we seem to respond in a manner in which we view the "opposition" as individuals with "fingers in their ears." I believe (or hope) that the vast majority of individuals posting here actually desire, seek and love truth. I cannot begin to tell you the times that I have [u]learned[/u] from individuals with whom I don't even agree with their position on certain matters.

Far too often, it seems that we are willing to "part company" with individuals because of matters of doctrine or belief that not completely in line with our own. Yet we continue to argue. Instead of "[i]speaking the truth in love[/i]," we are often "[i]pressing our conclusion due to offense[/i]."

Is it possible to debate this issue without offense? Certainly. However, it is important to respect the positions taken by individuals that were derived in good faith. We don't have to agree on this issue. We can still point out our positions (including the rationale behind them) in perfect humility.

Anyway, this is not directed at anyone in particular (including Krispy or Ormly). I just hope that future discussions of this issue (or other seemingly controversial issues) can be discussed without offense.

I love you guys!

:-)

Hey, Guys, if this is causing bitter envying and strife in your hearts, we'd better close this forum. It's not worth it!! For Christ and the Church, as the song says, this should be our focus, and i'm afraid that we're loosing our focus off of Christ, and onto this discussion.

i say this out of love.:-)

just a concerned brother, wanting to keep eternity in veiw,

-nate

Quite a long thread on a very difficult topic. I don't plan on giving you a history lesson on Erasmus either (and there has to be lies about that forerunner), due to the fact that tyndale's 1525 "buried" translation, is avaiable at faithofgod.net in modern typeset, to see the orignal english and gasp, variants.
Personally it's best to look at English this way, started 1525-1534 and the K.J was in 1611, that provides so much time for a malicous translator to cut out valuable wordes called by churches and kinges as heresies. Thoughts and not agruments, alwaye in love do I preache.
I Beleive in turning the light on for believers in Christ Jesus.