Menu

KJV - yes, thats the version for me!

S
sermonindex

I am finding myself quickly losing interest in this forum lately... it's becoming a place where people come in and want to beat us over the head with political agendas, protests against this social problem, or that movement over there...

I long for the good ol' days when we actually addressed matters of substance. Theological issues. Stuff like that.

So I thought I would remind you all that I am still solidly 100% in favor of the KJV.

:-)

Krispy

B
BlazedbyGod

Me to Krispy, I am soley in favor of the Word of God KJV.

God is one God, thus he only has one Word.

R
running2win

So I thought I would remind you all that I am still solidly 100% in favor of the KJV.

Haha! Me too.......... almost :-P

S
sermonindex

God is one God, thus he only has one Word.

I understand exactly what you mean by that, but some here probably wont. Just be prepared to do a lot of clarifying, bro! lol

Krispy

C
crsschk

Hey brother,

It is what we make of it though ...

I long for the good ol' days when we actually addressed matters of substance. Theological issues. Stuff like that.

If I could say anything it would be that I don't think a lot of the newer members really know how truly wonderful those days were. It may lie somewhat in that gray area ... Brother it has grown much and needs a lot of patience, hopefully those of us who are veterans might do more to draw them in to deeper, more substantive matters.

And that may mean we have to let some things go without answer or reply.

Found another gem from Philologos that falls into this must read arena ... There is some remarkable and life altering things to be brought forth. Let's bring them up brother!

S
sermonindex

If I could say anything it would be that I don't think a lot of the newer members really know how truly wonderful those days were. It may lie somewhat in that gray area ... Brother it has grown much and needs a lot of patience, hopefully those of us who are veterans might do more to draw them in to deeper, more substantive matters.

Guilty... I havent been very patient. Big surprise, huh? lol

Thanx for the word, bro. Timely as usual.

Krispy

B
BlazedbyGod

Yes, I know. I faced that in another post that I was posting on today-

I gues people don't understand....like David said, Psalm 62:11 "God hath spoken ONCE..."-did they forget that?-lol

R
ravenmolehil


KrispyKrittr wrote:
I am finding myself quickly losing interest in this forum lately... it's becoming a place where people come in and want to beat us over the head with political agendas, protests against this social problem, or that movement over there...

I long for the good ol' days when we actually addressed matters of substance. Theological issues. Stuff like that.

Krispy


Yes, Yes
I have debated over taking a long break from the forum (reading & posting) for a while now, & I think today is the day...

I have much reading to do.. IN my Ol' Scofield KJV

P
PaulWest

There is some remarkable and life altering things to be brought forth. Let's bring them up brother!

Do I see the sun trying to peek through a cloud? :-)

Amen! Yes let's bring them up, and nurture their substance. This was what initially attracted me to these forums...and I so miss those discussions. Even when there were disagreements, the entire community was still blessed and prospered.

And that may mean we have to let some things go without answer or reply.

Yes, brother. We need discernment in these areas, we need to identify the little foxes that would destroy the grapes. This will require the mending of the garden walls to keep out infectious varmints of politics and vain janglings and the like. It should also require the yanking-up of the weeds of personal agenda.

Speaking of KJV superiority, I am an ardent KJV lover; and I love it so much that I've gotten into the habit of reading it parallel with other versions to accentuate its conveyance in certain verses. I think we should let all the other versions work in our favor, taking the example from God Who uses the extraneous circumstances in life to work for the good of His children.

Which of us, while panning for gold in a creek, would not stop to pick up a emerald glistening on the bank? I've found that reading different translations parallel to the KJV can yield such profits. If anything, a lucid paraphrase from the NLT can be like a charge of dynamite that blasts away the crust of Jacobean verbiage to reveal the hunk of gold gleaming beneath the surface. Let us be shrewd and resourceful and fastidious in our mining! We are living in a most wonderful day and age of limitless provision and wealth to help us understand the breadth and scope of God's Word. All we need is the fire of the Holy Ghost to ignite the charge.

Brother Paul

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Krispy...

A good friend of mine, during times of distress, used to tell me, "[i]Don't worry -- it will all come out in the wash[/i]." At the time, I used to hate such advice because it was soooooo simplistic and felt like placing a rhetorical "bandaid on a cancer." However, it does make a lot of sense.

Sometimes, I sit back and watch the world (ala third person). The hearts of men are waxing worse and worse. Sin is becoming "acceptable" and "normal" at an alarming rate. And the Church seems to grow more worldly while having fallen into a much deeper sleep; or, the Church seems to have strained a gnat while swallowing a camel. But you know what? Jesus is [u]still[/u] Lord. In the end, He will still have His own way. Regardless of how utterly hopeless things seem -- the end has already been recorded in the books of eternity.

Christ wins.
Satan loses.
Believers rejoice.
Unbelievers wail.
The Heavens and the Earth are destroyed.
A new Heavens and a New Earth are created.
All tears will be wiped away.
No more death.
No more sorrow.
No more pain.
Everything will be made new.

There are times when I feel exasperated by the treatment from fellow believers. If I enter a disagreement with someone concerning a particular doctrine or issue, I am accused of "[i]being deceived[/i]," "[i]trusting in man[/i]" or "[i]spreading a lie[/i]." Try as I do, I still find myself entering into discussions where individuals make bold claims about everything from doctrine to politics -- simply to present a "[i]your-view-is-not-the-only-view-or-the-only-view-that-matters[/i]" perspective on an issue. I constantly wrestle with sharing my beliefs because I fear the anger that results from the presentation of a differing opinion.

Even though we don't agree on everything (well, mostly about the issue of KJV or Textus Receptus supremacy), we agree on that which really matters. Personally, you have always been thoughtful, even if a little rough, in the way you have dealt with such differences.

So be encouraged! Life is far too short to worry about the petty "grumblings" of others. And it is also far too short to neglect the vital "grumblings" that truly matter.

:-)

By the way, I still consider the KJV as the best translation taken from the Textus Receptus and the NIV as the best translation taken from the other sources.

G
geddingsm

That's my Krispy! Love to try and stir it up, don't ya?
Love ya bro,
geddingsm

P
PaulWest

Try as I do, I still find myself entering into discussions where individuals make bold claims about everything from doctrine to politics -- simply to present a "your-view-is-not-the-only-view-or-the-only-view-that-matters" perspective on an issue.

Same here, brother. And after I do so, I almost invariably wish I hadn't.

I constantly wrestle with sharing my beliefs because I fear the anger that results from the presentation of a differing opinion.

Yes, it's a terrible thing to always been in fear of those unfair insinuations. I believe this is the main reason why most SI members' number of posts remain in the single digits (if any). It hurts to be publically broadsided by an insensate remark pertaining to your walk with Christ. There is a way to disagree without hurling sacrcasm and the last-sentence zinger.

C
Compton

Unlikely thread to find this little conversation tucked...but I like it!

I long for the good ol' days when we actually addressed matters of substance. Theological issues. Stuff like that.

If I could say anything it would be that I don't think a lot of the newer members really know how truly wonderful those days were.

I share these same sentiments.

In some ways this place was an osasis from the issues offered by Time magazine and CNN news. Now the mischievous irony is that those here who have a burden to call the Church out of "babylon" are the very ones stuffing the forum full of political and economic op-ed articles and posts...often quoting 'bablylonian' pundits. Perhaps their burden of resisting Babylon has something to do with personal struggles over once certain convictions. And even if we all nod uniformly in agreement that things do not look good in the world today, these things still need to be expressed as a way of sharing fears and burdens with one another. The unfortunate emphasis we place on antagonism between posters (who really see more closely then differently) is merely an appeal for interest and conversation because agreement tends to diffuse interest while controversy tends to arouse interest. In short, we need to talk about these things!

Perhaps much of this need for political/kingdom discussions can be explained by the times we are living in. First off, we are approaching a pivatol election. Emotions and convictions are running stronger then ever! Indeed many people are becoming 'apolitical', and opting out---the most pronounced emotive reaction of all that is often expressed as wanting to identify more with a heavenly kingdom...perhaps out of a deep dissolusionment that both conservative and liberal candidates represent morally and spiritually impossible choices. I have noticed this reaction in myself.

Second factor to consider is that the war in Iraq has been going on long enough so a person who was only an adolescent when it started is now an adult. These have been shifting and often violent years for forming personal convictions.

Taking a step back for a second, us 'old timers' might consider that perhaps half the people in this forum don't remember the cold war. I try to Imagine growing up in the 90's not remembering that even Christian children used to wake in their beds with nightmares of military annialiation from the USSR when I was a toddler. That children are free from that fear today not only changes the young person in the States, but also the European who these days can afford to be much less nationalistic then their granparents could...a social trend that puts them at odds with not only America, but even Israel. Consider how these geoploitical shifts might find expression in subtle but profound theological shifts within the Church. For instance, the persistance of patriotism in American Christianity is a growing consternation and bewilderment to many Christians from other countries.

Small wonder; a generation removed from the 20th century's great death struggle with the genocidal totalitarianism of fascism and communism may view the cold war only as a propaganda war of 'isms' and empty platitudes. Of course in time it becomes difficult to appreciate the United States current position in the world. The current war might easily seem like a war for oil and money, though someone like me might just as well see it as the emergence of another century long struggle against totalitarian idealogies between nations. On the other hand some 'post-modern' evangelicals might transfer some of their parent's anticipation of the apocalypse inherent in modern war to global warming worries. History books are almost useless to provide a meaningful and consistent narritive because individual revisionism has become rampant and is conducted electronically hour by hour, freeing too many historians from all editorial contraints within our education and media industries.

In any event I believe much of the spirit/material dichotomous worldview we hear discussed sincerely in the forum is at least partly influenced by an emergence of pessimism in regards to geopolitics. (Not all mind you...but perhaps at least the popular trending...)Geopolitical influence on doctrinal convictions is something to consider for the Christian...consider the effect the nuclear missile, and the cold war era had on the rise of conservative dispensationalists in America 20-40 years ago. Consider the impact that the spread of Islam had on Church theology in the middle ages. I'm not defending or accusing or ignoring the soverignty of God in these matters...but I imagine that we could track a geopolitical/theological correlation in every age and nationality of the church.

Actually, this is one of the benifits of Sermon Index, in that it allows us Amerikins to meet some ferreners...to help us face our own unwitting social influences. And vice versa!

Now geopolitically speaking, it seems all nations can agree that our globe seems to be headed for a dark hour of history. It does not take a prophet to notice this...

And yet, if we were really as prophetic as we desire to be...if our heavenly citizenship will become truly not of this world, as opposed to merely disguised political symphathies or politically antithetic reactions...then the lions in this forum could lie down with the lambs that come here to feed without constantly biting them. ;-)

There is so much more to build into one another then fear, frustration, and rage over the fate of the United States. It's becoming abit narcisstic I think. Why, even an old banjo has more then one string to make music with! Besides, perhaps the Lord has other nations also on his heart these days...

Back to our regularly scheduled program on KJVism...

MC

S
sermonindex

moe_mac joked:
The KJV is my preference too. Wasn't that the one the Apostle Paul used? Now I'm laughing. I think we all need a good belly roll.
Bless you brothers and sisters

S
Smokey

Howdy Y'all

I have to agree with Krispy about the sense that many posters here are using this site to present their personal understanding, and belief of scripture. Political correctness has been rampant here lately, with no tolerance for opposing thought. I have stated before, and I will say it again, that this site is more and more coming under attack from the enemy, and we need to be very discerning in what we are reading, and how we respond. More and more, it seems that anyone that presents a "traditional " insight into scripture is made to look like a fool, bigoted, and old fashioned. God's Word has not changed just because it is the 21st century, and I will not back down off of my "traditional" understanding of scripture, including the belief that the KJV is the best rendering of God's Word available today.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.

Thank God, there is a harvest coming!

Blessings Greg :-(

T
theopenlife

And that may mean we have to let some things go without answer or reply.

Amen to that bit of wisdom. And when I say amen, I mean "so be it!"

I've been around SI for two years, but only began posting six months ago. I have such affection for the brothers and sisters here that I've come to hold as family. In conversations I often refer to the "Sermon Index crowd".

Two weeks ago I was witnessing around town. A young man had a bible and approached me when he realized I was preaching. When we discovered we were both SermonIndex-ites we became so excited. Though it's not always the case, it's almost like hearing someone say, "I'm also zealous for the glory of Jesus!"

Anyways, about the KJV. Half a year ago someone posted that legendary thread, "Call me KJV Only if..." It had a profound influence on me. (does someone know where it is?) After much study I concluded that, as best as I can see, (and not wanting to injure anyone here) the Textus Receptus is the purest of sources and was providentially preserved. Wescott and Hort frighten me. The KJV is the best rendering of the best text.

The night I realized, I thought, "Lord, where will I get a bible? I'm broke. I can't even pay rent and I only eat Ramen, twice a day!" (I had just lost my job.

I only had a KJV children's bible with micro font, so I got on my knees and prayed, "God, I don't care about cars or clothes or even food. Please give me a Bible, that's a good thing and if it's Your word, please give it to me." Ding. I stood up and immediately went to the mailbox. An unexpected check from a client who had months before forgotten to pay me, and I had never noticed. I had my beloved Cambridge Concord Wide-Margin bible within the week. I hope to have it in ten or twenty years still.

As a note, I recently discovered something interesting. People think of "thee" and "thou" as outdated. Did you know, at the time of the KJV translating, "thee" and "thou" had been outdated for more than 100 years from common speech. It was adopted despite culture because it is more biblical. How so? Those tenses match the Greek and Hebrew text. The "t" forms are singular (thee, thou) and the "y" forms are plural (you, ye)...

Read these verse and thank God for thee and thou:

Luke 22:31-32. "The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat: but I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren." Satan's desire was directed to all the apostles, but the Lord prays for each individually. Or only for certain ones (Judas)?

John 3:7. "Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again." The message was spoken to an individual, Nicodemus, but the message referred to all men. The same phenomenon occurs in verse 11, where we read: "I say unto THEE ... that YE receive not our witness."

C
crsschk

Anyways, about the KJV. Half a year ago someone posted that legendary thread, "Call me KJV Only if..." It had a profound influence on me. (does someone know where it is?)

It was Krispy,

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=12785&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go]Call me King James Only! But only if....[/url]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I got to tell you Krispy, how you managed to get so great a thread and response from this title [i](KJV - yes, thats the version for me!)[/i]... All of you here, just wonderful, have me reminiscing

T
theopenlife

Thanks crsschk, that was fast. PDF comin' up!

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
I am finding myself quickly losing interest in this forum lately... it's becoming a place where people come in and want to beat us over the head with political agendas, protests against this social problem, or that movement over there...

I long for the good ol' days when we actually addressed matters of substance. Theological issues. Stuff like that.

So I thought I would remind you all that I am still solidly 100% in favor of the KJV.

:-)

Krispy

Yes, Brother Krispy, but purely theoretical theology (which I love too - I'm not knocking it) can be a block to practical living in the real world. In the same way, "pure" scientific research, without any practical application, (which I also love) doesn't help develop technology; or improve health and put food on the table in countries where there is only polluted water to drink or crops that are ravaged by pests.

And sometimes "political" matters (that is, current affairs) are [b]very relevant indeed[/b] to the spiritual and theological.

Why else should Daniel, for example, have been given visions about the rise and fall of world empires?

We do need to be able to read the signs of the times for our own generation, while remaining firmly separate from [u]party spirit[/u], especially in politics.

I posted on another thread how a friend was talking to a church elder just before an election. The man was flabbergasted when Eddie suggested praying about who to vote for - as far as he was concerned he'd always voted Labour and had never thought to ask [u]the Lord[/u] about what party he should vote for!

I'm sure there are those here (I tend not to read those threads) who get very excited about party politics, and upset if anyone disagrees with their political opinions or criticises their favourite leader. But that's true of theological opinions too!

Let's not tar everyone with the same brush!

John 7:24 [i][b][color=000033][font=Verdana]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.[/font][/color][/b][/i]

in Him

Jeannette

S
sermonindex

By the way, I still consider the KJV as the best translation taken from the Textus Receptus and the NIV as the best translation taken from the other sources.

Hey ccchhhrrriiisss...

You know what? We have something we can agree on concerning Bible versions! Your above statement is something I agree with! Wow...

As you know tho, I reject the "other sources". But you are correct about the NIV being the best representation of those "other sources".

Anyway, as to the rest of your post, thank you for you encouraging words, brother. I hope we can all here be an example to the church at large that we dont have to agree on every little nuance of the Christian life to have unity. Of course, there are certain truths that must be agreed on... but if someone is truly, Biblically saved... they are my spiritual kin.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

And I got to tell you Krispy, how you managed to get so great a thread and response from this title (KJV - yes, thats the version for me!)... All of you here, just wonderful, have me reminiscing

Hey Mike, how's it, brutha!

This is one of those times that I sit back and think... wow, this was a God thing. I just wanted to hit the "re-set" button. I guess I did! lol

This is so refreshing.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

Anyways, about the KJV. Half a year ago someone posted that legendary thread, "Call me KJV Only if..." It had a profound influence on me. (does someone know where it is?) After much study I concluded that, as best as I can see, (and not wanting to injure anyone here) the Textus Receptus is the purest of sources and was providentially preserved.

[b]theopenlife[/b]... you made my day. There have been times when discussing this issue on this forum that people have informed me that I'm wasting my time... that I'm not convincing anyone (as tho I could!)... that this topic only divides...

And then you write that post, and shows me that yea... God still does use me, despite myself.

And by the way, I've discussed this issue with a ton of people here, and not all come to the same conclusions you and I have about the KJV. I'm ok with that! If I can just get people to [b]THINK[/b] and examine this issue, I'm satisfied. At least if someone is going to disagree with me on this, I want them to know why they do. I hate gullibility, and I depise bumper-sticker theology. "Study to show thyself approved", says the Word.

Thanx again... that was very encouraging!

Krispy

S
sermonindex

Jeannette... I'm not against people discussing politics. Heck, I listen to Glenn Beck most days. I'm just saying that getting into "party politics" is not what this forum is about. No doubt there will be some discussion of government over the next year as we head toward another election... oh boy. I just pray we all keep our heads about us.

I noticed that beginning sometime soon XM Radio is going to have a channel that is dedicated to nothing but election coverage. I can feel a migrain coming on just thinking about it. Who would want to listen to that 24/7 ??

When I was younger I was gung-ho politics. I saw Ronald Reagan when he was campaigning in 1984. I was a senoir in high school that fall. (Class of '85) Got to see him give a speech in person. Our school took us all to the campaign stop as a field trip.

I used to love to argue politics, and Bill Clinton certainly gave us plenty to argue about.

But now that I'm older (I'll be 40 next month)... I'm finding that altho I have strong political views, in the long run what does it matter? The most important thing is that we tell people about Jesus.

Krispy

B
BeYeDoers

ccchhhrrriiisss, do you own a NIV-Greek interlinear? Go through some of Paul's letters. You don't have to know very much Greek to see that there are instances where the same Greek word is used over and over in the same section of the letter but translated several different ways. For instance, in Colossians, the Greek word for "all" is used pretty ubiquitously, and yet the translators turned it into "all", "many", "most", "some", etc. From my basic understanding of Greek, and having read much research on translations, common Greek is very straightforward and clear, making it much more easy to translate than what the NIV defenders make it out to be. Sure, there are spots in the NIV that are better representations than other versions, but in general, the translators took WAY too much liberty for me to be comfortable trusting it. They have given us an interpretation, not a translation.

Just my 2 cents 8-)

H
hmmhmm

here was another thread that greatly helped me and was absolutely wonderful in everything, not divisive or anything. And i was very blessed by this thread [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16706&forum=36]What bible translation to get?[/url]

R
running2win

I've been around SI for two years, but only began posting six months ago.

Same here except I only started posting about four months ago.
I have such affection for the brothers and sisters here that I've come to hold as family.

I share the exact same sentiment even though I'm probably a little more of an outsider anyway. I suppose I should have given a formal introduction but I bypassed it :-(
I guess it's never too late.

As I've watched the threads over the past few months I've noticed (and I've been just as guilty to my shame) that much of what goes on here (especially in the past two months) is that we can't seem to just enjoy the fellowship inspite of doctrinal or theological differences and so everyone is out to "fix" the other guys "bad" doctrine and it is resulting more and more in a loss of the feeling of comradery that seems to have been so prevalent before. Let me first of all say I'm truly very sorry for the part that I have played in all that.:cry:
God is teaching me to shut up and think long and hard before I say anything, on the forums and otherwise.
I too have noticed that the arguments are what attract people and I'm learning to not participate in them even though I still read many of them (except politics :-P . I've never been able to develope an interest in politics or sports!)

theopenlife,
I really, really appreciated your post on the "thee's" and "thou's". I knew that but never got smart enough to think about it while reading. You've struck me with something that I think will put a lot of new meaning in reading the Bible.

I haven't studied it out a whole lot so I can't tell you much about the "other sources" but I do much prefer the KJV over the other translations simply because there seems to be so much more depth and authority in it. It seems like the more recent the translation the worse they get until you end up with things like "The Message" that are so buchered that I can't with a clear conscience call it the word of God. Shameful.
Just a personal thing here, but I also love the old english for the beauty of it. It's so much more expressive than modern english.
I've also studied french quite a bit and really enjoy reading my Ostervald along side my KJV. (The Ostervald is the only french translation from the TR that's still obtainable today.)

S
sermonindex

Krispy wrote
When I was younger I was gung-ho politics. I saw Ronald Reagan when he was campaigning in 1984. I was a senoir in high school that fall. (Class of '85) Got to see him give a speech in person. Our school took us all to the campaign stop as a field trip.

moe_mac wrote:

I too have discussed politics much in my life, not as much now though, as in the past. I will not name any party I supported then or support now. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out. It is really not about a party, but what the candidate and platform dictates and believes and how they line up with what "thus saith the Lord". I too was gung ho from youth as a political spectator, only not being envolved, just talking about what I believed a candidate needed to be. Back then, I must admit, that I believed all the devil's lies. Did God really say??? I was all for anything goes in anything. If the president had a gala and got drunk and was hugging on Barbara Striesand, man that was cool. I thought a man had rights, and if he wanted to get drunk, have four wives at a time, and if one got pregnant then get her an abortion, nobodies business but his. I thought all the things that God hates was in the bill of rights and some are now. I was all for anything goes. I was for, what can the government could do for me and mine and others worldly causes and to putting more money in my pocket, that was the priority. My spill was, don't worry about those poor people over there in those other countries, whether they are starving, oppressed by a dictator, or anything else, let them take care of themselves. Even though I joined the military at age 17, I thought, we did not need a military and I only joined because I was tired of my MOM and Dad's authority and wanted to have a life with no authority. huuuh!!! The first day of bootcamp I realized how stupid I really was. I did care what kind of character a candidate had, as long as he was cool and charm the women. When God changed my heart, through Christ, my opinions about these things changed totally reversed. I am in agreement that SI is not the place to campaign for your favorite candidate, but SI should be a place where we will discuss spiritual issues, character, and about a man having a Godly devotion to a Holy God and country and that we all should desire to see those qualities in anyone, especially someone who will lead us. As I said earlier, if there is one thing I don't want to be wrong about, I refuse to support in anyway a man or women that has the attitude of "what has God and his word got to do with anything. That what's I understand about life and christianity when I study my KJV bible.

S
sermonindex

It seems like the more recent the translation the worse they get until you end up with things like "The Message" that are so buchered that I can't with a clear conscience call it the word of God. Shameful.

Yea, I know folks who are on the opposite end of the spectrum on versions than me... and even they are very troubled by The Message. The Message is horrible. I would not want to be the translators or publisher when it comes time to give an account before the throne.

Krispy

R
Rahman

i've got an old KJV Bible i've had for 25+ years which i love dearly ... It's marked, noted, dated, hi-lighted, cross-referenced, and anything else one could do in a Bible while studying it ... It's a witness and testimony too as when sitting in service and someone glances it's open pages and says to me, "Wow, you must really know your Bible"! ... it's my sword and i love it so much i had it re-bound a couple of years ago, and it's still going strong ... Even my dagger (my smaller NT only-for witnessing) is KJV ... In case of a fire and i could only save one thing it would be my wonderful old Ryrie KJV ... It's the only thing amongst my earthly possesions i deem irreplaceable ... :-D

PS - i like the Young's Literal Translation a lot too!

R
running2win

I would not want to be the translators or publisher when it comes time to give an account before the throne.

I have thought this many times. May God give me a sincere love for the men who have made these things and a sincere concern for their eternal benefit, rather than just being outraged at what they've done. :-(

S
sermonindex

Even my dagger (my smaller NT only-for witnessing) is KJV

... dagger. I like that! I'm gonna use that! Thanx!

Krispy

P
PaulWest

The Message is horrible. I would not want to be the translators or publisher when it comes time to give an account before the throne.

And it would be a terrible mistake to dispense of it in its entirety because of this! Before you scrap the car, take the tires! Be sure to remove the CD player and GPS tracker. Tucked away in Peterson's "abomination" are salvagable trinkets, that, in my humble opinion, hit bullseyes in capturing the essence and accuracy of certain verses. It's just a matter of dumpster diving and rummaging through the junk. But they're in there, and the Holy Spirit can use them. Zac Poonen has figured this out, and that's why on occasion he'll use The Message to open up the gist of a certain verse.

Brother Paul

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
Even my dagger (my smaller NT only-for witnessing) is KJV

... dagger. I like that! I'm gonna use that! Thanx!

Krispy

Krispy, I bet crsschk even uses the KJV. Is he the one that had an inflence on your choice?

R
running2win

It's just a matter of dumpster diving and rummaging through the junk.

How true! :-D
Tucked away in Peterson's "abomination" are salvagable trinkets

I would have to say also that if I were locked up in a commy prison somewhere and the Message was the only semblance of a Bible I could get I would read it with much gratitude. But as long as I have a choice it'll be KJV.

P
PaulWest

if I were locked up in a commy prison somewhere and the Message was the only semblance of a Bible I could get I would read it with much gratitude

Well, thankfully you're not locked up and no one is forcing you to do anything.

But as long as I have a choice it'll be KJV.

Brother, my choice is also KJV. I think you misunderstood my post; you're drawing the proverbial KJV pistol too quickly. My post wasn't about KJV versus The Message -- it was about freely taking advantage of the resources we have today, using wisdom and careful discernment.

Brother Paul

S
sermonindex

Krispy, I bet crsschk even uses the KJV. Is he the one that had an inflence on your choice?

As much as I love brother Mike, and would love to be able to give him credit... I changed to the KJV long before I arrived here at SI.

And last I knew, Mike and I have slightly differing views on this topic.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

And it would be a terrible mistake to dispense of it in its entirety because of this! Before you scrap the car, take the tires! Be sure to remove the CD player and GPS tracker. Tucked away in Peterson's "abomination" are salvagable trinkets, that, in my humble opinion, hit bullseyes in capturing the essence and accuracy of certain verses. It's just a matter of dumpster diving and rummaging through the junk. But they're in there, and the Holy Spirit can use them. Zac Poonen has figured this out, and that's why on occasion he'll use The Message to open up the gist of a certain verse.

There is no doubt that there are instances within modern versions where a verse is made more clearer to the reader. I dont think I've ever denied that. However, it's my experience that with a little study and prayer, we can make the same verse clearer w/out a modern version. This is why God has blessed us with commentaries and dictionaries.

The problem I have using a modern version to help clarify something in the KJV is that since I am acutely aware of the differences in the underlying transcripts... I simply dont trust them.

So I find that I prefer to do a little study and research to unearth the clearer understanding. Some people say "Well, I dont have time to do all that study and research." ...to which I reply "Make the time!" What could be more important that spending time in God's Word?

TV? Work? Sports?

If the average Christian would spend 10% of the time they use up watching TV studying God's Word, imagine how strong the church would be today!

But anyway, I digress. Paul, in theory, I agree with you.

Krispy

H
hmmhmm

if you spend 15 minutes a day studying the word, in a year you have 91 hours

if you would set aside 1 hour a day for this wonderful purpose, you would in one year have studied the Holy Word of God 365 hours.

if you do this for 10 years....you will have spent 3600 hours digging into the riches of the Word.

this is just a great encouragement to me, I have come to this after some time of very undisciplined study, whet i mean is some here and some there and no real structure , so i have decided that every day at the same time study for the same time period.

and i prefer the KJV, it is something very powerful about that version, and what i find very good for my own sake is that i have to read it very slowly, but then i concentrate much more, and it becomes even more powerful, and often i just read a few verses and i feel God speaking to me.

and to be honest i have to read some articles and books on this subject, and i say as openlife, westcott and hort scare me a little....

but i have been blessed by the versions in my own language from WH, it just we only have translations from WHs manuscripts...witch i find very sad.

But it is a blessing to know English! and i must say i have become better at English since i got my KJV! and maybe posting so much on SI have helped too :-P

S
sermonindex

But it is a blessing to know English! and i must say i have become better at English since i got my KJV!

Up until a hundred years or so ago the KJV was used in the public schools to teach American children how to read, proper grammer, etc... So it's no surprise your English is improving. :-)

Now if we could just get American adult Christians to understand this concept that not everything has to be dumbed down... we could smarten up.

Krispy

R
running2win

I think you misunderstood my post; you're drawing the proverbial KJV pistol too quickly.

Oh the tragedy of not being able to express oneself properly on the net! :-( :-?

No, I understood your post just fine and see what you're saying. Actually, I wasn't drawing any pistol I was just stating my preference with no emotion whatsoever. I'm not a KJV only- no matter what- other translations are straight from the pit- guy at all.
I was just trying to say that if I was deprived of all else then I suppose that the Message would be better than nothing. Or maybe not? I don't know.


My post wasn't about KJV versus The Message -- it was about freely taking advantage of the resources we have today, using wisdom and careful discernment.

That's exactly what I got out of what you said.
I guess I should have made more of a clear differentiation between that and my post. They weren't directly connected and I didn't mean them to be.

I
iansmith

www.bibles-direct.com

Got a wonderful little KJV text-only Cambridge pitt minion bible from these guys that I use on a daily basis. It started out a little stiff, but it's breaking in nicely.

I also have an Allan KJV Longprimer 53 and ESV1. Best made bibles on the planet.

If memory serves me correctly I have 11 copies of the KJV, 3 NIV, 2 ESV, 1 NASB and 1 RSV. Along with some NT's from different versions.

I would probably go 100% KJV if my vocabulary was better and we didn't use the NIV in my church.

S
sermonindex

Here is an example of where we are as Americans... I love reading novels by Jeff Shaara, when I have time. He writes historical fiction, using actual people as his characters... such as General Washington, General Lee... etc. If you ever saw the movies "Gettysburg" or "Gods and Generals" about the War Against Northern Aggression (American Civil War)... he and his father wrote the books those movies are based on. Great movies, and it correctly represents many of the main characters as born-again believers of conviction, such as General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

Anyway... I just finished a two volume novel Shaara put out on the American Revolution called "Rise To Rebellion (Part I)" and "The Glorious Cause (Part II)". In the beginning of each of these books he writes in the introduction that in the 1700's most people had an excellent command of the English language, and spoke much differently than we do today. In other words, the language has been dumbed down. He goes on to explain that if he had written the conversations that take place in the novel in the manner in which most people would have actually spoken... it would be foreign to most of his readers.

He's right. Read letters written during the Revolution. Even letter from the most lowly foot soldier during the Civil War was much more poetic and flowery than anything anyone is writing today.

And why did they have such a command of the English language? Because the KJV was the curriculum of choice when it came to teaching the language in the public schools.

By the way, if anyone is interested in checking out Jeff Shaara's books... they are clean books, my two oldest will be reading at least one of his books for school this year. (we homeschool) His website is:

http://www.jeffshaara.com/

Krispy

I
iansmith

I recently read 'The Memoirs of Henry Obookiah' which is about a Hawaiian who in the early 1800's who through God's handiwork ended up in Conneticut. There he gave his life to Christ and became heavily involved in the missions movement... only a few years after leaning english he was penning the most beautiful letters. He died at a very young age from Typhoid Fever, but his desire to see his own Hawaiian people come to Christ led directly to the missionary efforts that would bring that island Kingdom to the foot of the cross.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4nkCmFIqbSEC&dq (google PDF)

http://www.obookiah.com/ (text version)

http://books.google.com/books?id=JflExHO7PaUC&pg=PA57 (a PDF book from 1898 about henry obookiah and the salvation of hawaii)

Anyways, sorry for the tangent, but if you read how he writes, you'll know what I'm talking about!

R
rowdy2

Reply to Krispy

I agree. KJV for me. Don’t we all wish we had copies of the original scrolls? Does anyone besides me detest the chapter and verse additions in The Holy Bible? I read that someone said “they must have been added by a drunken man while riding a horse on a stormy night.”

My son has gone back to school at the age of forty five. He is a graduate of Auburn but is going now to a Christian school to become a professor of history. His first assignment was to discuss Ephesians 4: 1-5 in his study group and its practical application to his study group and in his future career as a teacher.
God is Good. Praise God.

Eddie

R
running2win

I would probably go 100% KJV if my vocabulary was better

I recently purchased a [i]Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language.[/i]
One of the best book purchases I've ever made and I've made dozens of them.
Often times as I'm reading my Bible I get my dictionary out and start looking words up along the way. That is SO enjoyable. I have found the old english comes even more alive. Once I started doing that I realized how much of the old english I wasn't understanding.

He goes on to explain that if he had
written the conversations that take place in the novel in the manner in which most people would have actually spoken... it would be foreign to most of his readers.

I enjoy reading alot of classic christian literature from way back. I'm currently in the process of reading the memoirs of Edward Payson.
I've been astounded by the power of expression in the way people spoke english back then.
Sometimes I get so frustrated with the modern english that I speak because you just can't express yourself with any depth of meaning. It's grown so shallow.

S
sermonindex

Does anyone besides me detest the chapter and verse additions in The Holy Bible? I read that someone said “they must have been added by a drunken man while riding a horse on a stormy night.”

If you can get your hands on a Tyndale Bible, it doesnt have all the verse divisions, and read very much like a book or a letter... imagine that. Kinda like it was intended to be read!

But without the chapter and verse numbering it would be extremely hard to find anything.

Krispy

R
running2win

If you can get your hands on a Tyndale Bible, it doesnt have all the verse divisions, and [b]read very much like a book or a letter... imagine that. Kinda like it was intended to be read![/b]

But without the chapter and verse numbering it would be extremely hard to find anything.


I've started disciplining myself to read without regard to verse or chapter breaks and have really been loving it because of the way it seems to flow more. I still read X amount of chapters daily but before I start I go back a little ways in the previous chapter to reconnect it all.

S
sermonindex

have really been loving it because of the way it seems to flow more.

Your much less apt to take something out of context this way too.

Krispy

R
rowdy2

Reply to Krispy
Thanks for the information, and coming from you I am assured that its KJV without chapters and verse.
Thanks Eddie

S
sermonindex

Thanks for the information, and coming from you I am assured that its KJV without chapters and verse.

Actually, the Tyndale Bible pre-dates the KJV by almost 100 years. But William Tyndale did such a good job translating the greek NT that the KJV translators relied quite heavily on his work. So no, it isnt the KJV... but it is one of the foundations of the KJV.

Krispy

S
sermonindex


BlazedbyGod wrote:
Me to Krispy, I am soley in favor of the Word of God KJV.

God is one God, thus he only has one Word.

Hi Bro/Sister Blazed.

I am solely in favour of the Word of God too! Not a translation, not even the KJV, not the words on the page, but what God [i]meant[/i] by the written word when He caused it to be written, and preserved to the present day. And what He's writing on our hearts [i]through[/i] the words when we read them. As well as the central facts about Him and His work of salvation upon which the whole of our faith hangs.

John 6: [i][color=000033]63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
[/color][/i]

in His Truth


Jeannette

S
sermonindex


KrispyKrittr wrote:
Jeannette... I'm not against people discussing politics. Heck, I listen to Glenn Beck most days. I'm just saying that getting into "party politics" is not what this forum is about.
I was saying that too - weren't you listening?

No doubt there will be some discussion of government over the next year as we head toward another election... oh boy. I just pray we all keep our heads about us.
You seem to have completely missed the point. This isn't about elections or politics (not even American politics) but of [b][i]discerning the signs of the times through world events, and being ready for what is to come[/i][/b].

...But now that I'm older (I'll be 40 next month)...
Krispy lad, I'm old enough to be your mother!

What a thought :-( :-P

Blessings

Jeannette

S
sermonindex

Krispy lad, I'm old enough to be your mother!

Wow... you [i]are[/i] old! When you hiccup, does dust fly out of your mouth?

:-P

Krispy

R
running2win

Wow... you are old! When you hiccup, does dust fly out of your mouth?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :-P :-D 8-)

Krispy, just picturing this in my mind makes me laugh so hard I don't think I'll be able to get anything done!!!

R
roaringlamb

I am wondering what everyone thinks of the ESV? Also, the Geneva Bible is a very good translation, and thankfully it is available now for affordable prices.

I use a KJV, and find it to be a wonderful translation, yet nothing beats being able to look at the Greek and see what is "really" being said.

I
iansmith

I recently bought a copy of the ESV journaling bible and have had fun writing all over it, since that's what it was made for.

You know, sometimes it's hard for me to put a pen to the page of one of my oxford or cambridge bibles... DL Moody would say that unless you're willing to write in a bible you shouldn't buy it.

Anyways, ESV is very good for studying the word, since it's editor was JI Packer it has a very strong reformed bend (words like propitiation might as well have been highlighted). I think JI Packer has a very strong affinity for the KJV so it shows in the final edit of the ESV.

ESV claims to be in the line of KJV and not a 'new' translation as such, I haven't run into anything that has made me think badly of it as of yet.

I traded an extra cambridge bible that I owned directly to RL Allan publishers for a copy of their ESV1. Now that's customer service -even accepting trades!

The ESV1 from RL Allan has a wonderful binding, but the typesetting and paper didn't meet my expectation.

I've heard that crossway bindings are mostly crummy, and the journaling bible's font is microscopic, but I have young eyes.

I think that ESV is a good alternative for the NIV, but not a replacement for the KJV.

R
running2win

I am wondering what everyone thinks of the ESV? Also, the Geneva Bible is a very good translation, and thankfully it is available now for affordable prices.

I don't even know what they are but would like to find out. Perhaps someone here could tell me?

yet nothing beats being able to look at the Greek and see what is "really" being said.

I have Jay P. Green's interlinear Bible which I enjoy using along side my KJV. It is of great benefit to have the greek and hebrew there to reference. Although it took me awhile to remember that with the hebrew you've gotta read backwards! :-P

I
iansmith

ESV is the English Standard Version. You could probably liken it to the conservative evangelical response to the NRSV.

ESV claims that they stand in the line of bibles that come out of the KJV, you can read more about that here: http://www.esv.org/about/kjv

More information here:
http://www.esv.org/
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=47

I
iansmith

Another way that I've described it is 'like the NASB, but prettier... and reformed.'

S
sermonindex

I just read the suggested website concerning the ESV. They are being a little bit dishonest... or they are at least not telling the whole story.

The ESV is NOT in the same vein as the KJV because it is not based on the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV. It is based on the exact same underlying text as the NIV, the NASB, the Message, etc etc etc.

It is not a Textus Receptus Bible... and they leave that out. They dont tell you that part. Instead, they make it appear to the reader that all that has changed is the language has been updated. However, when they say "[b]and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts[/b]", that is code for "where the TR (KJV) doesnt agree with the Alexandrian Text (NIV, NASB, etc)... we went with the Alexandrian."

It does not mean they fixed translation errors... it means they superceded the TR with the AT.

While it may be in the same vein as the KJV in that they used the same translation techniques... they are [b]not[/b] translating the same thing. I could translate a John Grisham novel into French using the same translation techniques... and rightfully claim that it's in the same vein as the KJV. But it isnt the same book.

And this is why I reject the ESV. It is an excellent translation of the Alexandrian. But I reject the Alexandrian Text... so to me, that means nothing.

I found that web page to be dishonest and deceitful. They are not giving you all the facts. That to me is a red flag. Why cant the publishers just come out and tell people "Look... this is not based on the same thing the KJV is based on." They refuse to do that. And the average Christian is ignorant that there is even an issue.

But why do they hide these facts? Makes one wonder.

Krispy

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hello...

I was actually replying to a post within this thread earlier about the underlying reasons why I embrace BOTH the KJV [u]and[/u] the NIV. But I really don't have enough time to write a proper rationale. We're registering students right now, and I am a bit overwhelmed with work.

However, I might create a thread soon entitled" "[i]WHY I LIKE THE KJV [u]AND[/u] THE NIV; PLEASE DON'T THROW STONES AT ME[/i]."

;-)

Seriously, I am going to do my best in the near future to list the reasons that I still support the NIV based upon my own conclusions derived from my own research. I might actually entitle it "[i]WHY I CAN'T DISMISS THE NIV AND IT'S SOURCES[/i]."

:-)

R
roaringlamb

It would be interesting to see if anyone has done a chart on the differing verses in the ESV and the KJV.

I am looking forward to getting a Geneva Bible one day, but at the moment I must wait. From what I understand, the Geneva Bible was not well liked by King James, and thus he wanted to have a new translation put out. Fromm what I have read, the KJV, and the Geneva are not much different. James did not like the commentary, and neither did the Church of England as they were wanting to be more Arminian, and the notes in the Geneva were very Reformed.

I have noticed also that the KJV translates some words in a way that would indicate James was trying to get the people at large to submit to him through this translation.

The Geneva Bible was banned from England eventually, I believe after the KJV was finished, yet the Geneva Bible is the one the Pilgrims brought over, and the one the Covenanters of Scotland read as well.

It seems though that now in our time, the battle should be less over translation, and more for actually getting people to read at all. It seems the vast majority of professing Christians do not read their Bibles, and thus I think we would all agree to a point, that it would be better for someone to read the ESV, than nothing at all.

P
PaulWest

I understand, the Geneva Bible was not well liked by King James, and thus he wanted to have a new translation put out. Fromm what I have read, the KJV, and the Geneva are not much different. James did not like the commentary, and neither did the Church of England as they were wanting to be more Arminian, and the notes in the Geneva were very Reformed.

Yes, from what I understand, the Church of England distrusted the Calvinistic Geneva Bible, fearing it leaned too much to the side of Presbyterianism. Which is what brought the Bishop's Bible into the making, from which the KJV was later based (but not exclusively based).

S
sermonindex


running2win wrote:
Wow... you are old! When you hiccup, does dust fly out of your mouth?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :-P :-D 8-)

Krispy, just picturing this in my mind makes me laugh so hard I don't think I'll be able to get anything done!!!

I just don't hiccup. And if I laugh too much....

Well maybe you know what can happen to a "lady of a certain age" if she huiccups, laughs, sneezes, dances, jumps up and down or coughs.:oops:

But dusty, no. If you want dust try Berkoff's "Systematic Theology". I suffered from this worthy gentleman's writings when in theological college.

But to go back to being serious, are you listening yet? (Psalm 40:6)

Blessings in Him

Jeannette

H
hmmhmm

you said something in another thread krispy that burned into the memory cells of my otherwise very bad memory, but you said something like-

one would think after 80 something translations they would get it right.....

and one could think they would, but WH must be very hard manuscripts to translate :-P since they cant get along.

S
sermonindex

I have noticed also that the KJV translates some words in a way that would indicate James was trying to get the people at large to submit to him through this translation.

Actually, King James had nothing to do with the translation other than as the King of England he did authorize the work to be done. (Thus it's called the "Authorized Version") But he was not at all involved in the translation, did not interject himself into the committees of the translators, and did not even finance the work. It is a myth that he controlled anything about the translation. It was originally called the Authorized Version. It wasn't called the King James until after his death.

Krispy

R
running2win

It was originally called the Authorized Version.

This reminds me of a story a good friend of mine told me once. Just after he was converted he got involved with a charismatic church (I don't remember which flavor)and he asked the leaders of the church which version of the Bible he should get. I can't quote their response exactly but the essence of it was "anything is good but the KJV. You'll have a terrible time with the english and it just won't do much for you." So he went down to the christian book store and found what was called the "Authorized" version. He went home and called the pastor and asked him if the Authorized version was OK and the pastor said "oh, yeah that one's fine." He went back and bought the Authorized version and absolutely loved it and has been reading it ever since.

I find his story quite laughable but at the same time it's just another evidence of how little this generation of "christians" know the word of God.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi hmmhmm...

You could say the same thing about the Textus Receptus manuscripts. Nearly every Western translation completed during the Renaissance period was based upon the TR, you would think that they would have gotten it "right" -- yet they can't seem to get along. Oh wait...maybe the KJV was the one that finally "got it right?"

Interestingly, many non "authorized" translations were created within a few years and decades of the KJV. What would prompt someone to create a new version if the KJV was so perfect? Maybe the consensus never held that the KJV was perfect. Oh yeah -- the translators of the KJV admitted this in the Preface!

;-)

H
HomeFree89

WHY NEW VERSIONS ARE NEEDED

By Robert A. Joyner

From Tyndale’s Bible in 1525 until today, there is a history of growth and improvement by means of repeated Bible revisions. Tyndale revised his translation several times. The English versions which followed are but revisions and improvements of Tyndale’s first English Bible, until we come to the Bishops’ Bible in 1568. The 1611 KJV is one of the best proofs of the value of Bible revision, being a revision of the Bishops’ version. The KJV has been revised about 5 times, the last in 1769, which is the one we use today.

Revisions and new translations will always be needed because language changes, and it needs to be updated. Today we have a treasury of ancient manuscripts, versions and quotations that the KJV translators never dreamed of. The science of textual criticism has improved drastically. Scholars today have a better understanding of the original languages. This kind of knowledge has accumulated considerably in the almost 400 years since 1611.

William Tyndale said in the preface of his first English New Testament that if anyone could find an inaccuracy that did not give the exact sense of the original language, he should correct it. Tyndale said, “remembering that so is their duty to do so.”

Some people seem to think the KJV translators were an elect group inspired by God in a special way to produce a perfect translation. When, in fact, every Christian has as much right to translate as any other. Every Christian can check the meaning of words in the original language. It is his obligation to do so. The Bible says, “Study to show yourself approved unto God.”

Remember the KJV translators criticized their own version and corrected it in many places. Then they came out with new editions, in 1613 and 1629. Some people accuse me of blasphemy when I point out errors in the KJV. I am doing the same thing the KJV translators did when they corrected their own version. Also, people condemn the NASB or the NIV for revising and correcting, just like the KJV translators did.

IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATION

Inspiration refers to the original writings. Over and over the prophets claimed, “The word of the Lord came unto me” or “God spoke to me saying.” (Ezek. 1:3;Jere. 11:1) The apostle Paul claimed that the words he was speaking to the Corinthians were not his own but words the Spirit of God was giving him. (I Cor. 12:13) These Bible writers were claiming Divine inspiration. They were the original writers. When Revelation chapter 22 was completed, inspiration stopped. (Rev. 22:18-19) To claim inspiration for anything since is to add to the Scriptures and bring a curse upon yourself.

The KJV Only group is doing the same thing as the Mormons do when they add the Book of Mormon to the Scripture. They are doing the same thing the Charismatics do when they get a “new revelation” through tongues. When the KJV Only advocates claim inspiration for the KJV or say it is God’s perfectly preserved word, they are doing the same thing. Asserting perfection for the KJV Bible is the same as saying it is inspired. This is dangerous. (I have read all the explanations and arguments the KJV advocates give about the difference between inspiration and preservation. I understand them. I still stick with my statement above.)

All translations teach the same thing because no Bible doctrine depends on one verse or the proper translation of a word. Every Bible doctrine is mentioned over and over. Therefore it cannot be destroyed by mistranslation. For example: The word “Lord” is mentioned 749 times. The word “hell” is mentioned 51 times (plus the terms like lake of fire, furnace of fire, eternal punishment, etc). You can easily see that if “hell” was left out in one place or several places, it would not change the Bible teaching on the subject.

There is no Bible doctrine at stake regardless of what translation you use or which family of manuscripts you use. In other words, any Bible doctrine you mention is in all translations. Every Bible doctrine is in the Textus Receptus manuscripts. They are also in the Alexandrian manuscripts. There are some differences, but all doctrines are in both families of manuscripts. A doctrine may be adversely affected in a certain passage of a particular translation, but it is still mentioned over and over in all families of manuscripts.

Today, even though we do not possess the original manuscripts and even though there are variant readings, we can be sure we have the word of God. Because the copies taken together, give us 100 percent of the original manuscripts. This means nothing has been lost that God inspired.

There is less than 2% variation between the 5,300 Greek manuscripts that we have today. Textual scholars tell us that even the manuscripts that vary the most would not affect fundamentally the message of the Scriptures. In the small area where word differences among copies do exist, textual scholars attempt to determine the most probable original reading. This way they can establish the original text close to 99% of the time. This means that all translators are translating the same Greek text about 99% of the time.

A. T. Robertson was probably the greatest American Greek Scholar ever. He was familiar with the most minute details of the Greek text. He said the textual variants amounted to only “a thousandth part of the entire text.” Westcott and Hort estimated the New Testament text was 98.33% pure whether or not one used the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or their own Greek text. Philip Schaff estimated there were only 400 variants that affected the sense of a passage, and only 50 were actually important and none affected any article of faith or Christian duty. Most scholars believe that 90% of the varying readings have been resolved. So this leaves only 10% of 1%, not enough to be greatly concerned about.

B. B. Warfield said, “the great bulk of the New Testament has been transmitted to us without, or almost without, any variations. It can be asserted with confidence that the sacred text is exact and valid and that no article of faith and no moral precept in it has been distorted or lost.” The great Old Testament scholar Dr. Robert Dick Wilson said, “I can affirm that there is not a page of the Old Testament concerning which we need have any doubt.”

All this means that Christians can trust their Bibles today. Since the extant copies of manuscripts can be shown to be 99% like the original and the remaining inconsequential 1% still contains the original among the variants, then there is no reason to doubt that we have the same inerrant Word of God that the prophets and apostles delivered to us.

John Ankerberg commented about all the exaggerated concern the KJV Only groups show over the 1% of the text, when this one percent does not deal in important matters, is like risking your life to save a million dollars which is safely in the bank.

LET US BE THANKFUL

We are blessed to have the Word of God today. In most places in the world, the Bible is hard to get. Throughout history the vast majority of people have not had a complete Bible. Noah and Abraham did not have a Bible. Moses and Israel only had the first few books. David had less than half of the Old Testament. The early Christians and Paul had only the Old Testament. In the first few centuries of Christianity, there were few copies of the Bible. Not until the invention of the printing press did the Bible become affordable and widespread. Many times governments have outlawed and persecuted people for possessing a copy of the Word of God.

We should be thanking and praising God for all the Bibles we have today, for the KJV and the other reliable versions. We are rich. We are blessed. We should be on our faces worshipping, instead of being in each others faces bickering over the relatively minor differences in translations.

T
tjservant

Krispy

Do you believe John MacArthur, who has stated that he believes the NASB to be the best translation, is deceived?

Perhaps misinformed?

How about Paul Washer, Ergun Caner, Albert Mohler, Zac Poonen, David Wilkerson, etc…

Why do you think they have stepped out of the KJV only club?

Just wondering what you think about such fruit bearing, men and ministries that do not use the KJV exclusively.

H
hmmhmm


ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi hmmhmm...

You could say the same thing about the Textus Receptus manuscripts. Nearly every Western translation completed during the Renaissance period was based upon the TR, you would think that they would have gotten it "right" -- yet they can't seem to get along. Oh wait...maybe the KJV was the one that finally "got it right?"

Interestingly, many non "authorized" translations were created within a few years and decades of the KJV. What would prompt someone to create a new version if the KJV was so perfect? Maybe the consensus never held that the KJV was perfect. Oh yeah -- the translators of the KJV admitted this in the Preface!

;-)

:-P

i dont think the KJV is perfect, but im quite sure it is the one translation that comes closest :lol:

S
sermonindex

HomeFree... thanx for posting that article, however, over the past few years I think I have picked all of those arguments apart one by one on this forum. Not saying I've won every point, but this article is just more of the same... in fact, that article doesnt even come close to heart of the matter.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

He went home and called the pastor and asked him if the Authorized version was OK and the pastor said "oh, yeah that one's fine." He went back and bought the Authorized version and absolutely loved it and has been reading it ever since.

LOL... thats good.

My wife just came into my office to ask what I was laughing at... :-P

Everyone say "hi" to Mrs. Krispy!

Krispy

R
running2win

Why do you think they have stepped out of the KJV only club?

God has been very faithful throughout history to show us through other men's lives how gracious He is with mistakes and ignorance when someone is sincere toward Him! :-P :lol: :-D 8-) ;-)

HI Mrs. Krispy! Your husband's a dear brother!

S
sermonindex

Do you believe John MacArthur, who has stated that he believes the NASB to be the best translation, is deceived?

Perhaps misinformed?

How about Paul Washer, Ergun Caner, Albert Mohler, Zac Poonen, David Wilkerson, etc…

Why do you think they have stepped out of the KJV only club?

Just wondering what you think about such fruit bearing, men and ministries that do not use the KJV exclusively.

I think they are cults.

Just kidding... I think they are misinformed. You can post your list of greats who use the NIV, and I can post a list of greats who use the KJV... so what? I'm not going to base my faith on who does what. I'm going to base my faith on what I believe the Holy Spirit reveals to me thru my own studying of a topic, whatever that topic may be.

I dont think I could ever be accused of name-dropping in order to bolster my position... "well, so and so believes this just like I do."

So and so can be wrong.

Krispy

T
Talkn2u

KJV more so now than ever...altho when the Lord began to prick at my spirit, I had an NIV that He spoke to me thru...
now tho
since I intensely study...I use the KJV to get a clearer closer meaning to what is being said.
and I use a KJV Lexicon for the Greek/Hebrew.

Recently I did a research on the what the Word says about "Recovery" because I personally don't like that word...it has become a psychological buzz word...and I see banners up on churches that host Recovery Meetings (for addictions etc...)
it has troubled me for some time...
so I looked up Recovery in Several different Bible translations...and my discovery did NOT surprise me..
No mention of the word in that sense, in the KJV..... however...get to the looseness of The Message and it was loaded.

I saw a huge difference in translations when I did that research...

bonnie

T
theopenlife

Krispy, glad it blessed you to know I was "enlightened" by that thread.

I thought I would share with everyone this wonderful website which has the whole Webster's 1828 Dictionary in a free, searchable format...

[url=http://1828.mshaffer.com]http://1828.mshaffer.com[/url]

If you didn't know, the original Webster was a devout disciple of Christ. Other men wrote commentaries on God's word. Webster's dictionary was a commentary on God's world.

Compare the definitions for "sin"...

[b]Modern (Dictionary.com)[/b]

SIN
–noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

[b]Webster's 1828[/b]:
sin

SIN, n.

1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God's commands or law. 1 John 3. Matt. 15. James 4. Sinner neither enjoy the pleasures of nor the peace of piety. Among divines, sin is original or actual. Actual sin, above defined, is the act of a moral agent in violating a known rule of duty. Original sin, as generally understood, is native depravity of heart to the divine will, that corruption of nature of deterioration of the moral character of man, which is supposed to be the effect of Adam's apostasy; and which manifests itself in moral agents by positive act of disobedience to the divine will, or by the voluntary neglect to comply with the express commands of God, which require that we should love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. This native depravity or alienation of affections from God and his law, is supposed to be what the apostle calls the carnal mind or mindedness, which is enmity against God, and is therefore denominated sin or sinfulness. Unpardonable sin, or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is supposed to be a malicious and obstinate rejection of Christ and the gospel plan of salvation, or a contemptuous resistance made to the influences and convictions of the Holy Spirit. Matt.12.

2. A sin-offering; an offering made to atone for sin. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. 2 Cor 5.

3. A man enormously wicked. [Not in use.]

4. Sin differs from crime, not in nature, but in application. That which is a crime against society, is sin against God.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Krispy...

I think they are cults.

Just kidding... I think they are misinformed. You can post your list of greats who use the NIV, and I can post a list of greats who use the KJV... so what? I'm not going to base my faith on who does what. I'm going to base my faith on what I believe the Holy Spirit reveals to me thru my own studying of a topic, whatever that topic may be.

lol

It's funny that two people who are extremely sincere in their research and desire to be led of the Holy Spirit can arrive to two very different conclusions. After your research and prayer, you embrace the KJV. After my research, I embrace both the KJV and the NIV. Yet our estimation about both is similar: We both see each version as the best translation taken from the sources from which they came. Thus, the matter falls unto the question of source supremacy and the textual criticism and translation methods by which translations are derived.

It is my belief that it is impossible to make an indisputable claim about the integrity or flaws of one set of source over the other. We know little to nothing about the men or methods in the gathering of the Textus Receptus together. Even the most credible information has been disputed as mere conjecture. Yet while a majority of text experts today prefer the Alexandrian texts above the TR, none of them call into question the validity or importance of either set of manuscripts. No one can claim through research alone who is ultimately right or wrong. But is this a display of God's perspective into the issue?

I've often wondered that if God cared so deeply about the matter, why did He not make his thoughts abundantly clear? Of course, there are some who claim that the KJV is the result of a Biblical promise to "preserve God's Word." But most scholars (particularly NON-ENGLISH speakers) would refute this -- because most agree (including the translators of the KJV) that it is not completely perfect in every manner.

Anyway, I am going to do my best to open a thread into why I cannot disavow the NIV (or the sources used thereof). I hope to include all of the criticisms, and why I don't think that these completely warrant a rejection of the translation or its sources.

:-)

T
tjservant

I think they are cults.

I lost it when I read that. :-P

You can post your list of greats who use the NIV, and I can post a list of greats who use the KJV... so what?

That is not what I was doing. I listed so as to ask a question about them.

I'm not going to base my faith on who does what

Glad to hear it. I hope we all agree on that one.

I dont think I could ever be accused of name-dropping in order to bolster my position...

Give me a break. I was just wanting to hear your thoughts about them.
Once again, I hope you see that that was not what this was.

I'm going to base my faith on what I believe the Holy Spirit reveals to me thru my own studying of a topic, whatever that topic may be.

Don’t you think these men have done the same?

I think they are misinformed

By whom? They too profess to be led by what they believe the Holy Spirit reveals to them.

So and so can be wrong.

Same as you and I.


They are a cult. I wish you could have seen how big my eyes got when I first read that. Thanks for the laugh.
:-P


I'm a big KJV fan. Just asking some questions.

T
theopenlife

Here is my guess about such notable men who use the erroneous and frightening Alexandrian versions (now that was loaded ;-) )...

They probably spend so much time profiting spiritually from what texts they do have, and obeying the word in ministry, that they haven't invested the myriad hours that others have to realize what the origins of each are.

They are busy doing the works of God and probably take a pragmatic approach, saying "God seems to be using the NIV to be working in me!"

Nevertheless I feel they are, in their own way, aiding unknowingly in a deceit. The deceit is that we should support translation committees that do not reverence the word of God as God's word. The NIV committee is known for having had pro-homosexual, anti-trinitarian members on it's board, open opponents of the word.

That sickens and saddens me.

Where are our holy scholars? There are so many Textus Receptus only folks, but where are the translators for a true TR update?

T
theopenlife

By the way, do you know about Lulu.com? They are an independent publishing house, and they print hard and paper back books one-off for $5 to $30 for 200-1000 page books. So...

Lately I've been considering taking the new testament KJV text, as is, and producing a wide-margin version with "definitions" in the bottom margin. However, rather than using normal definitions, I would be inserting other verses that use the same Greek word in similar contexts.

Seems like a big job, but it would be something to give to new believers that I meet, with a few built in classic sermons and doctrinal primers in the back, lots of room for notes.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi theopenlife...

Here is my guess about such notable men who use the erroneous and frightening Alexandrian versions (now that was loaded).
...
Nevertheless I feel they are, in their own way, aiding unknowingly in a deceit. The deceit is that we should support translation committees that do not reverence the word of God as God's word. The NIV committee is known for having had pro-homosexual, anti-trinitarian members on it's board, open opponents of the word.

That sickens and saddens me.

Well, you know that all of us NIV folk are just a bunch of ignorant radicals happily living with blind loyalty to the "obvious" error of our NIV Bibles!

:-?

Although you are entitled to an opinion about such matters (as we all are), you should be extremely cautious about making such bold claims about the individuals who were involved with the translation process of the NIV. I have actually spoken to several of them -- and they quietly and humbly dispelled many of the slanderous rumors that are often spoken against them. Sadly, we know little to nothing about the translators of the KJV. We don't know what kind of men they were, what kind of beliefs they held, nor what kind of faith they held. It seems unfair to shoot darts (incorrectly considered "facts") at individuals with whom you have probably never spoken -- when no one can "return the favor" with the translators of the 400 year old version that you cherish so dearly.

Where are our holy scholars? There are so many Textus Receptus only folks, but where are the translators for a true TR update?
Holy scholars? I wouldn't know where they are or how they might be "holy." However, the Textus Receptus manuscripts no longer exists in the form used for the translation of the 1611 King James Version (and its many subsequent corrected forms). Yet, I find it so incredibly interesting that a majority of text scholars, manuscript experts and other text criticism experts tend to favor the Alexandrian texts. Ironically, the NIV committee actually respected and considered the various texts INCLUDING those taken from other sources. They were able to include questionable passages by including alternative solutions with footnotes. The KJV translators were sadly unable to do this. Perhaps the NIV translators themselves (experts from the various protestant denominations and movements) are all part of this vast, willfull deception? It seems that the only "scholars" who do not at least admire the Alexandrian texts are the members of the KJV-only groups.

Just a thought:
We might want to be careful about casting stones at a version of the Bible that we don't like -- less we find ourselves unwitfully throwing stones at the Word of God himself.

:-(

S
sermonindex

Acts 17:5-7
5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
KJV

These words really jump off the page and easy to understand much better in the KJV, although I get the same message in other versions.
Sounds like political tatics were going on against Paul.

On another occasion Paul was thrown into a political debate here about the pocket book when the silversmiths were concerned about there economy.

Acts 19:24-29
24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.
26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.
30 And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.
31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
KJV
That passage really comes alive in KJV.


H
HomeFree89

Krispy,

For my sake, would you please list your grievances against the modern translations?

And if it's because they don't use the TR, please explain why the TR is the best text even tho it's not the original.

Also, would you please check out this site: http://www.kjvonly.org/ and tell me what you think of it?

Jordan

H
hmmhmm

can someone who knows verify this, i read it and it would be nice if it could be verifiyed by someone else to,

that Vaticanus och Sinaiticus texts differ in more then 3000 places within just the four gospels!

isent the TR texts(thousands) to prefer that are testifying one and the same?

just some thoughts....

B
BeYeDoers

May I recommend the following article, which presents a good case for why the Byzantine family is superior to the Alexandrian family. It is quite lengthy and at times very hard to follow unless you are a "scholar" yourself (I had to use a dictionary and other research to help me through!), but enlightening nontheless.

[url=http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html]The Case for Byzantine Priority[/url]

S
sermonindex


HomeFree89 wrote:
Krispy,

For my sake, would you please list your grievances against the modern translations?


Jordan

I'm not Krispy but and I do have my store bought glasses on when I reading the NIV Krispy 8-).

moe_mac
The NIV has omitted many verses. Whenever the NIV skips the verse or verses, the skipped verse or verses are noted at the bottom of that page.
Such as Matt 17:21 and many others.
20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.
(from New International Version)


From the KJV
Matt 17:21
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
KJV

On my Bible software, there are no, at the bottom of the page references of the missing verses.
Of course, if one is aware of this, he/she can solve everything, by studing in more than on version. Of course if they were not aware, they would probably never notice it. I'm sure everyone on here is probably already aware of the missing verses!!!

H
HomeFree89

Yeah, I understand that there are some big issues with the NIV, I was really wondering what Krispy has against other word for word translations like the ESV and NKJV.

Jordan

H
HomeFree89

Another thought is, just like Krispy pointed out that there aren't specific Bible verses about rock music, there also aren't any verses that tell us what translations we're to use.

Jordan

S
sermonindex

I prefer to read NASB,NKJV. Once and awhile I will read the KJV for translation purposes. Its funny that many people think the KJV is the only bible to read from, but would everyone read it if they knew he was a openly homosexual, who preferred young boys over adult woman.

S
sermonindex

I don't have any problem with any biblical truth being stated in a different manner as long as it is the same truth. There are some more recent translations than the KJV that has the same truth stated in a different manner. Having said that, if anyone brings a issue up that differs from the KJV and it is a older version then maybe there is some substance there, but if it is not an older transalation or version and it differs, most likely thers is no substance and is not truth. Not long ago, someone disagreed with a KJV interpretation on tithing. I later found the person was using a modern day translation Bible to arrive at their interpretation. The topic was tithing and according to their translation and theology, not tithing was ok and pleasing to the Lord and also there was no New Testamentt scriptural basis to give a tithe to HIS church in their translation, only the KJV and 14 other versions. This theology is a very popular modern day stance. Of, course it is not the tithing itself, that produces anything, but the tithing which comes from the heart HE gives us that causing one to want to give and do it cheerfully. The heart is what one day that will be judged by God. Tithing is not legalism when it done from the heart and not for prosperity purposes as e hear it preached often. What it boils down to is, on this subject of tithing or any subject, if one has an older version or translation of the Bible than the KJV on any biblical issues, there could be some creditabilty there. Most older ones only confirm the KJV. If they don't confirm the KJV and the other most used translations, most likely you have a lie, in my opinion!
2 Tim 4:2-5
3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Just as the devil deceived Eve in the garden. He always tells us lies in a way that sounds good and he says did God really say or mean that. Spiritual understanding is not anywhere close to human LOGIC.

S
sermonindex

Its funny that many people think the KJV is the only bible to read from, but would everyone read it if they knew he was a openly homosexual, who preferred young boys over adult woman.

This is goosip, and there is no historical evidence of this, as pointed out previously... and for you to say this and defame the character of man in this way is un-Christlike, and is a sin.

This lie surfaced several decades after the death of King James by one of his sworn enemies in a pamphlet he wrote.

I am not defending King James, and he had nothing to do with the actual translation of the book... I just felt that I should point out that your snide remark is out of line. It matters not if you spread lies and rumors about your neighbor, or about a man who lived 400 years ago... it's still "bearing false witness" against another, and it's a sin.

Krispy

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 92 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate