KJV Only

what basis do people use to justify that you should only read the King James Version. I see no reason for people to think that.

Oh my goodness, what a topic!!!

First off, I grew up with the KJV and I still read it but I also read the ESV and NASB. About why some are dogmatic about the KJV? I don't know. I know that they think they are right and everyone else is wrong, so that could be at the root a pride problem. I know that they are very hard to talk to about it.

Here are some good KJV arguments from the past...

The Biblical position on the King James Version controversy
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=31574&forum=34&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0

For some Christians, King James is the only Bible (52pgs)
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38086&forum=48

God bless,
Lisa

They truly, genuinely believe that God has a single, authoritative translation for each language, equal in its inerrancy to the autographs, and that for English speaking peoples, the KJV is it. They are as certain of it as they are of God Himself. Many also believe that the 1829 Webster's Dictionary is His authoritative dictionary for English speakers even over a Strong's Concordance.

As to how they get there....cannot say.

But they are serious about it.

Brother Keith Daniels has a great sermon about this, tho I can't remember the title of it right now. Perhaps Greg or another saint might?
The main points are that the manuscripts that are used to actually translate from are totally different. The KJV does have 64,000 or so more words than the others that aren't from the Textus Receptus. Also the omissions do seem to chip away at the diety of Christ and the conditions of obedience.
A textual comparison of vital scriptures will reveal this. Also the Zondervan publishing house has copyrighted the versions they produce which are translated from the Majority Text Manuscripts, meaning if they're reproduced or reprinted in bulk then permission/licenses is required and therefore the word of God is being bound by man.
While I do read other versions and am not a "KJV only" when I'm doing a serious study or textual or syntactic analysis the KJV is the only resource I really trust.
A Google search of this topic will provide sufficient info to make your own decision regarding this issue.

I love the KJV. I prefer the ESV and NASB. I also believe the Johannine comma in the KJV is not original to the autograph. Yet, the absence of it in no way lessens the strength of any doctrine, although some would say it does.

My mind remembers KJV. I have not read it devotionally or for serious study in a few years. It is unique and beautiful.

I see the ESV and NASB being mentioned alot. I use the NKJV. What is it about the ESV and the NASB that is liked?

For me, they are dependable. They are both keyed to Strong's as well, a bonus. They are imminently readable.

I am King James preferred but not King James only. Here is some of my reasoning for that preference.

Ideally, we memorize our Bibles.

Ideally, we study our Bibles and might prefer a Bible translation that is keyed to more study helps than an other.

Ideally, we prefer a Bible translation that we find most often aligns with the underlying Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic if we use an Reverse Interlinear Bible, Strong's Concordance or other original language helps.

Ideally, we use a Bible that Almighty God Himself has endorsed in the past by bring out about conversions, deep sanctification and for the revival and advancement of the Kingdom of God and the Church.

Ideally, we use a Bible that has been used by God with us to reveal His Truth and His Presence and providing insight and revelation concerning Himself.

Perhaps, you might pick particular verses of the Bible that have been important in understanding who God is in his fullness and who you are and how best we can serve God, Then, compare those verses in various Bible translations.

Perhaps you read a significant amount of Christian literature from the 16th through earlier 20th Centuries and want a Bible is compatible with the Bibles used then.

Perhaps you were once a younger Christian and were mentored by someone who had been a Christian longer who was KJV-preferred.

Perhaps, you were influenced by a discipleship program that caused you to recognize, remember and memorize significant portions of Scripture. Then, perhaps you will want to stick with that Bible translation when newer translations come along.

I was in one of the stores of one of the Christian bookstore chains yesterday. Except for the KJV, all of other translations with significant shelf space were developed during the lifetimes of people alive today.

I first read the KJV as a USA high school senior in class where were using the Bible as literature. I found the older language including grammar and vocabulary to be difficult but not impossible. Through use, comparison, mentoring, study of alternatives, I have learned to appreciate the solemnity, dignity, accuracy, and enduring value of the classic KJV. I don't want to abandon the Scripture text that I have already known or even memorized when a new Bible translation comes along. The KJV is an enduring classic.

If you find me in my local church or Bible study class, I may be the only one in the room with a KJV. If I know that I am going to be asked to read a text to a group, I may even bring another translation so that I don't need to offend the group or paraphrase the KJV on the fly but I respect how God has continued to use the KJV for centuries.

The KJV is compatible with Christians who lived closer to the time of the Sixteenth Century Reformation and to saints who suffered for the faith even to the point of death in some cases. The KJV is descended from the first English-language Bibles from people life Wycliffe and Tyndale and Coverdale and contains many common phrases. In my experience, no one knew their Bibles like 17th century Puritans such as John Bunyan, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter, Joseph Alleine and others. They use the KJV or something close to it. I can't read everything but it has been my pleasure to read some of these. The KJV is compatible with Scripture quotes from these.

I had been a mild follower of Jesus as a young child but I came to a saving faith at around age 22 and preaching from the NASB was a mean of grace for me. I read from multiple translations for 2-3 years before I began to stabilize on use of the KJV.

Use the Bible translation that meets your needs and that God will bless. Seek also to know and to hear what "the Spirit says to the churches" (Revelation 2:7).

The Bible contains "hidden treasures". Use the Bible translation that will help you to dig them out and uncover them.

My son, if thou wilt receive my words,
And hide my commandments with thee;
So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom,
And apply thine heart to understanding;
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge,
And liftest up thy voice for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver,
And searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD,
And find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD giveth wisdom:
Out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
(Proverbs 2:1-6)

Oh, if your primary "heart" language is something other than English, then I recommend that you use a Bible translation from that other language.

I only post this as tongue-in-cheek, my friends; b/c this gave me my morning chuckle!!!

From the religion dept of Missouri State University...

Best Choice for Serious Bible Study:

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The NRSV is an extremely accurate translation, faithful to the earliest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (HB/OT) and the Greek New Testament (NT).

Unacceptable for Serious Bible Study:

1) The King James Version (KJV) or The New King James Version (NKJV). The KJV was a great literal translation in its day, but that day was the 17th century! Many earlier and more accurate biblical manuscripts were discovered afterwards and most modern translations””including those produced by very conservative Christians””are based on them. The NKJV updates some of the 17th century language, and I like its literalness, but most of the time it relies on the same late and less accurate manuscripts that were available to the KJV translators in the 17th century.

http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm

I don't use the KJV for regular Bible reading or as the main text for teaching. However, when I'm studying, I always make sure I have one at hand. It's an excellent comparison resource that usually shows me what I need to concentrate on in the Greek. Also the personal pronouns - thee, thy, ye, etc. - follow the underlying Greek - thee, thine, and thou are singular and you, ye are plural - which isn't readily apparent in modern English translations.

~Blessings

Reading these posts causes me to wonder something. What bible version do you read and study and why?

I use the NKJV because it puts the KJV into more modern language. Sadly that is all I can tell you. I have done some reading on these other version but it isn't clear to me why they may be better. Thought for thought vs. literal translation is what I see and I really don't know what is supposed to be better. I confess that in this area I am very ignorant.

If I were given another bible version I would probably find myself comparing it to the NKJV and if I saw something weird then I would want to know why. Is the NKJV the weird one or is the other version the weird one especially when it comes to the Gospel as well as dealing with those who believe false doctrine.

John

KJv, ESV and NASB are literal translations. Don't know about NKJV. NIV is functional (thought for thought). I do not read functional.

The Bible has many difficult passages. Some sayings of Jesus are "hard sayings" in any language and most translations.

In Ephesians 3:19, the Apostle Paul is praying for the Ephesians church that they might be "filled with all the fullness of God". Use Bible translations that are best able to show you all the fullness of God (including messages in the difficult and hard sections) and not leave anything out that God intended to be there.

In the local news paper,in 2001, they printed this article,...it stated this,

Until the 1950's the King James Bible was the only Bible in wide use
among Prodestants,who tend to dominate the Bible buying market.
Since then the new versions have been produced to meet the demand
for modernized scriptures.
In the Gallup Poll- 54% owned KJV,followed by 15% New International etc.

This is my concerns here,....Do we really believe men fear God today,..as much as the rewriters in earlier times.,...?.
This one and that one is coming up rewriting the Bible,,in their name.this is a fearful thing.

How do we know that there is not some subliminaliity,...or deception,.maybe ever so subtle,..would Satan ever give up,to decieve ?

I believe the men of old feared God,so I really stick with the KJV.
I have really no problem with the ' thee's,..and ' thou's,...

Another thought is,I do not believe we have to memorize The Word,... The Holy Spirit who is Word / Spirit,brings His Words up onto our tongue,...as we draw close to Him,( He,who is Spirit / Word ) He will draw close to us,
Sending The Words we need for such a time as of our particular need.

That is not to say,that we do not read and fill ourselve with His Word,..
It is such a blessing for Him to give us a great hungry for His Word.
We put it in,...He brings it up.

elizabeth

Gutenberg's printing press came into existence in 1450, so we've only had the printed Word for 565 years. Compare that to the 7,450 years we were led by prophets and the Spirit of God.

I am thankful for the written word of God but I know, that I know, that I know if one has an 'ear to hear what the Spirit has to say,' they will hear what the Spirit says... with or without the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc!

God bless,
Lisa

Markuskiwi,

I most def believe in the importance of the word and how lucky we are to not just have one translation but many! I only started this thread because I have a couple of friends who will discredit a pastor with sound biblical doctrine just because he reads a translation other than KJV. I am all for preachers using the KJV if that's their preference. My pastor mainly preaches from KJV. But I do not understand the thinking of some people that hold the KJV in such high regard that it might even be consider sinful to read another translation. I have been told about a comical yet sad story about one of our local pastors trying to raise funds to send bibles to China. One gentleman said he would only donate if the bibles were KJV. The pastor had to lovingly explain to him that these would be Chinese translations.

I like KJV, mainly because that's what I read growing up. I also like ESV because my little man understands its easy readability. I also like the Amplified version for its many nuances.
However, I think the KJV-only debate is a smoke-screen for other issues...mainly, its Jesus, the Son of God, who gives eternal life, not the Scriptures. John 5:39

To argue about 'the best' version of the Scriptures is not profitable. What is profitable is that we come to Him whom the Scriptures point to: JESUS.

When they start printing bibles with the words of Jesus Himself deleted, then I might become concerned. Until then, I'll read whatever version I can find.

There are bible translators laboring even now, to give the Scriptures to people who do not have it....whilst believers in the West, with their abundance of Scripture versions devote time and energy to quibble about said versions. Not profitable, I say.

Whatever version you have, have you read through the whole thing?

For public reading, unless you are a fluid and conversational oral reader, the KJV is a tough read with people anymore. The style of the newer formal translations (ESV, NASB) is so readable visually and to the ear that, unless there is a real conviction about the KJV, I do not know why any preacher would read it when preaching.

One pastor I know of an above-average sized local church is not a KJV only guy, but he won't read anything else when preaching. And, he REALLY struggles reading anything aloud. Reading KJV, you pray for him to reach the mark of the prize of finishing that passage, I'm telling you. And, he's surely not alone in that. I always felt like he was torturing himself when, privately, he reads the NLT.

Again -- KJV is a work of art and has been a tool that God uses. I have zero complaints about it. I love it. I just don't read it much anymore.

And, to answer another poster's question -- I read the ESV primarily and I've read it through twice in the past 2 years and working on three in a row. :)

I am not a native English speaker, but when it comes to English, the KJV is my favorite study bible. For our family devotions I use the NKJV which is easier for my wife and kids.
As for German, there are at least 3 good literal translation that are based on the textus receptus.
In Chinese the best available version is translated from the KJV rather than the textus receptus.
A good bible translation should be based on the textus receptus and employs a literal (word for word) translation an only use a measure of interpretation when a literal translation is not possible in the translated language.

One thing KJV publishers OUGHT to do is abandon column printing and print the KJV in paragraph form. As much as any change in bible publishing, and as much as any aid in bible comprehension, paragraph printing would do wonders in KJV reading. Punctuation is an issue there, I know.

Whatever English Bible translation we choose, we do well to master it.

We do well to choose a Bible translation that doesn't cut corners and remove any of the message but that enables us to receive God's message in a pure, accurate and complete manner.

Changing Bible translations causes at least a temporary delay in the pursuit of mastery.

Every Christian ought to seek to be a soul-winner. The great piece of equipment to be used in the winsome winning of souls is the "sword of the Spirit" which is the Word of God.

"It is the solemn obligation of every Christian worker to master the Bible so that Christ in His fullness may be presented to lost souls".

James 4:5 is a scripture that has two totally different meanings in KJV and any other version that I've found so far. One has to be correct and we would do well to search it out as good bereans. If taken in context along with chapter 3 (noting the verb tenses, object, etc...) the KJV will produce a different conclusion than the other translations. Also what verse is James referring to?
Depending on the translation you use you will come to dif conclusions that are in opposition to one another...

Bible statistics...The Bible contains:

..66 Books
..1189 Chapters
..31102 Verses

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible

Q. Is the KJV the best translation for every one(1) of its 31,102 verses?

A. Absolutely not. But, I still like its overall qualities and it has been my primary translation for over 30 years. :-)

JHerndon asked RE: /// what basis do people use to justify that you should only read the King James Version. I see no reason for people to think that.///

The basis is faith.

The issue is not about translation, it is about what we believe about inspiration.

Do we Believe in the inspiration of the minute detail of the Scriptures as what Jesus did ?

The common view of inspiration : I find to both be lacking Scripturally as well as logically : It is the view that inspiration only extends to the Original autoghraphs that no longer exist.

As with Bro Keith Daniels I believe that there is a special anointing on the KJV that is not found with modern translations.

This special anointing is manifested in many forms : I will breifly touch on a few.

1.) Unlike the Modern versions which all seek to conform to the modern language, The King James Bible along with its predecessors shaped and perfected the English Language.
(It is also note worthy to point out that its Catholic rival the Douai-Riems flopped in this area.)
Along with its predecessors begaining with Tyndale When an English equivalent word did not exist they "actually invented new English words to reproduce the very words of the Hebrew and Greek original-..1. p.28"

2.) Its Literary excellence : The King James Bible is considered the noblest monument of English prose.

"Alister McGrath writes :
Yet there is no evidence that the Translators of the King James Bible had any great interest in matters of literature or linguistic development. Their concern was primarily to provide an accurate translation of the Bible, on the assumption that accuracy was itself the most aesthetic of qualities to be desired. Paradoxically, the kings translators achieved literary distinction precisely because they were not pursuing it. Aiming at truth, they achieved what later generations recognized as beauty and elegance. Where later translations deliberately and self-consciously sought after literary merit, the kings translators achieved it unintentionally, by focusing on what, to them, was a greater goal. Paradoxically, elegance was achieved by accident, rather than design. 2. 254"

Athiest believe in "accident, rather than design" Christians believe in the Hand of God.

".later translations deliberately and self-consciously sought after literary merit"
arm of the flesh ?

3.) Theory of translation.
While modern translators debate between "literal translation philosophy and dynamic equivalence"
We need to first understand that the "King James version was not a new or unique translation of its day but the culmination of a tradition of nearly a century of English Bible translating. 3 p.21" " The KJV was a revision of previous outstanding translations, cheifly of William Tyndale 3 p.23" "Fully ninety percent of the King James New Testament is Tyndales wording. 3 p.13"
William Tyndale "had very few technical helps, such as grammars, Lexicons, and other scholary works.3 p.11"
So what did Tyndale rely on ?
In defence of the Translation "William Tyndale wrote from prison to his friend, John Frith, "I call God to record against the day we shall appear before the Lord Jesus, that I never altered one syllable of Gods Word against my conscience, nor would I do so this day if all that is in earth, whether it be honor, pleasure, or riches might be given to me. 4 p.133"
Tyndales philosophy of translation was not one of trying to side between 'formal vs dynamic' but instead he brought every syllable to his conscience for confirmation.

4.) The Very Name "King James"
"On October 6, 1536, in the town of Vilvorde in the Netherlands, William Tyndale, Gods first translator of the New Testament into English, was brought to a place of execution, tied to a stake, strangled by the hangman to the point of death, and then burned in fire for doing Gods Work As he met the Lord, Tyndale cried with a loud voice, "Lord! Open the king of Englands eyes! 4 p.133"
It is not just coincidental that in less than a century after Crying out this Prayer, That a revision of Tyndales Translation Would bare the King of Englands name. The King James Bible is a confirmation that Tyndales Prayer was heard and granted.

5.) Fruit

Modern translations all claim that there main purpose has been to make the Bible easer to understand and comprehend for the modern reader, but the reality is that no matter how sincear there intentions might have been they have produced the opposite effect, Some of these modern translators even admitt this reality :

NKJV Radmacher and Hodges admitt:
"It is thus clear that in modern America there is a subtle and complex interrelationship between the abundance of biblical translations and growing biblical illiteracy all around us. 5 p.15"

Leland Ryken of the ESV also admitts :
"Claims by modern translators and bible scholars that the Christian public is fortunate to have been delivered from the archaisms and occasional inaccuracies of the KJV turn out to be hollow. If Bible knowledge in our day has declined across the board, where is the alleged gain from modern translations? The very proliferation of translations has discouraged the Christian public from seeking to know what the Bible actually says. 1 p.230"

Statistically speaking those whom are buying Bibles are buying NIVs they have a strong marketing plan but those whom read there Bibles are reading the KJV :
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=51860&forum=48&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=1

resources

1. The Legacy of the King James Bible : Leland Ryken : crossway 2011
2. In the Beginning : Alister McGrath : Anchor books 2001
3. The New King James Version: in the great tradition : Dr. Arthur L Farstad and Dr G. Michael Cocoris
4. The New Foxes Book of Martyrs : Harold j. Chadwick: Bridge-Logos 2001
5. The NIV Reconsidered : Earl Radmacher and Zane Hodges : Kerugma,inc 1990

narrowpath wrote:
A good bible translation should be based on the textus receptus and employs a literal (word for word) translation an only use a measure of interpretation when a literal translation is not possible in the translated language.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

English translations of the Textus Receptus--

Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530
Miles Coverdale's Bible 1535
Matthew's Bible 1537
The Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560-1644
The Bishops' Bible 1568
King James Version 1611, 1679
Webster Bible 1833
Youngs Literal Version 1862
Darby Bible 1884,1890 (not so sure, please double check and give a reference)
New King James Version 1982 [28]
The 21st Century King James Version 1994
Literal Translation of the Bible 1995
Third Millennium Bible 1998 [29]
Modern King James Version 1999
Analytical Literal Translation 1999 [30]
Updated King James Version 2000
King James Version Easy Reader 2010
Modern English Version 2014 [31]

So what happens when KJV is translated to every other language under the sun? Or do all non-old Kings English speaking peoples have to learn KJ English first before reaping its benefits?

Please folks. The original manuscripts were not in English. We would be much better off learning Greek and Hebrew than debating this age old topic.

To the original poster,

If you want to find all the reasons (some have already been mentioned here) behind the bull-dogmatic "-ology" of KJV-onlyism, you can buy books and read all about it... there's lots of interesting info out there! Most of the radical KJV-ers have been chased off or silenced on this forum because it's such a divisive topic. :)

RE: ///There is now a Spanish Bible translated from the Textus Receptus for those who speak spanish, want to speak spanish or minister to spanish speaking people.///

The Trinitarian Bible society has been translating from the TR into various languages since 1835.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/

Quote: It doesn't really have anything to do with old english as much as it has to do with the Textus Receptus.

That's not what KJV onlyers say. They say the KJ bible has a special anointing. They doest.

There is plenty to love about the KJV.

There is zero reason to place faith in the KJV as the anointed version approved by God to the exclusion of other translations.

I've read primarily three translations in my life as a Christian: KJV, ESV and NASB. I've read a little of the NIV, and I'll let that rest where it is.

Of these three translations, I have full confidence in all of them that they represent the best available expressions in English of the Word of God. In other words, I am content with any or all three as being accurate and proper translations. If you compare them you will certainly find differences, but the differences are not necessarily contradictions and the whole counsel of the Word of God satisfies the questions when we take the whole thing rightly divided. Each of us and any of us would be well served to put any one or more of these in our hearts that we might not sin against God. Besides these, I personally attest that the Holy Spirit applies the ESV to my heart as He has the KJV and the NASB.

The KJV-only position is fine as long as it is limited to the arguments of what are the best manuscript sources among translations. If someone wants to assert the superiority of the TR, then go ahead. It is debatable and true believers of different minds can disagree on it yet walk together.

The KJV-only position drives off the rails when it relies on extrabiblical beliefs about the anointing of God on the KJV versus other translations. The KJV itself does not lend itself as authority for the KJV only position. You HAVE TO look outside the Scriptures themselves for authority to support the KJV only position ESPECIALLY when you are arguing reasons outside of what are the best manuscripts. And, with all respect to my IFB/KJV brethren, the KJV only position espoused within the IFB movement sounds strangely superstitious and mythological and its strength lies outside of the very scriptures they defend.

RE: ///There is zero reason to place faith in the KJV as the anointed version approved by God to the exclusion of other translations.///

We see the same type of arguments to belittle believing Christianity to the exclusion of other religions.

So why do I Believe that Christianity is true to the exclusion of other religions?
The truth is because I simply have Faith that it is so.
No amount or lack of physical evidence has caused that conclusion.
Faith is both the substance and the evidence For believing the Gospel of Christ.
In other words faith is me being honest with the inward certainty that is within me.
Likewise I have Faith that God has a special anointing on the King James Bible.

The issue is one of inspiration and not one of translation.

I believe that verses such as Matthew 17:21 are inspired.
Those using Bibles that exclude such verses hold to a different view of inspiration.

Proudpapa,

I don't want to go down the KJVO route again as we have been there before brother!
However what you wrote here is not biblical faith. Quote: "So why do I Believe that Christianity is true to the exclusion of other religions?
The truth is because I simply have Faith that it is so."

Faith in the Christ and the salvation He gives is based on the historical facts of the death and resurrection of Christ and His life and ministry among people who recorded these facts for us. Christianity is not just a subjective faith, but is based on objective truths.

You cannot equate your 'blind faith' position of KJ inspired as the same as faith in biblical Christianity. Same is true for things other religions claim. There is no objective truth to them.

Question: If the bible is the sole authority for all doctrine and practice of the church, where does it teach that one English translation is to be considered inspired? If it does not, then this doctrine is extra-biblical and to be considered error to be avoided.

Papa,

Love you, bro.

I do not believe Christianity is true just because I believe it is true. That is self affirming and self defeating at the same time.

It may adequately express your feelings on it, that no matter anyone else's view or arguments, that is just where your heart is. Amen and more power to you, there.

But, that is not a reason to believe. We need to have reasons.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" 1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) "Answer" there is apologia, reasoned defense.

If we rely on our own belief as authority, we are no better off than the one who trusts his own wicked heart. And, we are not equipped to "convince the gainsayers." Titus 1:9 (KJV).

And, all of the reasons offered in support of holding KJV as the uniquely inspired English translation lie outside of the Scriptures themselves. Those reasons are arguments of men who are not the apostolic writers and to whom there is no revelation on par with that given to the writers of Scripture. The KJV-as-inspired believer MUST contradict the very bible translation they revere because their argument rests fully outside of Scripture and is by "private interpretation" (the personal belief and understanding of men without the authority of Scripture). This opposes 2 Peter 1:20 (KJV).

Your faith is at least as good as mine. We are both wrong about something. Maybe more than one something. 😀. I do not say these things except to encourage us not to demean one another's quality or kind of faith based on which translation of Scripture we read. Please read the KJV with a full and joyful heart. It is God's Word. As is the ESV and the NASB and maybe others.

God can work through the Lego bible if He wishes to do so. I suspect He does so on a regular basis.

There is a good reason that we are told in scripture to study to show ourselves approved. Study is not easy. It takes time, effort, and prayer.

I prefer the KJV. I grew up with it, and I love it. But I use a lot of other resources when I study. I realize that any translation, and for that matter any dictionary or lexicon, is only as good as the translator. I love to use interlinear Bibles for study purposes alongside the King James. I also like to refer occasionally to Young's Literal Translation. Strongs, Brown Driver Briggs, and Thayers are great resources to have ready at hand. Thankfully, I now have all of these on phone via the my-sword app.

Regardless of the version you prefer, it is wise to pull in other resources and prayerfully study the word rather than just reading it.

I do know this. If you will use KJV, you will have at hand a much greater number of good study resources that are in one way or another keyed to the King James.

I also prefer the more poetic language. It is so very rich.

Julius,
undoubtedly there are good, faithful translations and bad translations.
But that is a different topic. I understood that OP asked about KJ only.

Just because the KJ only position is not accepted does not mean that anuything goes, or that the the KJV is not considered a very good translation, which it is, but it is not the only good one and in my experience and opinion there are better translations today that better express the original text. My preference is the NKJV as I like the flow which is similar to the KJV, but takes out some of the old english words that are not relevant for today and also corrects and clarifies some of the anomolies of the original KJV.

When Tyndale set about to do his translation (the forerunner for the KJV)
he said he wanted a bible that could be read by the plough boy (the least literate lad). Seems strange that folk today want to take us back to a bible that most low educated young people today would not begin to understand! It struck me other day how often preachers who prefer the KJV will give a word definition of an obscure or not clear word in their bible of choice. But other newer translations already have the clarification and therefore it would not be neccesary for the preacher to show us all how much he has the insight and needs to teach the laity, seems like Rome all over again!

Julius21 wrote:

Is there such a thing as a counterfeit Bible? Are we safe from creation of such things, from now on? When did that become the case and has it always been that way?

Does Satan still cast doubt on the Word of God? Hath God said? Are we now safe from Satan working through men to cast doubt on God's Word?

Can we use the Jehovah Witness Bible on a daily basis as an approved text from the Holy Spirit?

Yes. There are counterfeits, i.e., Book of Mormon, New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness bible) which isn't even a translation, to name a couple.

Are we safe from creation of such things? We are safe if we know Him and walk in the truth of His Word. I'm unaware of any current and widely used conservatively translated formal translation into English that is not "His Word". We've always been safe in that regard.

If we're not walking in Him in knowledge and truth, not hiding His word in our hearts, we may as well be reading a Cheerios box even if our translation of the Bible is good. You and I would agree on that 100%, I'm sure.

Satan casts doubt and obfuscation on everything of God. We must be equipped and thoroughly furnished unto every good work to be "safe" from men who would cast doubt on it. The world already casts doubt on it every day. We're aiming at each other when we shoot at these reliable, accurate and perfectly edifying translations.

And, no, we can't use the JW bible at all. I wouldn't use it for a coaster.

Your point, I think, is that we have to have the KJV as a safe harbor against all these evils. My point is that the KJV is not the only harbor against all these evils. KJV is. ESV is. NASB is. Others may be. Some I won't touch if you paid me. I won't name them here. It's enough to encourage use of solid, accepted, tested translations.

KJV is the chief one because you can't argue with 400 years of authority, accuracy and reliability, but there are some arguments and problems. You can argue that it is not readable and accessible to the younger reader who is not familiar with the arcane terms and is not going to learn them, and would sooner set the thing aside than struggle with it. You can argue that telling people that KJV is the only God-approved English version of the Scriptures is going to cause them to think they can never hear from God because they're just not going to read it. I'm a rabid reader, fairly literate, with a B.S. in Communications, magna cum laude, and a J.D. from a top 30 law school and I don't even care to read it much anymore.

Now, I've suggested this before: the KJV with the TR as its source is a thing of beauty and grace and --- yes --- anointing IMO. Not as THE only English language translation, but as a reliable expression of the Word of God, as are others. A "new" KJV (not the "NKJV", necessarily, because it isn't based on the Textus Receptus, or that's what I'm told and I don't care to verify because I don't read it anyway) with up to date language and phrasing that LOSES THE COLUMNS AND IS PRINTED IN PARAGRAPH FORMATTING, would breathe extended useful life into it. If a conservative group of Bible-believing scholars undertook that, I might pick it up as my own preferred translation and I'm not even looking to switch.

The reluctance of KJV onlyists to travel down that road is astounding. Many of them actually believe that the 1829 Webster's Dictionary is also God's anointed bible dictionary. They will more often refer to the 1829 Webster's and completely ignore Strong's concordance with the brush-off of "you don't need to know the Greek words; God gave us the 1829 Webster's Dictionary." Seriously.
So, for the most ardent KJVO believer who falls back on the authority of the 1829 Webster's, the solution is "Read it anyway, and buy yourself a 200 year old dictionary to understand a 400 year old translation".

Now, there's the issue of manuscript differences. This is way overblown. Someone mentioned that the non-TR manuscript based translations omit "through his blood" from Colossians 1:14 and thus are "removing the blood" or some such from Scriptures. That's just not true. Fact is, older manuscripts do not contain the phrase and it appears to be a later addition. I don't know if it was in the original or not. But I do know this: there are plenty of other Scriptures where it is clear that the whole doctrine of redemption is through His blood. Whether Colossians 1:14 originally said so or not is of no consequence. It is just an unfortunate and hard fact of life that we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. Differences exist in the manuscripts. They are miniscule in importance. None of them materially impact any doctrine of the faith that was handed down to us ---- unless you want to isolate one verse and argue that an omission infects the whole of the translation. That's straining at a gnat.

RE: ///When Tyndale set about to do his translation (the forerunner for the KJV)
he said he wanted a bible that could be read by the plough boy (the least literate lad). Seems strange that folk today want to take us back to a bible that most low educated young people today would not begin to understand!///

I am as low educated as they come, the KJV is not difficult for the believer whom studies it and applies James 1:5

Leland Ryken of the ESV : rights :
"..Tyndale expected his readers to rise to what is called standard formal English. Two things have obscured this and skewed modern thinking on the subject. One is Tyndales famous comment about the plowboy, which is a comment not on style (as it is commonly misinterpreted to be) but on how widely and deeply Tyndale wanted biblical knowledge to permeate the minds of individual people. p.28"

Add: "...The KJV, in turn, is often considered the very touchstone of eloquence, so the claim of modern colloquial Bible translators that Tyndale is their model cannot possibly be true. p.29"

Archaic Words in the NIV
by Dr. Laurence M. Vance
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

I would like to add there there are many misconceptions about Bible translations that are introduced into the conversation. I would urge anyone interested in this topic to study it in-depth BEFORE considering websites that are agenda-driven (on any side of the discussion).

Many websites and books are built like domino buildings. As secondhand and third-hand "resources," they often reinforce one another through redundant citations (i.e., "circular citations" in which one source cites the other and vice versa in an effort to establish credibility).

I read the King James Version. I also read the NASB and the original NIV. I even consult foreign language editions too. I use as many study materials as possible when studying from those particular translations.

I consider the KJV and NASB as very good and faithful translations taken from the Disiderius Erasmus's Textus Receptus. However, I believe that the NIV is a good and faithful translation taken from the sources that its translators used. When I read and study them, I usually weigh them with one another when a question might arise regarding the meaning of a passage. Since the overwhelming majority of passages agree, it is a helpful way for me to consider all of the sources.

*EDIT - As for the difficulty of the language: I don't think that this is in question to people who have not been raised in a setting that regularly uses or reads such rhetoric. I know college professors who have difficulty with the language used within the King James Version. My wife's first language is not English but has spoken the language since middle school. Naturally, the language of the KJV is almost like a foreign language to her -- and she has a Master's Degree. I understand the language well enough -- but I think that it is by training (being around the Bible enough to know the terms -- especially those words or phrases that have changed in meaning with modern words and phrases).

Even as well-educated as I am and with many years of reading the KJV, I still have to consult resources to understand some phrases or words from time-to-time. This is somewhat contrary to the purpose of the KJV -- where the translators hoped to produce an easily-understood version of the Word of God in the "common" and "vulgar" tongue at that time. Whereas we marvel at the "poetic" nature of the translation, that wasn't the intent of the translators (unless that particular passage was poetic or lyrical). Rather, it was meant to be understood by children. If you read a passage of the KJV to a group of unbelieving middle school children today, would they easily understand it?

@ Julius: Not to entice you back into the conversation, but I would like to emphasize that there is a world of difference between the Jehovah's Witness translation -- filled with error -- and a more scholarly translation like the NIV.

I would also point out that it isn't accurate to characterize that the NIV "removes" words if those words in question weren't in most of the ancient sources used for translation. In almost every case where this happens, the NIV includes a footnote to explain alternative translations or the fact that most of the ancient sources used by translators simply did not include a particular passage.

Prior to publication, the KJV originally contained footnotes regarding alternative renderings of words or passages. However, these never made it into the published version due to prohibitions regarding such footnotes. I think that it would have been helpful for the translators of each section to have included them -- if only to show the process by which a translation committee (even in 1611) decided upon the rendering of a word or phrase.

Wow. Lots of comments since my earlier post. Ummm, ok. Julius, I have never heard that "KJV only" is derogatory. For brevity, I will abbreviate KJVO. "Preferred" doesn't mean anything more than saying any other version preferred and that is not the view of, well, IFB people for the most part. No disrespect intended. I just do not know a shorter, better way.

To list words that are difficult really misses the point. And, to insult people because they will not adjust their reading to the KJV is uncalled for.

The readability issue re KJV is way more than a list of words. It is the whole grammar of the KJV. It simply is not the English we read anymore, whether we like that or not.

You know, the true 1611 KJV is nothing like the one we now have. It was altered to be readable.

John 3:16, for instance, read originally,
"For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

I don't know what you beleeueth, but I beleeueth that if I had to read the real 1611 KJV, I might give up þe ghost. 😕

There is no difference in translating and publishing the ESV or NASB than in updating the AV 1611 to the 1769 edition. Readability was then and is now an issue. No one in their right heart would demean any of you for insisting on a modern typeface and the 1769 updated edition to the KJV. Likewise, it is unkind to simply say everyone should do as any of you KJVO readers might do in this regard.

Now, as to NIV. I don't read any dynamic or functional translation. They play too loosely with meaning, IMO, and I disregard those versions. NIV, MSG, AMP, TLB, Ragamuffins and whatever. I have no use for them. Others disagree. That is okay. I am not reading them and I am not telling anyone else they are wrong if they do, even if I am right. 😎

Hi Tim,
Working on responding to your and heydaves previous post.

RE: ///There is no difference in translating and publishing the ESV or NASB than in updating the AV 1611 to the 1769 edition.///

I want to point out that there is a vast difference between a revision as what the original KJV was itself
and that of a completely new translation based on a completely different Text as what the ESV and NASB have done

Chriss was incorrect the NASB is not translated from the TR, and I will point out neither is the ESV.

Chriss wrote : ///I would also point out that it isn't accurate to characterize that the NIV "removes" words if those words in question weren't in most of the ancient sources used for translation.///

Most of the versus/words that the NIV has removed are indeed found in the majority of the manuscript evidence that we have today.
The main two exceptions are acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7. Both of which I have faith are there by Gods divine hand. Despite the lack of manuscript evidence for those two versus. They do not resignate to me as having been sown in by the enemy.

Hi proudpapa,

Chriss wrote : ///I would also point out that it isn't accurate to characterize that the NIV "removes" words if those words in question weren't in most of the ancient sources used for translation.///

Most of the versus/words that the NIV has removed are indeed found in the majority of the manuscript evidence that we have today.
The main two exceptions are acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7. Both of which I have faith are there by Gods divine hand. Despite the lack of manuscript evidence for those two versus. They do not resignate to me as having been sown in by the enemy.

Again, the insistence that words were "removed" is quite inaccurate and it could border upon misrepresenting the translation process.

Simply put: If the translators did not find certain words or phrases in the sources that are deemed oldest and most reliable, then they went with those sources and footnoted any alternate renderings. However, the NIV and most other scholarly translations are filled with footnotes about alternative renderings of words or phrases or the addition of certain words that appear in other later sources.

Now, I would argue that it doesn't matter whether those passage "resonate" with anyone or not; rather, the translators were honest in their efforts and considered sources that they felt were the most trustworthy as the basis for their work.

While I embrace the KJV as a good translation taken from the sources used to create it, it is still the work of a committee of men. The Word of God is perfect but a translation itself is not.

Papa,

The reason for new translations was not the manuscript but the readability. If the ESV was in KJ or Elizabethan English, no one would read it. It would defeat the purpose of the translation.

Granted, they used other manuscript sources. The differences are of little to no importance.

RE: ///Again, the insistence that words were "removed" is quite inaccurate and it could border upon misrepresenting the translation process///

There is absolutly nothing inaccurate or misrepresenting about pointing out that the NIV as well as others translations that are based on the critical text have indeed "removed" around 17 versus and countless words from there bible text.
No one is intentionally suppressing that they placed them in little footnotes at the bottom of the page.
They do Indeed "remove" them from the main text.

RE: ///Now, I would argue that it doesn't matter whether those passage "resonate" with anyone or not; rather, the translators were honest in their efforts and considered sources that they felt were the most trustworthy as the basis for their work.///

The translators where not consistant, If they where they would remove the last 12 verses of Mark as well as John 7:53-8:11. but if they did so it would be like throwing a frog in boiling water there translation would do like the tniv it would flop.

Hi proudpapa,

There is absolutly nothing inaccurate or misrepresenting about pointing out that the NIV as well as others translations that are based on the critical text have indeed "removed" around 17 versus and countless words from there bible text.

No one is intentionally suppressing that they placed them in little footnotes at the bottom of the page.

They do Indeed "remove" them from the main text.

I strongly disagree with your opinion.

If I asked you to translate a 2000 year old set of books into English from an ancient foreign language (a book that has been translated many times subsequently), you wouldn't appreciate being told that you (the translator) "removed words" if the various sources that you deemed oldest and most reliable simply didn't have those words in the first place.

That is what you are doing here. You are claiming that the translators of the NIV "removed words" -- even though their own testimony states that those words in question just do not appear in the oldest and most reliable texts. To claim otherwise is dangerously close to bearing false witness against them -- and yet it is repeated often in KJV-only websites and books.

Consider this anecdote:

The famous painting La Gioconda (Mona Lisa) was painted by Leonardo da Vinci sometime during the early 16th Century. The original hangs in the Lourve in Paris. Or does it? Da Vinci, like many painters of his time, often painted several copies. Sometimes, they would paint a practice copy. Sometimes, they would paint a second copy for their own private collection or master's portfolio. At other times, the painter would create the original likeness (which he would keep) and create the finished work from it.

Regardless, the painting in the Lourve has long been thought to be the "original" Mona Lisa. However, a painting was unveiled to the public about three years ago that many experts believe might have been the true "original" painting. Both paintings are believed by most experts to have been painted by da Vinci. However, there are questions over which is the original and which is the copy or which was painted first using the model and which was subsequent. Some suggest that one or the other might have been an unfinished original.

There are some subtle differences in the two paintings. In the newly unveiled painting (called the Isleworth Mona Lisa), there are large columns that do not appear in the version found in the Louvre. The woman in the Isleworth painting appears to be a bit younger and has a bit more defined features.

While a few critics have dismissed the painting (which was part of an English nobleman's family collection for over a century prior to World War I), most have concluded that it was either partially or wholly painted by da Vinci. Scans reveal the similar drawing style beneath the painting. Interestingly, the columns that do not appear in the Louvre version but are present in the Isleworth version are also present in a drawing made by then-contemporary painter/architect Rafael after seeing the painting in Leonardo da Vinci's studio in 1504.

For both paintings, there are details that appear in one that do not appear in the other. Those who consider the Isleworth Mona Lisa to be the older painting would not be considered guilty of "removing" details when they reproduce it. Likewise, those who consider the Louvre painting to be older cannot be accused of having removed details when they reproduce it. Rather, they are merely two "sources" for reproduction.

The NIV's translators consulted various texts. Like most text critics, historians and scholars, they favor some sources over others because of age and other reasons. Those sources did not have some of the words or phrases (that became verses and passages later). When they created a translation that they deemed to be most accurate using the oldest and most reliable text sources, they couldn't include passages that weren't included in those "oldest and most reliable" sources. However, they did include footnotes about variances in those words, phrases or passages to indicate that texts deemed newer and less reliable include them. This isn't "omission." This is textual and scholarly honesty.

The translators where not consistant, If they where they would remove the last 12 verses of Mark as well as John 7:53-8:11. but if they did so it would be like throwing a frog in boiling water there translation would do like the tniv it would flop.

I don't understand what you mean here. How were they not "consistent?" I already pointed out that they did not "remove" any verses.

When we say that words/versus have been "removed" from the text we are clearly Referring to our English Bibles All English Bibles before westcott/hort critical text that I am aware of included those versus.

exsample
NIV has acts 8:36 acts 8:38
acts 8:37 is omitted from the main text and placed at the bottom of the page in a footnote.

RE: /// I don't understand what you mean here. How were they not "consistent?" I already pointed out that they did not "remove" any verses.///

We would explain it this way based on your reasoning :
They where not consistent because they added to the main text the last 12 verses of Mark as well as John 7:53-8:11 which have basically the same manuscript support as that of the 17 or so versus that they refused to add to the main text and placed in small print at the bottom of the page in a footnote.

edit add for more clarity so as to answer Chris top post : the last 12 verses of Mark as well as John 7:53-8:11 are not found in what they "deem to be the oldest and most reliable." they are inconsistant in there method of choosing what to include or not include in the main text.

edit add : Chris I am here to share my perspective as honestly as possible, I am not here to play word games.

Hi proudpapa,

I am not accusing you of "playing word games." I am simply stating that it is inaccurate to state that translators "added" or "omitted" words when they were relying upon sources for their translation rather than previous Bible versions in English.

I'm sure that you would rightly acknowledge that the reasons that these words do not appear in translations like the NIV are because those particular words and phrases did not appear in the source texts that the translators of the NIV (and most text critics, historians and scholars) deem to be the oldest and most reliable.

Thus, this isn't "word games" for them either. They weren't agenda-driven (as some KJV-only advocates allege). They were simply and honestly translating a new translation of the Bible from sources and giving much more weight to the text sources deemed older and more reliable.

Well I am NKJV 'preferred', whatever that means! :)
Even though I 'prefer the NKJV, I would never try and say it is the only one folk should use. If you 'prefer' the KJV or any other that's great. Use what works for you and that you are comfortable is a reliable translation.

A lot of rubbish is written about versions other than the KJV, especially the NKJV. Not sure why, but probably upsets the KJVO folk who cannot accept that another translation could be an improvement using practically the same source text.

Now for my defense of the NKJV. Here is the truth from the translators of the source text they used for translation.

According to the preface of the NKJV, the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Ben Hayyim edition of the Mikraot Gedolot published by Bomberg in 1524”“25, which was used for the King James Version. Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Asher text (known as the Masoretic Text). However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV.

The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") for the New Testament, just as the original King James Version had used. As explained in the preface, notes in the center column acknowledge variations from Novum Testamentum Graece (designated NU after Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies) and the Majority Text (designated M).

The translators have sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence" used by many other modern translations. The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the historic second person pronouns "thou”, "thee", "ye”, "thy”, and "thine”. Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, "speaks" rather than "speaketh").

This is why I have used the NKJV for the last 25 years! It is an honest translation. It uses the same TR for the NT as the KJV and only puts notes in the margin to give the alternative NU or majority text where it differs. The main text is the same source. So don't be deceived by those who tell you otherwise! Most KJVO folk have never read the NKJV consistently.

In many years of using the NKJV in churches and meeting where the KJV is the bible of preference, I can only remember one time when a verse was better translated in the KJV. However consistently I have found that the NKJV gives the more accurate translation, as confirmed when the KJV reader explains the KJV word 'literally means this', not realising they are quoting the NKJV translation :). This happens very regularly (almost every meeting).

I have used other translations in the past such as NASB and ESV, but for me I find that they do not read as fluently, but that is a personal thing. I'm sure they are just as accurate. I started off many years ago with the NIV, but don't like that because of the dynamic equivalence (thought for thought in many places), but it is not a 'bad' translation and can be used by many with benefit.

What is important is that when studying we check out as best we can (with prayer and references) the meaning that the original author meant to give us. Yes we know ultimately that God is the author, but He used men as vessels to speak though. Not just as an empty channel, but through the personality of the person. I think this is an important point on how we view the scriptures. If we don't take this human aspect into consideration we misunderstand the bible and treat it as something to be worshiped in and of itself and not something that leads us to the ONE who we are to worship. Don't misunderstand me, I do believe all scripture is inspired of God and He moved men to write what they did. but it is NOT the 'words' in and of themselves, but the message they convey that lead to eternal life and "that life is in the Son" (1 John 5:11).

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
"But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
(John 5:39-40 NKJV).

RE: ///"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
"But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
(John 5:39-40 NKJV).///

John 5:
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

In a past post dolfan wrote : ///Papa, Love you, bro ///

Tim, I so very much appreciate that type of greeting, It brings in a brotherly Love despite differences of opinion.

RE: ///Granted, they used other manuscript sources. The differences are of little to no importance.///

The differences are very important for me as well as many others. and as I pointed out before the differences effect our view about inspiration.

I believe that you will find these not in the main text of the esv :

Matthew 17.21, 18.11, 23.14
Mark 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28
Luke 17.36, 23.17
John 5.4
Acts 8.37, 15.34, 28.29
Romans 16.24
Johannine Comma is omitted
without any footnote to explain its omission

I will again point out that all of these versus with out exception do not "resonate" with me as having been sown in by the enemy.

as I have pointed out several times before :
the nature of the enemy is to omitt, read psalms 91:11 and compare it that to the enemies version in Matthew 4:6.

as I have pointed out several times before :
The original Manuscripts where long gone by Jesus day.
Yet we find Him using the very tense of a verb to confound the saduccess and astonish the multitude. Matt. Ch. 22 v 29-33

What these modern versions have done is force the simple bible believer into becoming a textual critic.
That is a big issue with profound consequences.

Proudpapa wrote:
"What these modern versions have done is force the simple bible believer into becoming a textual critic. That is a big issue with profound consequences."

This statement may have some merit, but those who push the KJVO position do much more to cause "the simple bible believer" to have to wrestle with the which version question than those translators who were simply seeking to help the simple bible reader have a reliable bible.

Yes, without doubt, the enemy of our souls works to obscure the clear view of truth. This issue seems to have worked well for him to that end.

makrothumia

makrothumia,
I am taking your exhortation very seriously.

Thank you brother,

The desire to point all believers to a careful study of the scripture is a noble heart. The Bereans were more noble minded because they questioned even what the apostles were saying and searched the scriptures carefully to verify the truth.

I believe it is reasonable to question the decisions of translators, I do so regularly as I read the scripture. It is also very helpful to encourage every bible reader to compare translations prayerfully because translators can make mistakes. I believe we can do this without creating the appearance that the translators with whom we disagree were agents of the enemy used to whisper the same age old deception - "did God say?"

Questioning the decision of translators who we regard and uphold as sincere is not slander. Let us be careful in how we express our questions, lest in the attempt to question their reasoning, we inadvertently call into question their motive. Doing the former is strongly encouraged throughout the scripture; doing the latter is strongly discouraged.

Hi PP-

I have enjoyed your discussion with Chris but I think I need to pose a hypothetical so I can better understand your position.

Let’s use a hypothetical writing from Plato instead of the Bible. Let’s suppose that a group of Greek scholars found some manuscripts of a writing by Plato. One of the lines of the manuscript says "The tall ships sailed out of the harbor.” This was how the scholars translated the verse and this version found its way into accepted and respectable Greek texts.

Let us further suppose that another group of scholars found an earlier manuscript of this same writing by Plato. However, in these earlier manuscripts, the line reads: "The ships sailed out of the harbor.” Accordingly, this is how these scholars translated this line.

Now, can it be said that the second set of scholars "omitted” the word "tall” from their translation? Or is it more fair to say that they simply translated what was on the older manuscript?

Reading ESV and NASB for several years now, I note that they both include footnotes and explanations where they "omit" words or phrases or verses,or passages. (I won't quibble over the word omit; I take TMK's view on that issue a la ships sailing harbors and all that)

When I encounter a footnote, I read it. I weigh it. Footnotes are not relegations. They are emphatic, explanatory or both. They are footnotes because the discussion does not fit into the text.

And, KJVO brethren, thank God for footnotes. If, for example, the KJV Johannine Comma were not "footnoted" in margins among source texts in the TR, this verse that you believe original to the manuscript probably would have been omitted for real. Why was it included as I John 5:7? Because it DID appear as a "footnote" and discerning scholarly readers who were responsible for the texts that include it determined that, in their view of textual history and church history, it belonged.

Let's please not downgrade what is footnoted. Let us not ignore or treat footnotes as optional. (Unless you own a bible whose footnotes are full of mere commentary, that is. I do not use those bibles.)

A verse for consideration that would seem to be an "omission" as it is a red letter reference to Deut 8:3
Consider Luke 4:4 the KJV includes the total scripture in the famous discourse between Jesus and the devil whereas most of the other translations do not, but rather "omit" the second portion of the passage.
Why when there is a specific source to refer to (Deut 8:3) would the "answer" to the problem or "condition of obedience" be omitted in the other translations regardless of the manuscripts used to translate?
Especially when this verse has it a direct parallel in Matthew where most all translations include the second portion in that record of the same dialogue
Between Jesus and the devil...

Ok Fletcher- then how do you explain the differences between the Luke and Matthew passages, even in the KJ? Which is correct?

It seems obvious there is no "omission" in some translations because omission implies purposely removing something that should be there. Some manuscripts simply read differently.

Well the NKJV has the whole quote in Luke 4:4. That's why I like the NKJV!
what is about the NKJ that some folk can't accept?? Not saying that's your position Fletcher.

Hi Julius21,

Reading Chris' emails and how he assumes they are all sincere and trustworthy makes one wonder if he knew them all personally.

I do take issue with this statement because it suggests that I "assume they [translators of the NIV] are all sincere and trustworthy." I never made that claim. I have never met them "all personally" -- although I have contacted several of them with some of the most egregious claims and accusations put forth by ardent KJV-only activists. These were just men -- flawed men.

However, I could say the same thing about the translators of the KJV. While much effort has gone into trying to discredit versions like the NIV through subtle or sometimes wild insinuations and accusations, I've noticed that those who do this do not apply the same level of scrutiny to the translators of the KJV -- whose writings and firsthand accounts are readily accessible.

Individuals sometimes like to suggest -- muddy the water so to speak -- about certain modern versions by implying that ulterior motives were at play. Most of those who make such implications, insinuations and accusations rarely contact those translators to find any veracity to what they repeat (often from a set of highly opinionated "sources" that are as analytically credible with their "research" as any gossip tabloid).

I am suggesting that we be careful with implying an agenda or motives in many of those translators. If a KJV-only activist's issue is with the source, then he/she should stick with taking issue with the source rather than alleging something that they "read somewhere" (typically a KJV-only website, book, magazine or "tract"). We should be careful not to repeat claims that are negative about someone personally until we have looked deeply into that matter -- contacting such men or women whenever possible.

As for scrutiny: I Thessalonians 5:21 is a guiding principle when it comes to anything. We must test everything and hold on to the good. However, we should also be careful not to entertain gossip, rumors or any other insinuations or accusations. After all, we will be held to account for such things.

In this, I would point out (again) that the level of scrutiny paid against translators of the NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc... is rarely extended to the various men who translated the KJV or even Erasmus and his single-handed efforts with creating the Textus Receptus.

Such a debate should be over sources used, translation methods and rhetoric renderings unless there is ample evidence -- applied with the same measure to anything and everything that we embrace as a standard -- that might point to something nefarious, questionable or agenda-driven in the translation process.

This is one of the reasons in which I take issue with claiming that the NIV or other versions "omit" words, phrases or verses. Omission, by definition, does not apply when something is not found in the original sources that the scholars deemed to be the oldest and most reliable. This was why I felt that my anecdote regarding the Mona Lisa painting (and the more recently unveiled Isleworth Mona Lisa) is fitting.

I think that Todd's analogy about translating a work from Plato makes a good point. It is incorrect to suggest something negative or even nefarious -- omission -- when that word doesn't apply (especially after previously or subsequently stating that omission is one of the favorite tools of the devil and whereby insinuating something diabolic in the translators' efforts).

Brother Todd,
The slight variation in wording you point out in no way takes away nor adds to the implied message of the verse and therefore (for me) is well within the parameters of the task of faithful translation as both accounts in the KJV are an accurate representation of the reference text in Deut 8:3 as they in no way (that I can find) omitting nor adding to the vital implications of the passage whereas in most of the modern translations they, in the strictest sense do omit the latter portion which indeed changes the implications of the directive of the passage itself.

Hope that helps:)

Edited for spelling

RE: Todd wrote :///I need to pose a hypothetical so I can better understand your position.///

Joshua Chapter 9 : speaks of an event in which the physical evidence was clearly seen, But trusting in that physical evidence caused real problems because it was not what it had appeared to be.

The physical evidence is what Blinded Joshua.

Hi Julius21,

Yes, I have documented quite a few of these "issues" in the past in any number of the countless Bible translation debate threads. Now, I am not implying that the KJV translators were bad men; rather, I meant to pop the bubble of KJV translator "inerrancy" or "inspiration" as romanticized by many KJV-only activists.

Some of these men -- like Bishop Lancelot Andrewes -- held to "high church" traditions (e.g., penance, liturgical prayers, the notion of a "change to the physical body of Christ" Eucharist, adoration of saints, etc...) and all of them were bound by very specific rules and qualifications that might easily be questioned when it comes to the methods by which they settled upon specific words, phrases or general rhetoric (e.g., the prohibition of marginal footnotes, specific wording limitations, inclusion of rhetorical tradition, etc...).

There is quite a bit of variance among KJV advocates. Some of them see the KJV as "preferred" but will quickly admit that any effort of man cannot be "perfect" or that there are other versions that are just as pure in both intent and effort at translation. However, others (KJV-only activists) are much more adamant that the KJV is perfect -- the absolute physical and rhetorical result of a prophecy to "preserve" God's Word to the last jot and tittle. To them, all (or nearly all) other versions are not only suspect but the result of some sinister plot by Satan. Consequently, they "strain a gnat" in searching for any evidence that will support their preordained premise.

Again, I am not alleging that the KJV translators were agenda-driven or sinful men. Rather, I am saying that they were similar to modern translators and the same level of scrutiny applied to such modern translators should be applied to the translators of the KJV.

PP wrote:
RE: "Todd wrote :///I need to pose a hypothetical so I can better understand your position.///

Joshua Chapter 9 : speaks of an event in which the physical evidence was clearly seen, But trusting in that physical evidence caused real problems because it was not what it had appeared to be.

The physical evidence is what Blinded Joshua."

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the translators of the older manuscripts missed words that were really there?

///I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the translators of the older manuscripts missed words that were really there? ///

No. that was not my point at all

What I am trying to imply is that my faith in the Inspired Scripture is not contigent on physical evidence it is contigent on faith.
Through out the Bible faith and physical evidence are contrasted. physical evidence is often the tempter to loose faith.
The physical evidence is what Blinded Joshua in chapter 9 and it is often times what blinds us.

Hi Julius21,

Do you believe as Satan tried to pervert and twist and omit portions of God's Word in the garden, he is still at it today? You already said that there are counterfeit Bibles so I assume your answer to this would be, "Yes". And we know that the Enemy operates amongst us, too as Paul warned he would.

I do agree that all men who presume to handle the word of God should be put to "the test" and their work should be scrutinized by the Church. Certainly, no debate about that. No man should be given a pass just because they are a "scholar".

Of course I believe that Satan tried to pervert or second-guess the command given by God to Adam and Eve regarding the tree. However, this would be comparing apples and oranges. Every cult -- including the Jehovah's Witnesses -- use similar arguments. Most cults and deviations of Christianity also claim to be led by "faith" rather than mere evidence.

In this case, we are talking about sources of the Word of God. It is entirely incorrect to claim that translators "omitted" words that weren't in the sources deemed the oldest and most reliable. I will go further: It would be vulgar to insinuate that such men were led by Satan in their translating efforts when they were honest in what they did.

I will go a bit further: If the translators had added the words that were not in those sources but because they appeared in later sources or popular translations, one could easily allege that they were coerced to include those words because of pressure or because their work was "contingent on faith." In fact, it would have been dishonest and deceptive of those men to include words that were not in the sources that they deemed oldest and most reliable if their goal was to translate from sources that were deemed oldest and most reliable.

No one is asking for anyone to be "given a pass." Quite the opposite, actually. If, however, men will scrutinize the efforts of translators of the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc..., then they only do so after having displayed the same level of scrutiny to their own translation of choice (such as the KJV or even the Textus Receptus).

I will also add that there are many men who limit their research into such matter to a list of websites, secondhand sources, books, Jack Chick tracts, etc... rather than digging deeper to the root and firsthand sources. It doesn't matter if someone relies on their "faith" in a source -- because even the Mormons do that with their "burning in the bosom" for the Book of Mormon.

There are some very good reasons why most scholars, textual critics, historians and language experts favor certain manuscript sources over others. In the past, I have asked men who raised up allegations about those translators whether or not they actually contacted those translators or even the Bible society that published the translation. Most of the time, excuses were made as to why they never undertook such an effort EVEN THOUGH damaging claims were made against them or their efforts to translate God's Word.

Hi Julius21,

Uh...you're welcome?

However, I wasn't trying to "convince" you of anything -- except the need to be meticulous with our study of the subject using parity when exerting scrutiny. I also urged caution before entertaining or repeating allegations, accusations or negative claims.

Moreover, I never implied that "all of them" (regardless of whether you mean translations or translators) are "completely trustworthy."

Does that make things just a bit more clear in regard to what I was and was not saying?

If the goal is to make believers aware that certain versions may contain questionable or even objectionable elements, can not this be done without advocating one version as the standard to measure all others?

Encouraging believers to study like the Bereans can be done without calling into question the motives of translators. There are so many bible helps available for those who desire to look deeper into the Hebrew or Greek.

Does this attempt to prove one version superior to all others minister grace to the hearer or edify them according to their need? The attempt to discredit all other English translations can become the type of divisive issue that Paul warns believers to avoid.

Paul warned Timothy of this using this Greek word: ζήτησις,
Here is the basic meaning: "a question, debate, controversy; a seeking, search."

The verse I am referring to is II Timothy 2:23 - "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

Paul is warning that certain "questions", produce strife. The "question" (ζήτησις) of the superiority of the KJV above all other English translations appears prone to produce the very strife Paul warned Timothy to avoid.

I believe we can encourage the simple bible reader to be a Berean without calling into question every other translation than the KJV. There is room to express concerns about the decisions translators have made, and when necessary to point out questionable beliefs that their own writings or words have revealed.

However, in seeking to uphold one translation as superior to all others, there is the very real danger of pressing the issue to the point of producing strife rather than ministering grace to the hearer and building them up according to their needs.

I give thanks to God for all the men who dedicated their time and energy to provide us the rich resources that we have today to study the word of God. The resources we have today enable us to compare even the minor discrepancies within the body of Greek and Hebrew text that have been discovered, translated and made available to those who desire to study. It saddens me when some of their work is called into question in the attempt to promote the KJV as the only "reliable" English bible.

makrothumia

Proudpapa,

I respect your honesty in maintaining that your position on the KJV is a 'faith' issue and not based on facts. Most others who try and push the KJVO agenda spend endless effort and writings in trying to prove their position is based on factual truth. As has been pointed out they often do this by misrepresenting and slandering others.

However, I do want to challenge you in love to consider that what you are trusting in is not valid. It is a 'faith' of your own desire, without any reason. It is unreasonable.
Bible faith is based on a solid foundation, which is Christ and the Apostles. The 'evidence' of the deity of Christ and His resurrection.

Chris made an important point(which I had also been thinking about previously), which is that Mormons make the same declaration of faith on their book and you can't change their minds....but they are wrong! It is a fantasy, based on a complete myth. What makes your position any different or trustworthy? I have spoke to many JWs and even though they admit the many errors and false prophecies of the Watchtower Society, they still believe 'by faith' that they are God's sole anointed organisation on earth! This is all the same misplaced and uncritical trust that characterise cults.

Cult leaders such as Joseph Smith made claims of his book being divine and folk based their faith on his claim, but the strange thing is the translators and publishers of the KJV NEVER made any claim that their work was divinely inspired and that every word they put in was never to be questioned. This was a much later development. So on whose or what basis do you place faith in this stance? someone, somewhere had an agenda to make it into something it never was and led multitudes into error.

Please do not think I am trying to score points or put you down. My intention is genuine concern for you and others who may be misled by this error and only ask that you look at this honestly and ask where your faith should be, on Christ alone or on a work of bible translation (all be it a very good translation)?

Can we trust the KJ bible? Absolutely! Is it perfect? No! Does that affect the reliability of it? No, because we can know and compare with other sources and know this does not affect any major doctrines and that all other major translations also agree on the same.

So please continue to use the KJV if that is what you prefer, but please don't think you have to claim it is the only valid bible and thereby denigrate all others causing much conflict that does not exist in reality between them.

I think we under-estimate God when we put our faith into 'a' book.

If we was on a deserted island with only the Jehovah's Witness bible, do we not think that we could walk off that island a full fledged believer in the One True God and in His son whom He sent.... and be baptized in the Holy Spirit??!!? I do!!! :) :) :)

Anything produced by man is fallible but... "This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." (Zech 4:6)

God bless us all!!!

It is not my place to judge another mans servant, and we need to be very careful that we do not trip up other brethren by trying to cover between there conscience and Christ.
If God is not leading others to the same conclusion, that is fine.
I am accountable for myself not the conviction of other men.
But neither is my Liberty : in which I feel has been recieved of the Lord, to be judged of other men.
My head is Christ as your head is Christ.
I simply want to give an honest answer to the question of the original post of this thread. and answer any questions of confusion.
And of course I would like to encourage others to my understanding but not to the point of triping them up or laying a snare for them.

RE: ///However, I do want to challenge you in love to consider that what you are trusting in is not valid. It is a 'faith' of your own desire, without any reason. It is unreasonable.
Bible faith is based on a solid foundation, which is Christ and the Apostles. The 'evidence' of the deity of Christ and His resurrection.///

As I pointed out In Joshua Chapter 9 : speaks of an event in which the physical evidence was clearly seen, But trusting in that physical evidence caused real problems because it was not what it had appeared to be.

Joshua did not have a proof text in Scripture that could warn him of what he did not see.
The physical evidence is what Joshua trusted in.
It is why he did not take counsel with the Lord before he made league with them.
When we as Christians are faced with simmilar situations we can be confident that if we would take our eyes off of the physical evidence, that God would warn us inwardly : that is to say resonate and warn us before hand do not make league with them despite the obvious evidence.

That inward resonation would not be "'faith' of your own desire, without any reason." and unreasonable.
It would be Faith from God.

RE:///Cult leaders such as Joseph Smith made claims of his book being divine and folk based their faith on his claim///

If I was the only Christian in the world that felt the same inward certainty about the inspiration of the Bible, I might have need to second guess myself.
I am indeed less intune than many. But There are many men whom I feel are filled with the Spirit, whom seem to have a very simmilar inward certainty, as that of myself on the subject.
I have met some, and there are some whom are presented on SI, like Bro Keith Daniels.

Without exception those whom differ with me on this subject always want to argue the case based on physical evidence.
Sometimes I get caught up in that trap and I always regret it later.

Now I am only shareing my perspective, a perspective that I personaly do feel is of the Lord, A perspective that I am completely confident about.

But I do want to point out : that I believe God works mightly far more than he has through me in men like Jimmy Cymbala, who often uses the NIV, and whom has not come to my understanding on the subject.
I am not going to change my perspective based on other mens conscience on the subject.
But I am going to be humble and consider that there are many Christians far better than myself that have not been led to the same conclusion that I have on the subject.

If my conviction offends, there is nothing I can do about that.

But may I becareful not to use my conviction to intentionaly offend others.

One of the things that deeply concerns me about the KJV-only movement is the manner in which those who ascribe to absolute infallibility of the KJV -- even making excuses for obvious error, such as the incorrect translation of the Greek word "pascha" as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Some even argue that the flawed translators were "inspired by God" in a manner similar to the original human writers of the books, Gospels and epistles.

Even more troublesome is the habit of many KJV-only believers to turn "KJV-only" position -- or the belief in the infallibility of the KJV -- an "essential doctrine" of their local church (or even Christianity). My cousin attended a congregation like that. Now, he would have never stated that he was KJV-only to such an extent; however, it certainly seemed like an absolute rule. If you quoted Scriptures from the NASB, NKJV, ESV or the NIV, you would be strongly rebuked.

The Word of God is perfect...flawless...down to the last jot and tittle. However, the many various efforts of man -- from old scribes to Erasmus to the committee to translate the KJV to the committees of modern translations are all flawed men. The translators of the KJV were very careful to explain this in their preface. In fact, the preface to the original KJV is quite a good explanation of what they did and were trying to accomplish. It is ironic that most KJV-only activists do not believe that preface and, instead, would push the notion of a single, infallible and/or divinely chosen translation in English.

I think that the KJV is a faithful translation taken from the sources used -- despite certain qualifications placed upon the translators. It is undoubtedly a "scholarly" translation. I would go so far as to say that the KJV was one of the best and earliest scholarly translations -- the first "modern" translation effort and the first that the translation committee took extraordinary scholarly efforts to "get it right" (within the context of the qualifications for which they were accounted). Likewise, I think that there are other translations that were just as meticulous in their translation -- but using other sources -- many older -- than those that were available in 1611.

I use the KJV, NASB and NIV for most of my Bible reading. I have several print editions on my desk, by my bed and in the living room. I also have other versions too. I read the Blue Letter Bible online -- as well as Bible Gateway (for its extensive collection of Bibles in multiple languages). I think that the Bibles that I choose are good, scholarly versions taken from the sources used by translators for each. This isn't an opinion derived because I "felt it true" but through much study.

We shouldn't ignore textual evidence and merely trust in our own "spiritual leading" to determine that one version is perfect (or best) and that most (or all) others are flawed (or worse -- demonically-inspired). The translators of the KJV weren't so inclined. Erasmus wasn't so inclined when he single-handedly created the Textus Receptus. They were scholars. I am confident that they prayed over their efforts. However, I also think that they would be the first to acknowledge their own fallibility.

It is exciting that we live at a time in which the Bible is so readily accessible to so many people! For all of the arguments over Bible translations, I think that the various translations agree on nearly underlying statements and doctrines -- even if they might be worded slightly differently. The Scripture is clear that to whom much is given, much is required. What will we do with this abundance of the Word? Sit and argue over which version is "perfect" and whether every other version is from Satan? I would rather take the Word of God to a generation that so desperately needs it.

ProudPapa,

I did not intend to offend you, I wrote as honestly as I could.

I will just say Amen to Christopher's post as I agree with all he has put.

///We shouldn't ignore textual evidence and merely trust in our own "spiritual leading" to determine that one version is perfect (or best) and that most (or all) others are flawed ...///

The above advise is not found in the Bible.

Biblical advise would be : lean not on yourself or others peoples site, intelect, flesh
but rather seek the Lord personaly on such subjects. that is to say : own "spiritual leading"

I would again encourage everyone to study Joshua 9 as an example of how unreliable our site, intelect, flesh is at concluding truth when it relies on evidential facts.

This theme is prevalent through out Scripture:

The door of evidence is often shut untill after faith has been applied.

Hi proudpapa,

The above advise is not found in the Bible.

Biblical advise would be : lean not on yourself or others peoples site, intelect, flesh
but rather seek the Lord personaly on such subjects. that is to say : own "spiritual leading"

Actually, it is found in the Bible.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
- I Thessalonians 5:21

This includes all things -- including Bible translations, efforts and, yes, our own "spiritual leadings" (or the "spiritual leadings" of others). Every cult was founded and controlled by men with such "leadings." In fact, I John 4:1 encourages us to "believe not every spirit" and to "try" (or "test") the spirits.

I suspect that we wouldn't appreciate or value the KJV (or any other version) for what it is if we learned that the translators claimed to have preferred being "spiritually led" in their endeavors rather than using their knowledge and skills to translate the Word of God from ancient sources.

There is a real difference between being led of God about a matter and being persuaded by what you attribute to God "leading" you to believe by ignoring or refusing to consider evidence that might show something contrary to what we are inclined to think (or what we want to believe).

I see nothing in Joshua chapter 9 that makes me think that we should dismiss facts and evidence about Bible versions, the methodology used and their sources. Otherwise, translators wouldn't even need to consult sources -- because they could pray and God would supernaturally inspire them without necessitating any sources. Unless God intervenes, a ball that you throw into the air will always fall back to earth because of gravity (at a quantifiable rate) -- whether we are "led" to believe that it will or not.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
- I Thessalonians 5:21

To me it is proven!

and Bro Keith Daniels and many other men much more intune
than you and I Chris have came to the same conviction, You can dismiss that conviction as not being of God but you need to be real careful by how you do that!

And We also need to be real careful at triping others up!
I have already been down that road, that crisis of belief,
It is a pure Hell!
I let go, God kept a hold of me.
Many maybe most never do make a comeback.
Bart Ehrman never did make a comeback, his proffesor layed a snare that he was unable to recover from!

Again To me it is proven!

When you get an answer for that supposed contridiction that tripped you up and about sent you to Hell, from a Man that is filled with the Spirit.
and you start regaining your faith and you start resting on those promises in that book,

you find that it is proven!

When you start studing those multitude of supposed contridictions found between cross referencing the Kings,Chronicals,judges,phrophets etc.
And you inwardly say Lord that appears to be a clear contridiction, why are such minute detail recorded anyhow ?
But you say I am going to believe it anyhow!
And after you stop wrestling in the flesh (intelect) for an answer, and you give up, and the moment you do, (often times not a moment before) : an answer appears. and a whole new layer of Scripture opens up.
The one that the nay sayers are kept out of because of there lack of faith no matter how educated they are.

It has proved its self!

When you start studying how that Jesus and others used the Scripture.

It has proved its self!

When you can not hardly read, barely passed through highschool and only passed because you dated smart girls willing to do your school work.
And you set down and study the Bible with highly educated people whom can not grasp or comphend certain passages that the obvious meaning is as clear as a whistle to you.
, But your IQ is to low that you can not think of the right words to articulate the passage back to them. you relieze :

It has proved its self!

Do not ask me for an answers to your supposed contridictions.
I will not answer you! because you will ask from the wrong heart. And it will be casting pearls to the swine! ,

Hi proudpapa,

To me it is proven!

and Bro Keith Daniels and many other men much more intune
than you and I Chris have came to the same conviction, You can dismiss that conviction as not being of God but you need to be real careful by how you do that!

"Proven?" What is "proven?" What exactly are you saying is "proven?"

What do you mean by "much more intune?" Keith Daniels is nothing more than a man -- a flawed human being who came to Christ. Like any preacher that we admire, we can't take their word as "gospel" simply because they believe something.

I greatly admire the words and ministry of Leonard Ravenhill. I met him in his home when I was still a youth who had recently come to Christ. He exhorted me with that passage -- I Thessalonians 5:21 -- and encouraged me not to "believe" any man or tradition. He said that this was one of the reasons that the church was in the state that it is in.

At this point, I don't know what you are claiming is "proven." Perhaps you can clearly elaborate what you mean?

Do not ask me for an answers to your supposed contridictions.
I will not answer you! because you will ask from the wrong heart. And it will be casting pearls to the swine!

By the way, I am not a "swine." I am very much a child of the King of Kings.

To: The one who asked...and anyone else who cares to know,

My first preference of an english translation is the LITV(Literal Version).

I also read the ALT(Analytical Literal Translation)and CLT(Concordant Literal Translation).

"Proven?" What is "proven?" What exactly are you saying is "proven?"

To "me" my view of inspiration is proven and I gave some examples that confirm that to me.
To the unbeliving it does not matter how much evidence you have they will not believe, that is not my problem.

Now Chris you used first Thessalonians 5:21 out of context, as a proof text that we need to have or look into physical evidence to prove things of faith.

The Scripture teaches just the opposite!

It teaches that God often times test us and takes great delight when we have faith of which the evidence has been withheld from us.
We see it through out Scripture.
As well as we see God taking great delight by breaking the rules of our naturalistic realm, He is not bound by our limited perspective of reality.

Often times we feel the need to "prove" or make our faith fit into the naturalistic realm :
That is what Abraham did, He tried to make his faith fit in the naturalistic realm and it produced Ishmael.

I have well over a 100 books on inspiration all from various perspectives, I have spent a great deal of time studing this subject over the past 7 years or more, Most if not all of what is written on the subject is nothing but Ishmael (mixing faith and the naturalistic)

What do you mean by "much more intune?

Simply what it implies : The Bible speakes of various stages of growth and maturity.
Just as a 5 year old can communicate with his father more clearly than a 3 month old,
Or a 15 year old can communicate with his father more clearly than the 5 year old, We see that there are various levels of maturity and being intune within the Spirtual realm.

edit add :

"I call the KJV the real NIV - Never Improved Version."
”” Leonard Ravenhill

taken from Ravenhills endorsement of Riplingers "New Age Bible Versions"

Proudpapa,

It seems to me (you can tell me I'm wrong) that you are making a lot of contradictory points. You state your position is a faith position and not based on any evidence, but then your proceed to explain how you have 'proof' and have given examples of evidence. You also quote Leonard Ravenhill as endorsing Gail Replinger's book, but I know from previous discussions you don't agree with Replinger (unless you have changed your mind). Leonard Ravenhill unfortunately (as good as he was) also endorsed other people in error such as Paul Cain, so quoting ministers such as him or Keith Daniel is not 'proof'.

You seem to be going to great lengths to try and defend a 'faith' position, as if your very faith in Christ depends on the inspirational infallibility of every word written in the KJV translation. Brother it does not! I hope your faith and confidence is more solid than that.

I don't think anyone is going to change your mind at present as it is made up. but let me just ask a couple of questions to clarify it.

Do you consider the actual English words in the KJV as inspired above the actual Greek (TR) text words they were taken from where they differ?

Would you consider that English certain words used in the KJV that were a good translation in their day can be replaced by similar words that mean the same thing today? An example would be in Matt 10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing" (KJV). A farthing was an English coin of very low value, no longer used today in England and never used in the Middle East or other parts of the world. The actual coin that Jesus used to indicate a small value was an 'assarium'. The KJ translators knew nobody in England would know what that was and so correctly used a 'farthing' to give a translation that faithfully expressed the same thing. So today, as most folk in the world would not know what a 'farthing' is, is it OK to use the word 'penny' or 'cent'? This may seem a silly or small example, but the principle is important.

The KJV of 1611 has been updated more than once, at what point did it become 'unchangeably inspired'?

Hi, Heydave

heydave wrote:

It seems to me (you can tell me I'm wrong) that you are making a lot of contradictory points.

There are no contradictory points, I will try to explain :

You need to keep in mind the questions and statements that Chris is posting.

heydave wrote :

You state your position is a faith position and not based on any evidence, but then your proceed to explain how you have 'proof' and have given examples of evidence.

My position, that I have not contridicted is that :Faith is both the substance and the evidence : That is to say the inward certainty is the "Base" of faith.

My position is consistant in that it : "is a faith position and not "based" on any (physical) evidence"

chis wrote :

We shouldn't ignore textual evidence and merely trust in our own "spiritual leading".

Of which I pointed such 'advise is not found in the Bible.'
Chris posted back with what he supposed was a proof text that we should have physical evidence for things of faith :
Chris wrote :

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
- I Thessalonians 5:21
This includes all things -- including Bible translations,......

My position is not "((based)) on any (physical) evidence" otherwise it would not be faith.
But that is not to imply that inward confirmations or(Proofs) have not followed my step of faith.
and so I shared some examples of those inward confirmations.
And there are also indeed physical evidences that also follow faith, but that is not my "base" or foundation for my belief.

Now I shared all of that, to contrast that with what Chris was implying that I should have as "proof" (Physical Evidence) according to his application of first Thessalonians 5:21:

His application to bring 1 Thess 5:21 into this discussion
is neither Biblical nor what 'Leonard Ravenhill' was implying when he "exhorted" him with the verse.

Heydave wrote:

You also quote Leonard Ravenhill as endorsing Gail Replinger's book, but I know from previous discussions you don't agree with Replinger (unless you have changed your mind).

It was Chris that brought "Leonard Ravenhill" into the discussion and Chris used "Leonard Ravenhill" as one to align himself with, Chris's application of 1 Thes. 5:21 :

Chris Wrote :

I greatly admire the words and ministry of Leonard Ravenhill. I met him in his home when I was still a youth who had recently come to Christ. He exhorted me with that passage -- I Thessalonians 5:21 -- and encouraged me not to "believe" any man or tradition. He said that this was one of the reasons that the church was in the state that it is in.

I do not endorse the writings of Gail Riplinger!
They are filled with consparicy theory. "the New Age Bible versions" is one the most radical kjv only books ever written. Again I do not endorse it!!

"Leonard Ravenhill" did, so much as to write the following endorsement :

"Thanks for your tedious labor of love in producing this monumental book on the New Age versions. We gave the book to folks in strategic positions and will mail out the flyers to intelligent believers. I call the KJV the real NIV - Never Improved Version."
”” Leonard Ravenhill

Hey Dave Wrote :

I don't think anyone is going to change your mind at present as it is made up. but let me just ask a couple of questions to clarify it.

I am not discussing the issue to have my mind changed on the subject!
I am simply answering the original post of this thread from my perspective and answering the various questions that arise.

I do not believe my position is of man so man is not going to convince me otherwise.

I am confident in my view of inspiration.
Unlike other views of inspiration my view aligns with Jesus's usage of the Scriptures.

"A supernatural God must have a supernatural Book."

Hi proudpapa,

Now I shared all of that, to contrast that with what Chris was implying that I should have as "proof" (Physical Evidence) according to his application of first Thessalonians 5:21:

His application to bring 1 Thess 5:21 into this discussion
is neither Biblical nor what 'Leonard Ravenhill' was implying when he "exhorted" him with the verse.

I want to clarify something because it seems that you either misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was saying.

I was not saying that we should not be led of the Spirit of God. I was saying that we shouldn't make claims that are baseless (whether by the Word of God or by pesky facts) and then attribute a position to being Spirit-led.

If someone wants to accuse translators of "omitting" words and phrases during efforts to translate God's Word from a set of sources (sources that do not have those words or phrases in them), then it is reckless to base the accusation on being "led by the Spirit" instead of the evidence.

Every cult does this. They take passages out-of-context (or without reference to New Testament passages at all) and create all sorts of doctrines that are not only extra-biblical, but baseless (meaning that there is no evidence but to blame God for the position that they've taken).

The Mormons often justify the Biblical contradictions, lack of Scriptural anecdotes and general lack of physical evidence when it came to their "new" sets of "scripture" by claiming that truth-seekers will have a "burning in their bosom."

This is the problem. Too many people so easily mistake being "led by faith" with either their "own understanding" or being "persuaded" by someone else. There are plenty of doctrines that often create debates among members of the Body of Christ. I know people who believe in the "rapture." I know people who don't believe in the "rapture." Could you imagine how discussions about it would go if one side (or both sides) claimed that they don't need proof about it -- because they are led by "faith" that it will happen as they suppose?

The same is true with everything in life. I know a person who "spiritualizes" debates over earthly things like medicine or even vaccinations because they dismiss the evidence (or lack thereof) and argue that "God showed them" the "truth" of the matter.

The reason that I brought up Leonard Ravenhill is because you brought up "Keith Daniels and many other men much more intune than you or I" to offer a measure of credibility to your opinion. When I sat in his home with him, his words weren't specific to anything other than the need for believers to "prove" anything and everything in the Church -- especially the claims of ministers and old or new church traditions.

It doesn't matter that any preacher believes that the KJV was "perfect" or the only legitimate version of the Word of God in English. A preacher -- even one as sound in their unction for God as Keith Daniels or Leonard Ravenhill -- can be wrong.

Several years ago, I purchased a Bible message of David Wilkerson speaking at a conference. In the message, he mentioned a sharp disagreement that he had with Keith Green. According to Wilkerson, Keith Green had told people that "God told him" that he would live to see his grandchildren (or something to that effect). Wilkerson said that God doesn't make those types of promises, to which Keith Green became very upset at Wilkerson. A short time later, Keith Green died in a plane crash with two of his children.

Now, I admire both Keith Green and David Wilkerson (even if I think that some things like this don't need to be shared in public). I don't admire Keith Green any less because he might have said that God told him something that God didn't really tell him.

During one of the revival conferences, Paul Washer mentioned something along the lines about not allowing a young man to be alone with his daughter (someone can correct me about the specific nature of what he said). His reply wasn't because he didn't trust the young man, but because he didn't trust himself. In other words, Brother Washer is keenly aware of the war between the flesh and the spirit. With this in mind, it is sometimes difficult to know the difference between God speaking to us and arriving to a conclusion. A minister once responded with a question to someone who always said "God told me" or "God showed me" in regard to doctrine or truth: "Did God really tell you that or did you just figure it out?"

My point is not that we cannot be led by faith. Of course we are. However, faith is not the state of arrival to a "persuasion" or a "conclusion." We have faith in God and His Word. Period. We should never have "faith" in our own understanding or even belief that God "told us" or "showed us" when it is not backed up by His Word.

God has done many great and marvelous things for us. Personally, God has moved in ways for me that I would scarcely write about in this forum because I wonder whether some of it would be believable and, more importantly, I would never want to boast or rob God of the glory of something that He did or accomplished. Even with all of the amazing wonders that I have seen with my own eyes or experienced firsthand, I would never trust in my own "spiritual intuition" as being so trustworthy as to make bold statements about things that aren't found in the Word of God.

So, when I speak about it being unwise to ignore textual evidence and rely upon one's own "spiritual leading," I am not saying that we should not have faith. I am saying that we should have faith in Christ above all else -- but remain aware of our own humanity on this side of the "glass darkly." We are still but imperfect clay vessels on this side of eternity.

Sometimes, it is better to not take a hard position -- one so loudly proclaimed -- than to take a hard position in which we might not be correct. This is particularly true of issues in which an essential answer is not found in the Word of God. After all, we shall give an account for our words on that Day. Rather, I believe that we should be soft and tender in the hands of our Lord -- fully aware of how potentially "out of tune" we can be at times in this earthly shell.

Heydave asked

Do you consider the actual English words in the KJV as inspired above the actual Greek (TR) text words they were taken from where they differ?

The Bible is Supernatural! it is not limited to our finite minds, It is a divine Book, not merely a human book, It is a Sanctified Book not merely a product of the flesh!

I Believe that Jesus was born of a "Virgin" and that it was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14,
translations through out history including the Greek translations into the old testament have rendered the Inspired Truth on the matter Clearly!
Where as the original laungage is more ambigous on the above passage.

heydave asked

Would you consider that English certain words used in the KJV that were a good translation in their day can be replaced by similar words that mean the same thing today?

1769 edition is modern and easy enough for me.

I am "Personally" not convinced that God is calling anyone to make a new edition, If He is or has, the fruit will bare witness. (And by fruit I am not referring to good sales by a stategic marketing plan.)

I am in agreement with Charles Spurgeon : "...our Authorized Version, which will never be bettered,as I judge,till Christ shall come;.."

Edit add: Chris,
we are just going around in circles, You feel misinterpreted by me and I definetly fill misinterpreted by you.

You are intitled to your opinion, extend that arm of grace to others and stop comparing those whom disagree with you on such subjects with cults and mocking and belittling there "spirtual Leadings" .

It needs to be pointed out that in this thread that no one has been insisting that everyone embrace the same conviction on inspiration of the English Bible as what I or others have.
I have been sharing my conviction based on the question of the original post and answering questions that have been attacking my personal Conviction on the matter.
I am not the head of another mans Conscience!

ProudPapa, You did not answer the question about the use of the word 'Farthing' in the KJV. Do you think that 'Farthing' was the word Jesus used and Matthew recorded? Bear in mind that the Farthing was first produced in the 13th century in England. Is that word 'inspired'? Or can we put the original word in it's place or even use a more current currency such as a penny?

I believe this is sufficient answer:

"I am "Personally" not convinced that God is calling anyone to make a new edition, If He is or has, the fruit will bare witness. (And by fruit I am not referring to good sales by a stategic marketing plan.)"

I have no quarrels with such renderings in the Bible.

I believe my overall view can be understood pretty clear by all the previous post that I have written in this thread. I am about ready to retire myself from this thread.

add:
It needs to be pointed out that in this thread that no one has been insisting that everyone embrace the same conviction on inspiration of the English Bible as what I or others have.
I have been sharing my conviction based on the question of the original post and answering questions that have been attacking my personal Conviction on the matter.
I am not the head of another mans Conscience!

Hi proudpapa,

Edit add: Chris,
we are just going around in circles, You feel misinterpreted by me and I definetly fill misinterpreted by you.

You are intitled to your opinion, extend that arm of grace to others and stop comparing those whom disagree with you on such subjects with cults and mocking there "spirtual Leadings" .

It needs to be pointed out that in this thread that no one has been insisting that everyone embrace the same conviction on inspiration of the English Bible as what I or others have.
I have been sharing my conviction based on the question of the original post and answering questions that have been attacking my personal Conviction on the matter.
I am not the head of another mans Conscience!

It isn't the issue of being misinterpreted that I take issue with. It is the response to such misinterpretation. We are all prone to it -- and I am often the worse. This is why I think that vocalizations (even in a forum) with arguments that are absolutely for and against something that is truly a non-essential matter might not be the wisest move (and I am trying to learn this grace everyday).

This is the point behind my concern about invoking a "spiritual leading" with issues that do necessitate facts. Bible translation -- translating Scripture into a modern language from original, ancient text sources -- requires knowledge and skill.

Yes, I suppose that someone could be supernaturally gifted by the Lord to translate ancient text sources into modern English. I know that the Lord can supernaturally empower a person who doesn't know ancient languages and gift them with the words to create a modern manuscript that is entirely faithful to the original sources (or the original from which those sources were taken). However, that isn't what the translators of the KJV did. They were educated men given the task (with certain qualifications) to translate the Bible into what was then the modern English vernacular.

While I trust that they were prayerful men (despite any disagreements that I have with some of their high church traditions), they didn't rely only upon the Lord to give them words. Like David with a sling and five smooth stones, I think that they did what they could with what they had to the best of their ability and relied upon God to do the rest.

I agree that no one is stating a belief that one must agree with any particular opinion on Bible translation. However, there have been words written here (and elsewhere) that do publicly discount certain translations, translators or, conversely, suggest that one version is supreme above all. While not quite the same as requiring submission to a particular opinion, sometimes the disqualification of other facts might be seen as a back door method of propping a particular view (or version).

I love you, brother. I know that you mean well and have a deep, abiding love for the Word of God.

QUOTE:
______________________________________________________________

I have been told about a comical yet sad story about one of our local pastors trying to raise funds to send bibles to China. One gentleman said he would only donate if the bibles were KJV. The pastor had to lovingly explain to him that these would be Chinese translations.
______________________________________________________________

Reminds me of a saying/story:

An Amish man loved the German Bible, insisting it was THE Bible one should use. None other. Asked to explain why he believe that he said, "why in the garden [of Eden] God said 'Adam, vo bish do?'" English: "Adam, where are you?" Since God spoke German then this is his language of choice.

BTW, I do know of people who can read German and they prefer it above the English. So maybe one should learn German so we can read it??!

(Yes, I can speak PA Dutch and understand some German but have no interest at the moment to learn to read it.)

Seems to me the greater problem is lack of obedience to the WORD then what translation we use.

My opinion.

Sandra

///Seems to me the greater problem is lack of obedience to the WORD then what translation we use. ///

Often times when we believe the Words Written, we find out that our traditions had blinded us from the truth of the text.

edit and add:

Often times obedience to our traditions is not obedience to the WORD.

The Amish man is Amish regardless of what translation he has.!
His obedience is to his Amish hierarchy,
What they say the Bible says he agrees or else he is shunned.
His only hope is to start believing the words written and if he does he will realize that the Amish hierarchy has served as a covering between him and his true Head.

thank you, Julius21

I am unable to download youtube from my computer, so I can not see it.

add :
"some people believe that you can only come to the Son through the King James Bible".

I have never read or heard anyone make such a statement.

Tim Conway did one on the subject He was very inaccurate.
He had a very poor understanding on the subject.

Julius, brother I didn't read the words list or look it up because I don't read the NKJV.

I love y'all as much as anyone can who's never met you. I mean it sincerely. SI is a real spiritual resource to me, especially these boards. It is so hard to find brethren with a serious heart about the things of God.

Example: I have a very old friend -- in fact we're having lunch together today -- that I've known since 1975, 3rd grade. He is a "big box" church Christian, born and raised on the largest evangelical denomination in the nation. We've eaten lunch twice together over the summer. Both times, spiritual matters came up. First -- he lamented his 19 year old daughter's departure from church for "hypocrisy". Well, I knew what she meant! She's been raised on the set of a well orchestrated production and her parents have reinforced that the appearance of things is vital, but they wink at sin. No wonder she left! If Jesus was what we see in that setting, we'd leave, too. Well, I told him about our meeting. He looked at me like I was from Mars. :) I told him, "Look, man. It is time to be serious about God. Young people are no different from anyone else. They know when they are being lied to. Life in the church has gotten to where it seems everyone does what they want and then they come together under one roof and everyone is expected to play by the goody-two-shoes script. That way is dead and she knows it. And you ought to encourage her to come be with us. We'd love to have her. And you and your wife should come too. I believe the time is short. Play time is over."

Seems blunt? Yes. But, trust me -- my friend requires a bit of brute force to get him to see things. :) Last week, we had lunch (#2) and he mentioned how some of his friends and he were at some sort of cookout. All belonged to same little cadre of churches. And, some were drinking alcohol. He had to add, "You know, I don't drink much. Just, you know, a little bit from time to time." And, he looked at me to wait for a response, so I gave him my pat speech about the inner desire of everyone to please themselves, that Christians who drink in our southern culture know what the Bible says, but they drink to please themselves. And while they may not be disobeying any express prohibitions on drinking, they are most likely shoving aside the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit that tells them, "Don't." And, they are certainly going to be hard pressed to offer a reason for drinking other than pleasing themselves, and there is a very positive, life-giving, God-praising way to live and act that decides "I'm not doing that because it would only please me and would not please God, and He's not neutral about that."

Mars expression again.

So, this last week, he texted me, saying, "If y'all are not having your bible meeting Saturday night, go see Mission Impossible with us." I texted back, "We're meeting. You come, too." He texted back with a smile, "I would come over there if y'all were gonna be hunting international fugitives, breaking up espionage operatives, dangling from skyscrapers and helicopters, hacking international computer programs and kicking butt in hand to hand combat. LOL"

I smiled. I almost said we'll be doing way more than that. We'll be fighting against powers and principalities and spiritual wickedness in heavenly realms, sabotaging the spirit of the age and hanging onto Jesus for dear life, learning not to be ignorant of Satan's schemes in prayer war combat. But, it struck me as being self-righteous so I just smiled and let it go.

All that did happen, though, by the way. :)

My point is, guys, that SI is about seriousness about God. And, this whole KJV discussion seems to become really about the quality and kind of faith we each have. If the KJV is truly an instrument in the Lord's hands -- and it is, but not singularly so -- He never intended us to wield it on each other or to try and dislodge it from one another's hands.

If we walk together in Christ, you keep on believing in the supremacy and uniqueness of the KJV. Just don't throw me away because I disagree with you.

///If we walk together in Christ, you keep on believing in the supremacy and uniqueness of the KJV. Just don't throw me away because I disagree with you.///

Sounds good to me.

What I told a leader in our fellowship ( Whom uses the NIV, which is drastically different in many areas when it comes to serious bible study) :
In the areas our Bibles agree I am in agreement where they disagree I am in disagreement.

When I was 17 years old I had a conversation with my Dad.
He said something of this effect: I believe the Bible was correct when it was originally given, but man has so tampered with it, that it is impossable to know what is original or not. (So the natural conclusion and what he was implying is believe what ever you want from it and dismiss what ever you want.)

My response was Life Changing for him : "I said : either the Bible is inspired or we do not have anything!, I said I believe my KJV is inspired, as far as all the other versions I do not know.

I had a brother that was born that same year.
at 13 years old, though he never has hardly stepped foot in a church building, he had read the KJV cover to cover 3 times.

Hi Julius21,

I think that most of us here can agree that there is an eternal war on God's Word -- a war that existed thousands of years ago when God's Word was contained on separate scrolls. It has always been going on and I think that realizing this is a good mindset when studying the Scriptures.

We are so blessed in this generation to have the Bible so readily at our fingertips! Just 550-600 years ago, only a select few possessed copies of the Bible. You went to "church" meetings to have it read (and often in Latin).

At the same time, I think that part of the debate isn't so much the awareness of this war on God's Word but the proposition that many (if not most...or even all) modern, readable translations are an instrument of Satan in that war.

Like I said, I use the KJV, NASB and NIV. I also refer to the Bible in Spanish through a couple of Spanish-language editions (a couple of which predate the KJV). I use the Blue Letter Bible and Strong's Concordance daily. I use other study tools available for each. I cherish God's Word in any edition and cross compare when I might not understand a particular term or if I want to see a passage that is translated from different sources (and even then I often refer back to the sources to know why a particular passage was worded as such).

Do you think that I am serious about the Scriptures and the Lord?

Do you think that other believers who use various versions for Bible study are serious about the Scriptures and the Lord?

Just like you felt that there was a mocking tone from that preacher's words ("some people believe that you can only come to the Son through the King James Bible"), some people might find a condescending or even judgmental tone coming from KJV-only advocates who perceive that they have come to the light of understanding on the issue and that others with a different opinion -- no matter the prayer or the time that they have spent studying the issue in-depth -- are either misguided or, worse, deceived.

Personally, when it comes to KJV-only or strong debates on SermonIndex about Bible translations, I see three different types of convictions among those who engage in this discussion (and, sometimes, one person might adhere to two or three of these notions):

1.) The KJV is perfect.
2.) The KJV is intrinsically better than modern versions.
3.) Most or all modern translations are bad.

SermonIndex has had different people make strong KJV-only pushes over the twelve years that I have been here. Most of the times, they sounded eerily familiar to one another and quote (or copied/pasted) the same material from the same KJV-only websites, newsletters or books. Eventually, the usually-on-the-home-page forum debates stopped when that person left the SI membership.

In many of these debates, I would ask the person pushing the KJV-only view if they were aware that they were actually teaching two different notions (that the KJV is perfect or better than all other versions of the Bible AND that modern translations are bad). I pointed out that in almost all of the defenses of the KJV, the underlying defense for the position was to attack all other versions or sources. This is often a logic fallacy based upon "false alternative." In a nutshell, it sort of goes like this:

"B is bad, so A is the only solution."

In these sorts of debates, it is more along the lines of:

"Modern Bible translations are bad, so the KJV is the only good translation."

In one debate, I was asked why I was always defending the NIV and its translators. My response was because he was always attacking it and I was sorting through his attack claim by claim. However, I also stated, "An attack on the NIV is a terrible defense of the KJV-only position." In other words, his narrative was structured around the notion that all other versions are bad and that, by proving so, people would cling to what he structured as the only alternative (that the KJV was perfect). So, I began pointing out some of the issues with the KJV. I pointed out words and passages that were obviously mis-translated. I used some of his same levels of scrutiny that he used to "discredit" the translators of modern versions toward the translators of the KJV. When it came down to the crux of the matter, this brother saw this as an "attack on the Word of God" -- meaning that the same sort of scrutiny that he applied to the wording, sources or translators of the NIV, NASB or other versions could not be applied to the KJV because it was "the Word of God."

I explained to this brother that his premise that the KJV is a "perfectly preserved" version of Scripture has not been substantiated and that attacks on modern versions, translators or the ancient sources used by those translators could not substantiate the initial claim that the KJV was "perfectly preserved." Yet, this brother continued to feel and act as though it was his mission to convert people to his belief about the KJV as an immaculate translation. I often thought that it would be good for believers to have as much drive to "convert" others to Christ as some have a desire to convert to an opinion or belief about things like the best Bible versions.

I appreciate what Tim (dolfan) wrote earlier. I do hope that you understand that I do not believe that believers who feel that the KJV is the best English translation of Scripture are in any way inferior to anyone else. I do take issue with those who assert that it is the only acceptable English version (or, in some cases, the only acceptable version of the Bible in any language). We should not decide to refrain from fellowship with one another over something like Bible version preference (even if we are strongly convinced of our position). This world is growing darker by the hour and we need all of the spiritual encouragement that we can get from fellowship with others who love the Lord and His Word.

proudpapa,

I am sorry you missed the point of my post; instead focusing on the Amish. This was mere incidential to the story.

Sandra

Hi, Julius --

The "magic marker" article, IMO, is unfair. I understand that there is substantial and sharp disagreement whether those words were in the manuscripts. This goes to the heart of the whole KJV dispute. If I comment on these differences that the article says were just "magic marker"-ed out by Westcott and Hort, all we're doing is stepping back into the entire KJV-as-best-debate.

It IS a helpful analytical tool to see where these passages differ. I love looking at the differences and why they exist and what importance they are, if any --- and in so many instances the differences are of no importance whatsoever. The only way each difference becomes intensely important is if the KJV is the singular God-anointed English translation. Well, I think we've covered that already and we're just not going to agree. I love you. We're not going to agree.

The other article, the one with the chart of differences, is not useful, IMO. No Christian reads the New World Translation. So, it's a non-issue. The "NWT" may as well have moonshine and hossenpfeffer recipes in it; it would be more useful if it did. And, I don't care to get into the NIV differences so much because the NIV is a functional translation (or 'dynamic equivalence', as they say) as opposed to a formal translation. I don't read "dynamic equivalence" translations. In my view, they are more akin to commentaries than actual Bibles. No slight to my NIV reading brothers and sisters, but I just don't use it. Nor do I use any other functional translation, like MSG or AMP, which are basically commentaries and not very good ones at that. Soooooo, ---- :) ---- the comparison of KJV to NIV wins out every time IMO simply because KJV is formal as opposed to functional, making the chart totally useless in my own view.

The website av1611.whatever is not a kind or lovingly stated website. It masters the art of name-calling and lumping anyone who disagrees with them into the lake of fire, more or less. They are poor advocates for the bible.

////I am sorry you missed the point of my post; instead focusing on the Amish. This was mere incidential to the story.////

Yes, Sandra, after rereading it several times I see that I did miss the point. I owe you an apology : I am sorry.

Tim wrote : ///The other article, the one with the chart of differences, is not useful, IMO. No Christian reads the New World Translation. So, it's a non-issue. ///

I had written earler : ///When I was 17 years old I had a conversation with my Dad.
He said something of this effect: I believe the Bible was correct when it was originally given, but man has so tampered with it, that it is impossable to know what is original or not. (So the natural conclusion and what he was implying is believe what ever you want from it and dismiss what ever you want.)
My response was Life Changing for him : "I said : either the Bible is inspired or we do not have anything!, I said I believe my KJV is inspired, as far as all the other versions I do not know.

I had a brother that was born that same year.
at 13 years old, though he never has hardly stepped foot in a church building, he had read the KJV cover to cover 3 times///

My Dads Mom was a JW she died before I was born. ,
Shortly before the above conversation had taken place my Dad had purshased (donation) a NWT from the visiting JWs.

From my Dads position an evengelical is no better than a JW. If I would have tried persuading him to use another modern translation, I would have hit a stone wall.

Help me understand the point. So, your dad read the KJV? Great! Because my younger brother grew up JW, too and was pretty much dialed in on it well into adulthood until his JW wife cheated on him and left him. So, if your dad became a Christian, praise God and pray for my brother.

If your dad isn't a Christian, I hope whatever happens he avoids the NWT. It is garbage. It isn't even a translation. It is propaganda pretending to be a translation. I read that the translators of the NWT were not Hebrew or Greek scholars AT ALL, and that one of them (there were 5) failed a simple Hebrew test in a British court case.

Re: ///Help me understand the point. So, your dad read the KJV?///

My Dad accepted my point that either the Bible is inspired or we do not have anything.

He accepts the supremacy of the KJV, this has helped to distance him away from the JWs and is leading him in the right direction.

God is good. May His mercy bring your dad to Himself, bro.

Hi proudpapa,

You have mentioned various reasons why you disapprove of most "modern" Bible translations. I understand those reasons even if I disagree with many (if not most) of them. However, you haven't really touched on why you believe in the "supremacy" of the KJV.

Why do you believe in the supremacy of the KJV?

I know some brothers (like my cousin) who adhere to a KJV-only view, but their research is limited to websites, books and other sources that aren't really primary sources at all. They are mostly secondary sources (like the av1611 website) which are greatly suspect or have become the internet equivalent of hearsay (repeating what others have read from other secondhand sources). My cousin is actually one of the more ardent KJV-only advocates -- believing that the KJV is a literal fulfillment of Bible prophecy to "preserve" God's Word.

When I point this out the lack of evidence by which to support his premise (about the KJV being perfect or even the best version) to my cousin, he feels that questioning the credibility of websites or other secondhand sources (like the av1611 website or claims by Jack Chick) is tantamount to an "attack" on the KJV and, by default, Jesus.

Still, my cousin acknowledges that he isn't well-read on the creation of the KJV or the views and methods of its translators. In addition, he also has a "take it by faith" and not by "research" attitude toward embracing the KJV. This allows me to point out that he believes in "researching" all sorts of books, websites, tracts and periodicals that paint modern translations and translators in a negative light, but he doesn't do the same with the KJV. His answer is usually that he doesn't have a problem with the KJV, so that is why he doesn't need to study its creation in depth. It is a form of circular reasoning for him.

Do you have some a list of the primary sources by which you looked into the creation of the KJV? These would include those sources that you relied upon about how it was created, the qualifications that the translators were forced to adhere to or even the beliefs of the translators?

The reason that I ask is that this debate is really about two different premises:
- One is that the KJV is either absolutely or supernaturally perfect (as my cousin believes) or that it is intrinsically better than most/all other versions.
- The second premise is that other versions are bad -- either poor translations from questionable sources or, as some even suggest, the work of Satan.

In most of the many, many debates over Bible translations, I have noticed that many shape this debate as one issue. It is as if they think that by proving some sort of error or nefarious origins and methodology for other versions, it supports the primary premise that the KJV is either perfect or better than all (or nearly all) other versions.

I'm interested in knowing why you support this primary premise without taking into account the second premise about your issues with other translations.

This is not any sort of "trick question" or double-minded purpose. I'm just interested in what your reasons for believing in the "supremacy of the KJV" might be. Have you applied the same level of scrutiny to this version as compared with other versions? If no, why?

Good questions
I am going to sleep on this and go to work tomorrow, and if I feel lead I will share after that, If not maybe in a couple of days I will, if I feel lead.
Even though I think if you would reread all of my post from start to finish in this thread that you could get a fairly good perspective.

I have intentionally stayed out of the manuscript debate for two reasons

1) All the views are theories, they are all opinions ,speculations ,educated guesses. All of the views.
With all hypothesis man has to pretend and imagine and guess. And often times Men are wrong in there conclusions.
We as Christians relize that from evolution.

2.) Physical Evidence is not the Base of my Faith.

add:
I would also caution you Chris on building a strawman.
It just is not honest.

Hi proudpapa,
You have mentioned various reasons why you disapprove of most "modern" Bible translations. I understand those reasons even if I disagree with many (if not most) of them. However, you haven't really touched on why you believe in the "supremacy" of the KJV.

I am confused as why you would say that?
Because I feel that most of my post have been touching on the "supremacy" of the KJV and not so much focused on the disapproval of the "modern" Bible translations.

Why do you believe in the supremacy of the KJV

Let me reword the question because it is vital to understand my position. In essence what you are asking me is :
Why do I hold to the view of the Inspiration of the Bible as what I do !

So I would ask you Chris or anyone else :

What is your view of the Inspiration of the Bible and why do you hold to it ?

I know some brothers (like my cousin) who adhere to a KJV-only view, but their research is limited to websites, books and other sources that aren't really primary sources at all. They are mostly secondary sources (like the av1611 website) which are greatly suspect or have become the internet equivalent of hearsay (repeating what others have read from other secondhand sources). My cousin is actually one of the more ardent KJV-only advocates -- believing that the KJV is a literal fulfillment of Bible prophecy to "preserve" God's Word.

Lets becareful with making sure we do not create a Strawman. (just a word of caution) Doing so is a very common tactic when it comes to this subject and it is dishonest.

Do you have some a list of the primary sources by which you looked into the creation of the KJV? These would include those sources that you relied upon about how it was created, the qualifications that the translators were forced to adhere to or even the beliefs of the translators?

I have well over a 100 books on this basic subject all from various perspectives, I have spent a great deal of time studing this subject over the past 7 years or more.

In front of me I have : The Legacy of the KJV by Leland Ryken, In the Beginning by Alister McGrath, Bible story of KJV by Gordon Campbell, King James his Bible and its Translators by Laurence Vance, Majestie The King behind the KJB David Teems and several more in the other room on the shelves.

My study of the subject is post faith not the base for my faith.

have to get to work now.

In the mean time I want to ask Chris specifically but also everyone else.

What is your view of the Inspiration of the Bible and why do you hold to it ?

And what about the Canon, Do you hold to the "historic Christian belief that the Holy Spirit, who controlled the writings of the individual books, also controlled there selection and collection, thus continuing to fulfil our Lord's promise that He would guide His disciples into all truth .1" ?

source
1.) p.21 FF Bruce : The new Testament documents are they reliable: Eeradmans

Hi proudpapa,

Before I address your statements or questions, I’ll address this:

add:
I would also caution you Chris on building a strawman.
It just is not honest.

Lets becareful with making sure we do not create a Strawman. (just a word of caution) Doing so is a very common tactic when it comes to this subject and it is dishonest.

I’m puzzled and not entirely sure why you would think that my questions were a "straw man.” A "straw man,” simply put, is rhetorically redefining your position in a way that it would be easier to refute or rebut. That isn’t what I am doing here.

I asked you three questions:

1.)\tWhy do you believe in the supremacy of the KJV?
2.)\tDo you have some a list of the primary sources by which you looked into the creation of the KJV?
3.)\tHave you applied the same level of scrutiny to this version as compared with other versions? If no, why?

I asked the first question because you stated that your dad has "accepted the supremacy of the KJV” and your discussion on this top has pointed to a belief that there is a supremacy of the KJV when compared to other translations. You also stated in regard to the "supremacy” of the KJV that "I am confused as why you would say that? Because I feel that most of my post have been touching on the "supremacy" of the KJV and not so much focused on the disapproval of the "modern" Bible translations.”

I asked the second question because you have never indicated any primary, firsthand sources that you have referred to when writing about both modern versions (and I mean "modern” in an after-the-KJV sense) or the KJV itself ”“ including it translators, methods, qualifications, sources, etc…

I asked the third question because I believe that it is crucial to your argument. Like I pointed out previously, there are two separate perspectives in regard to this debate over the Bible. One is that the modern versions are bad. The other is that the KJV is better. While I understand that you believe that most of your posts have been about the "supremacy” of the KJV, it seems that the evidence and claims are mostly directed at modern versions. I haven’t seen much in your posts that would give evidence to your primary premise that the KJV is superior (or supreme) to other versions.

Thus, my questions didn’t build any "straw man” argument by which I hope to counter. In fact, I don’t want to "win” or "lose” any debate in the first place. That is not my intention. I pray that I am pliable enough in the hands of the Lord to not settle on any position that isn’t His position. I certainly am not an ideologue. If I find something that might convince me one way or the other, I would quickly move to that position.

I have well over a 100 books on this basic subject all from various perspectives, I have spent a great deal of time studing this subject over the past 7 years or more.

In front of me I have : The Legacy of the KJV by Leland Ryken, In the Beginning by Alister McGrath, Bible story of KJV by Gordon Campbell, King James his Bible and its Translators by Laurence Vance, Majestie The King behind the KJB David Teems and several more in the other room on the shelves.

My study of the subject is post faith not the base for my faith.

I understand that you have studied this subject for the past seven years or more and that you have a great many books on this matter. I think that this is true of many of us. I have read the books by Ryken and McGrath, but I will certainly look up the others that you mentioned. I have an extensive library of my own ”“ including a section on the history of the Word of God.

Still, these are books written about the translation or translators. My question was more along the lines of the firsthand accounts of the translators or translation process. Some of these are certainly cited in the notes of these types of books, but I think that it is wise to look them up. After all, if we are going to consider evidence for or against other versions, we should be able to apply that same level of scrutiny to the KJV.

I will note that Dr. Ryken is a strong supporter of the ESV. I’m interested in knowing your thoughts on that modern version too.

Let me reword the question because it is vital to understand my position. In essence what you are asking me is :
Why do I hold to the view of the Inspiration of the Bible as what I do !

So I would ask you Chris or anyone else :

What is your view of the Inspiration of the Bible and why do you hold to it ?

I believe that the Word of God is literally inspired by God. I believe that God has preserved His Word through the ages and appears in various translations. Why do I hold to it? I hold to my belief in the Word of God by faith and the various translations that I use by studying them to find those that I believe to be the most accurate representation of their sources. This is why I adhere to the KJV, NASB and NIV as the some of the best translations from their source texts.

During my journeys to the Tarahumara (Rarámuri) in the dense and rugged pine-covered mountains of the Sierra Madre Occidental of Chihuahua, Mexico, I met and became acquainted with a pastor in a Tarahumara village. I’ve shared this testimony previously here at SermonIndex forums. The Tarahumara are largely animalists (believing in many spirits), and few speak Spanish or are even aware of the "outside world" in Mexico. Many still live in caves and are not aware that other groups exist other than the Tarahumara in the area.

Before he was saved, this pastor stated that he became deathly ill. The government doctor assigned to the Tarahumara told him (in their native language) that there was no hope. He only asked him whether he wanted to die in the small Mexican town, or if he wanted to make the seven day run back to his village. He decided to return home to die.

The man’s condition eventually grew worse. One night, he sat out of his cave in the mountains looking at the stars. He wondered if there was a "god" who was supreme to the other "gods" -- perhaps one that could have created all things. This man said that he heard a voice (even though he is unsure of whether it was audible or inside), and the voice told him, "I am the Lord, the God who created all there is. If I heal you, will you serve me?" He spoke to God and told him, "Yes." The voice told him, "Now give me your heart." He gave his heart to God, and later began leading other Tarahumara to God. He said that the Lord would speak to him "inside” while he would pray.

One day while praying, he felt like God was asking him to make the journey to the town. He didn’t know why, but he felt like he needed to go. While he was there waiting outside of stores and a train station, he would listen to the people speaking in Spanish ”“ a language that was foreign to him. Within a short period of time (I can’t remember the amount of time), he understood what they were saying and could even read the language. One day, a missionary walked up to him in that town and gave him a Bible in Spanish.

He took this Bible and made the journey home. He was amazed that many of the things that the living God told him was written in the book. Over the time that he was praying and had no Bible, God would speak to him "inside” very specific things. The Bible that he held in his hand now confirmed those things from the Lord. He said that he was surprised that the Bible was written thousands of years earlier. This man is now the pastor of a congregation of Tarahumara believers in his village.

The day that I gave my heart to the Lord at a youth camp, I was asked to select a "favorite verse” for my small "share group.” Previously, I was quite agnostic ”“ unsure of whether there was a God or not ”“ even if I pretended to be a "part” of the youth group if only to get them off of my back. My mom had forced me to go to church and camp and I sort of developed an "if you can’t beat them, join them” philosophy to placate my mom and to keep the youth pastor from trying to convert me.

Since I didn’t know the Bible, I just opened up this Bible (that I had rarely opened previously) and looked for a verse. I found Matthew 11:28-30 and it sounded fine (and it was written in red, so I thought that this would be a bonus since Jesus said it). I was nervous about sharing my verse with the others. However, when it was my turn, I read it. The group leader smiled, thanked me and went to the next person to read their verse. I had never really studied the Bible before, but I had heard lots of Scriptures in Church. However, this one grabbed my heart like no other! All day long, the words of that passage occupied my thoughts. "Come to me.” "Learn from me.” "I will give you rest.”

That night, as I walked alone in a field and stared into the expanse of the night sky, I heard the Lord tell me, "You don't know me." The voice was not audible. It was a deep, inner voice. But it was real. I poured my everything out to God that evening. I told him that I would trade all that I was and all that I would ever be if I could just know him and if He would be my friend.

Why do I hold to the inspiration of the Word of God?

The Word of God is alive. The Lord used a passage that I just didn’t really know to grasp hold of my heart and draw me to Him. Before this experience, I had become afraid of the possibility that God exists and the consequence of not knowing (or even wanting) Him. If God exists, I reasoned that I was doomed for eternity. I was afraid of death because of it.

The night I poured my life out to God like water, I knew that I knew the Lord. I knew that I was "saved.” I wasn’t afraid of dying because I knew the Creator of life and the universe. In fact, I sort of wanted to die that night ”“ if only to see the face of the God that I had just met (and I didn’t want this feeling of knowing God to go away).

I know that I have digressed somewhat, but I hope that this gives you a little more light into who I am and why the Word of God means so much to me. I know that the Word of God is inspired ”“ living and active. It transformed my heart from being an unbeliever to a believer in a moment.

What we better all do is make sure we have plenty of hard copies of our favorites. There is at this moment a regional outage of all 3 major cell carriers in the Tennessee Valley and in the N KY and S IN areas. You would think wormwood had fallen already. People are just moping around saying "I dont have a cell" or "my cell is out" like they were programmed to say that over and over.

It makes me think if and when bibles are blocked, and all we have are digital copies, we will be in real need.

Chris, thank you for your replies, if you get a chance, I would be interested in your answer to this :

And what about the Canon, Do you hold to the "historic Christian belief that the Holy Spirit, who controlled the writings of the individual books, also controlled there selection and collection, thus continuing to fulfil our Lord's promise that He would guide His disciples into all truth .1" ?

source
1.) p.21 FF Bruce : The new Testament documents are they reliable: Eeradmans

ADD: I would also be interested in your thoughts concerning the : "Gender-Neutral Controversey ?

"And what about the Canon, Do you hold to the 'historic Christian belief that the Holy Spirit, who controlled the writings of the individual books, also controlled there selection and collection, thus continuing to fulfil our Lord's promise that He would guide His disciples into all truth'?"

I do. I don't think His doing so is the singular fulfillment of Jesus' promise to lead us to all truth through the Holy Spirit.

Hi dolfan,

I agree. I have hard copies of my Bibles of choice. While I study them quite a bit (I currently need to replace a couple of copies that are falling apart), I also use BibleGateway, BlueLetterBible and a few other resources. I certainly don't want some sort of internet glitch to hurt my ability to read the Word.

"I certainly don't want some sort of internet glitch to hurt my ability to read the Word."

LOL :)

I will note that Dr. Ryken is a strong supporter of the ESV. I’m interested in knowing your thoughts on that modern version too.

It is very important to take into consideration there background when reading there books.

As far as my view of the ESV : I believe that there where many wounderful christians whom served on the ESV committee!

I believe they where sincear in there translation!

I like the basic premise of there translation theory!
It is refreashing in comparason to the NIVs dynamic equivalence theory.

I believe that God can illuminate through it!

I agree with there desire but disagree with there conclusion : that they are an offspring of the KJV,
They maybe a stepchild but they are not an offspring of the KJV, they are from a different textual line.

Hi proudpapa,

Chris, thank you for your replies, if you get a chance, I would be interested in your answer to this :

And what about the Canon, Do you hold to the "historic Christian belief that the Holy Spirit, who controlled the writings of the individual books, also controlled there selection and collection, thus continuing to fulfil our Lord's promise that He would guide His disciples into all truth .1" ?

source
1.) p.21 FF Bruce : The new Testament documents are they reliable: Eeradmans

I am not entirely sure about the exact nature of the question.

Do I believe that the books of the Bible are canon and inspired? Yes.

Do I believe that a particular group of men were "inspired by the Holy Spirit" to select them? That is a complex question for which there are various considerations necessary in regard to which collection of books that were considered "canon" over time. I don't know about how "led of the Holy Spirit" any of them (or all of them) were at any given point. After all, even the KJV included the books of the Apocrypha -- which I reject those books because I don't believe that they are "inspired."

I will say this: I believe that there are good reasons why the 66 different books are each a part of our two "testaments" of the Word of God. In fact, the Scriptures substantiate one another -- and they don't contradict one another in terms of the message or prophecies. I believe that the Holy Spirit also bears witness to this when we read it. When I read the apocrypha in a copy of the 1611 KJV that I purchased (the KJV included the books of the Apocrypha which the committees translated for about 274 years).

As for any "missing" books: We know that there were at least a couple of inspired books in the Bible that have been lost to history. Enoch is referenced in the New Testament (Jude 1:14-15). So are books like "Shemaiah" (II Chronicles 12:15), "Acts of Solomon" (I Kings 11:41), the "Story of the Prophet Iddo" (II Chronicles 13:22), "Book of Jehu" (II Chronicles 20:34), "Book of Gad the Seer" (I Chronicles 29:29) as well as additional epistles to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 5:9) and Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3). There are quite a few other epistles and books referenced in our Scriptures that do not appear among our 66 books.

However, I believe that within the 66 books of Scripture that we have, we are provided what we need as believers in terms of doctrine. I believe that there is a consensus among believers that these 66 books are inspired by God.

As for page 21 from the FF Bruce source, I don't know what you mean by this inclusion.

ADD: I would also be interested in your thoughts concerning the : "Gender-Neutral Controversey ?

I don't read those specific, revised "gender-neutral" versions of Scripture. I disagree with making something "gender-neutral" if the gender was not neutral in the source texts.

As for page 21 from the FF Bruce source, I don't know what you mean by this inclusion.

My question was a direct statement from that source : the parenthesis was the statement

1. Why do you believe in the supremacy of the KJV?
I asked the first question because you stated that your dad has "accepted the supremacy of the KJV” and your discussion on this top has pointed to a belief that there is a supremacy of the KJV when compared to other translations

I was working under a Contractor a New Yorker, A big man, looked to be on steroids. The type that you do not talk to. He talks to you.
He said something of the effect : that he was leaning towards being an agnostic, He said : the athiest are all so much smarter and have so much more convincing arguments.
I turned around and looked right at him I said amoung a few other things : You know that there is a God! It does not matter how good someones argument is you know there is a GOD!
To my supprise he dropped his macho attitude and replied : Ya I guess you are right I do know that there is a God.

He always knew that there was a God.

Faith is being honest with what we know.

I asked the second question because you have never indicated any primary, firsthand sources that you have referred to when writing about both modern versions (and I mean "modern” in an after-the-KJV sense) or the KJV itself ”“ including it translators, methods, qualifications, sources, etc…

When have I needed to ?
my basis is faith not research, and that has been my main approuch in this thread.

I do have sitting in front of me : Accuracy defined : Ken Barker, Accuracy of the NIV Ken Barker, The Balance of the NIV Ken Barker, understanding English translation Leland Ryken, : Those would be first hand sources : including it translators, methods, qualifications, sources, etc…
I had quoted and sourced : 3. The New King James Version: in the great tradition : Dr. Arthur L Farstad and Dr G. Michael Cocoris in my first post on this thread.

but I think that it is wise to look them up. After all, if we are going to consider evidence for or against other versions,

Chris you as well as others seem to be confused at my position. You act as though if only I was presented with the correct information that I would reconsider my conviction.

Athiest take the same approuch in discussions on the existence of God, always thinking if I was more informed with the science from Mainline Scientist that my faith would shatter.

I am confident on my perspective!,
On both positions neither of the alternative views on the two subjects has anything to offer except a sea of questions and uncertainty.

I believe that my confidence goes beyound intelectual confidence.
I do not believe it is from man so man is not going to take it from me.

3.) Have you applied the same level of scrutiny to this version as compared with other versions? If no, why?

There is no need.

a General note:

Do not be persuaded by my conviction on the issue, Nor by an intelectual arguement against it.
Take those verses and varients in question and meditate on them are they inspired or not ?

I am retiring from this thread

Hi proudpapa,

I was working under a Contractor a New Yorker, A big man, looked to be on steroids. The type that you do not talk to. He talks to you.
He said something of the effect : that he was leaning towards being an agnostic, He said : the athiest are all so much smarter and have so much more convincing arguments.
I turned around and looked right at him I said amoung a few other things : You know that there is a God! It does not matter how good someones argument is you know there is a GOD!
To my supprise he dropped his macho attitude and replied : Ya I guess you are right I do know that there is a God.

He always knew that there was a God.

Faith is being honest with what we know.

That's great, but I don't understand what it has to do with the KJV or translation in general. I might be missing something, so I apologize if I don't see how this ties into those questions that I asked about your belief in the supremacy of the KJV.

When have I needed to ?
my basis is faith not research, and that has been my main approuch in this thread.

And, yet, you have researched this topic for "over the past seven years" and with "well over a hundred books." If your opinion is based upon faith, then why research? Moreover, you certainly researched the issues with other versions. If you do this with those versions, why not pay the same level of research that you described toward the KJV?

I can easily say that I have approached this with "faith" too. In fact, everything that I do is done through the lens and perspective of my faith in Christ Jesus. Since I met the Lord, I never sat through a class or listened to a speaker (Christian or otherwise) without "faith." I do understand the undeniable importance of "faith" -- both faith in our Lord and also when and when not to have "faith" in claims or even the things that we are taught or told. By using scrutiny, I would be displaying faith in Christ and not something that has been passed down to me.

The Bereans were of "more noble character" because they didn't believe what Paul said just because Paul said it. Rather, they searched the Scriptures to determine whether what Paul said was true. This is a sign of faith in God first -- even if it means scrutinizing the words of the apostle who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament.

Chris you as well as others seem to be confused at my position. You act as though if only I was presented with the correct information that I would reconsider my conviction.

I am not trying to "convert" you to my "view" -- because my "view" is simply to seek the truth in Christ. As for our "conviction:" If a matter is not firmly established by the Word of God or essential to the faith, I always reconsider where I stand. This is growth and maturity. I am not the same person as I was when I first met the Lord. I have grown in Christ since then. I have reconsidered some of my views on many issues. On some issues, I don't even take a "stand" on many non-essential issues because I am not absolutely certain whether or not it is the right "stand" to take.

Athiest take the same approuch in discussions on the existence of God, always thinking if I was more informed with the science from Mainline Scientist that my faith would shatter.

Sometimes, that is true. At other times, it is not. Athiests aren't all atheists for the same reasons. I truly believe that some atheists would come to Christ if they truly pondered the truth and allowed the Lord to woo their hearts and minds. There are many "honest atheists" who would bring themselves to consider the possibility of the existence of God if something triggered this in their hearts and minds. Unfortunately for them, the truth is foreign to them and they see no possibility of Christ. Others are completely hostile to God because they don't WANT for him to exist. They are content with their lives and don't want to be "controlled" by an omnipotent God.

As a Christian, I have never been afraid of anyone trying to "convert" me to atheism. Why? I know the God in whom I believe. I know Him. If I am certain of anything in this life, it is that God exists and has permitted me to know Him. Since I passed from agnosticism to faith in Christ when I was a youth, I have seen and experienced some amazing things -- things that would probably make many atheists reconsider their beliefs. I have sometimes wondered why the Lord has permitted me to see and experience these things, but I think that part of the reason is because I didn't need them to believe. Moreover, I never worried about having my faith "challenged" when I was taking various science and engineering classes in college -- because I know and fellowship with the Lord everyday. He is my certainty.

I am confident on my perspective!,
On both positions neither of the alternative views on the two subjects has anything to offer except a sea of questions and uncertainty.

I believe that my confidence goes beyound intelectual confidence.
I do not believe it is from man so man is not going to take it from me.

I would have to disagree with this perspective on such matters -- only because His Word is the ONLY thing that I believe that we should be entirely certain of! My faith cannot be in the works of men, preachers or scholars -- even for something as noble as the translators of the Word of God.

If your faith goes beyond intellectual confidence, then why did you obtain over 100 books on the subject? Why did you spend seven years researching?

When I am going to buy a car or computer, I certainly pray about it. However, I also do my homework. I read the reviews, check the specs, look at the warranty and, of course, consider the cost. If I am looking for a new church fellowship, I don't simply pray for God to supernaturally tell me which one to go to. I don't cast lots. I don't throw darts at a list on the wall. I certainly pray about it -- but I also visit them, talk to the pastors, read their websites (if they have them) and, of course, continue to pray pray pray.

I am not trying to "convince" you of anything -- other than the need to consider the matter rather than to lean solely upon "faith" in something that we may need to study or mistake this ambiguous understanding of "faith" for what might actually consist of leaning on our own understanding (even of faith).

There is no need.

a General note:

Do not be persuaded by my conviction on the issue, Nor by an intelectual arguement against it.
Take those verses and varients in question and meditate on them are they inspired or not ?

I am retiring from this thread

I guess this is where we differ. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like your argument is built upon the belief that your faith led you to believe that the KJV is supreme among translations. With such a premise, there would be no need to ever buy a book or study the matter. That is quite a bit of "faith" in your "faith" of knowing the ultimate truth about Bible translations. Does that make sense? If we are imperfect creatures and sometimes "miss" the mark on this side of eternity, then I think that it is a good thing to consider whether or not we can trust ourselves in such matters or whether we should put "faith" in our own "faith" in such matters. For me, my faith is immovable when it comes to God and His Word. In all other matters, I am completely aware of my own imperfect humanity.

Good words of wisdom Chris I agree with your Methodism so to speak and spiritual logic