What Bible do you use?

[JerryL]

Greetings brother. I dont think the beef is that churches use the KJV for uniformity but that the agenda of KJVonlyism is that the KJV is superior over all others because it is advanced revelation. We recommend the ESV at our church for uniformity but how many here would correct me if i said we insist that the ESV is superior to all others because since Grudem and Piper worked on it it is advanced revelation ?

"Tom-in-the-box" had a cute little satirical article about "NASB-onlyism" a couple of years back.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean, come on you are smarter than that. No one here has a problem with a church deciding to use the kJV as its default version. That is not what KJOism is. KJOism says not just that "we choose to use the kJV" but that the KJV is the ONLY inspired version and that all others are wrong/sinful/demonic/in error whereas the KJV is perfect and free of error. THAT is the lie from Satan that we are fighting here.

I would almost agree with you brother, except that I know something you don't.

While attending seminary classes, I had a class entitled "Evangelism."

It was taught by the Local Baptist Association's President.

Prior to this class, a church had petitioned and been accepted to join the GGBA. (Greater Gaston Baptist Association)

Now here is the kicker.

What was this churches name?

The King James Baptist Church.

This church was ridiculed not only for its name, but because it decided for itself that the KJV would be their default Bible. And that was from the Association's president.

Needless to say, I did vote to re-elect him.

Sure you get some extremists in the KJV only movement, but to group everybody who holds to the KJV in this group is wrong.

And that is the attitude not only here, but everywhere.

I've heard plenty of people mock churches because they use the KJV.

"Oh don't go to that church, they use the King James Bible, they are wrong." And etc.

And here again, I'll repeat myself:

...if you can show me one single version that don't have translation errors in it, I convert to that one...KJV onlyism, is it right? No. But is it completely wrong? No.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[holyrokker]

Brother, I agree whole-heartedly with all you said except for your last sentence.

As a Southern Baptist, we have dealt with just this type of arguement in seminary.

What it really boils down to is that as you said, the KJV Bible has served the church well, and faithfully since 1611. And I dare say, that if this world continues, it will continue to serve the church well for another 400 years.

But I personally see nothing wrong with a church deciding for itself that it wants the KJV (or amy other version for that matter) as its default version.

If you don't like a church that uses the KJV, find another. Personally, I don't like the NIV, and if I ever attend or go looking for another church, you can bet it won't be a church that uses the NIV. But I don't condemn that church for using it, and likewise, I don't look down my nose at them either, if that is what they feel most comfortable with, God Bless 'em.

But I will add this, if you can show me one single version that don't have translation errors in it, I convert to that one.

Sure the language is archaic, sure its not taught anymore. But the KJV has been said to be the most beautiful version ever written.



Here is what others have said:



Now I have said and I'll always maintain that the proper version for each individual is as Erwin Lutzer said is the version you pick up and read and study, whether it is the KJV, the NIV, RSV, ASV, etc.

But personally, I still see nothing wrong with a church deciding for itself whichever version it wants as its default version. (Should it matter that it is the KJV? No, but some make it a matter.)

Which brings up another question. Would people complain if there was a movement that started which called for RSVism only. Would people gripe about that as much as they do about KJV onlyers?

KJV onlyism, is it right? No. But is it completely wrong? No.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Well said!

As far as RSVism only - yes, I would object to it.

My objection to KJVonly-ism isn't that people prefer the KJV. It's the claim that it is the superior translation, and the only one truly inspired by God.

 

[DeaconDean]

My objection to KJVonly-ism isn't that people prefer the KJV. It's the claim that it is the superior translation, and the only one truly inspired by God.

If that were the only case, I'd join each and everyone of you in condemning this. If it is a matter of "superior translation" or "a divinely inspired translation" you would have my full support. In that instance, I agree 100%.

But my only point was that not all "KJV onlyist" fit into that category.

I am a KJV onlyist. But...let me qualify that statement.

I don't care which version you personally use. If that (whichever) is the version you pick up to read and study God's word, then God Bless you. That is the important part.

But I am a KJV onlyist in that the KJV is the version I was raised up on. That is the versio I was taught from. That is the version I read and study from. That is the version I teach and preach from. It is the version that I feel the most comfortable with.

And likewise, that is the only version I'll probably ever use.

So in a very real sense, I fit into that category of "KJV Onlyists."

And that should be aparent to those who have been a member here for any amount of time. Whenever I quote scripture, I always it with book, chapter, verse(s) and (KJV).

And I'll also admit freely that I do have a problem with paraphrases. I just don't like them.

But, I will always maintain that for almost 400 years, the KJV has served the church faithfully, and served it well. And provided the Lord does not come back in the next minute, it will continue to serve the church faithfully and serve it well.

I have never put anyone down for whichever version they quote from or use here on the forums. But...I have seen in this area, many a person condemned for quoting from the KJV.

So, here again, if it were only a matter of people spouting off about the KJV being a "superior translation" or "a divinely inspired translation" then You guys know you would have my full support. (You guys remember all those KJV Only threads that got started about 2 years ago in this room? Who closed most of them down?) But, its not always that case.

So once again I say:

KJV onlyism, is it right? No. But is it completely wrong? No.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean, come on you are smarter than that.

Brother, what am I doing that is so wrong?

You are the 3rd person in as many months who have said something along those same lines.

I was condemned and told:

"I would have expected more from you" from a member when I said that I thought Charles Finney was ignorant.

I was told:

"I am shcoked and would have thought more from you than that" when teching Reformed Theology on salvation and the working of the Holy Spirit.

And now, I get almost the same response from you.

Brother, I mean this from the bottom of my heart. I have stood with you in many a debate. I have thought well of many of your responses and learned from you as well. And I deeply respect what you and a few others here have to say. Your probably one of a few in a very select group to whom I would pay more attention to than most others, So, what am I doing that is so wrong?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BereanTodd]

Dean I have read many of your posts you are often very well spoken and read. I too generally enjoy and support your input, and value your posts. If you are saying "I prefer the KJV because of personal taste/background, and I only read/preach/teach from the KJV" then you are NOT a KJOist.

You know full well that KJOists teach that it is the ONLY inspired, infallable versions and (depending on the particular KJOist) other versions are either misguided or demonically inspired.

If you do not teach that the KJV is the only inspired version and is the only version one should use, then you are not a KJOist. It's as simple as that, and you know that as well as I do, especially if you are a current/former seminary student as you hinted in one of your posts above.

 

[JerryL]

I can delete my post. Todd said the exact same thing, only in a better way.

 

[TwistTim]

Dean,

I respect your usage of the King James Version, and I am glad that is what you prefer to read out of brother. It is a good translation.

But you are not in the KJV-Onlyist camp because by definition you would have to decry all the other versions as wrong or in error.

You are one who Prefers the KJV and if it could be that we all read from one, The KJV would be acceptable. Though Geneva would be better... and it's older... but since we have a wealth of translations (and yes I too despise the paraphrases and find the NIV weak) you know it is best for someone to read from the version that is best for them for their spiritual growth.

To be a true KJV-Onlyist you would have to say the KJV is the only version that can speak to a soul and convince it of the truth of God. (At least where I have grown up on the East Coast more so here in the buckle of the Bible Belt - NC)


There is nothing wrong with a church using the ESV, or KJV or NASB or the Whatever Bible Translation exclusively as long as it is a Translation and not a paraphrase for it's usage for Teaching/Preaching. As long as they actually use it, and the people of the congregation can understand it, or are encouraged to bring one they can understand to follow along with.

For Example, my preacher reads out of the KJV but the Pew Bibles are NKJV due to the congregation's young age range (we do have several seniors, but the majority is 40 and under, and I read from the ESV myself, I know others read from the RSV, most of all we are encouraged to read from our own bibles.


Just my Thoughts Brother Dean, if I am wrong on this correct me.

Tim H.

 

[the particular baptist]

DeaconDean, with how you describe your position on the KJV it doesnt sound like the "onlyism" i was thinking. In fact how you describe your loyalty to the KJV reminds me of my father-in-law. My father-in-law has always used the KJV, has a ton of scripture memorized in KJV, and teaches out of it, but, he does not believe it is advanced revelation thereby elevating it above all other translations english or otherwise on that basis. He thinks its the best translation because its the one he's used for 40+ years and its his favorite. He has a seminary education and knows biblical greek and hebrew and his opinion is the KJV best communicates God's Word to him.

Now, James White breaks KJVonlyism into 5 groups;
1. I like the KJV best
2. The textual argument
3. Received text only
4. The inspired KJV group
5. The KJV as new/advanced revelation (Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap)

From my experience i have only talked to "onlyists" in the last three categories, mostly the last two, so thats what i think when i hear KJVonly. According to James White though the first two are "onlyists" as well. I apologize for assuming otherwise.

flavio

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Here's another wrinkle. Because there are many KJV-only believers, ranging from "I like it best" to "It's the only correct version," I do use the KJV when defending or debating a point of doctrine. If an outdated term is used in the KJV verse, I'll cross-reference the same verse in several other versions, and/or look up the word's etymology in a dictionary.

I do this so nobody can argue that I backed up my point with the "wrong" Bible.

 

[Canuckmom]

I fully agree with these words of Henry Morris -
"The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns."
The following article by Morris is well worth reading!
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_kjv/

 

[BereanTodd]

That article is so skewed that it is not even funny. For instance, he says:

Furthermore, the King James translators were also great scholars, every bit as proficient in the Biblical languages as any of those who have come after them.

This is absolutely false. Actually our understanding of the Biblical languages is so far beyond what it was 400 years ago that it is not even funny. The 16th century had very little understanding, comparatively, of the Biblical languages, and especially in the OT Hebrew.

I mean how many times have you heard the name "Jehovah"? Jehovah is not a name of God, it never was! God has never called Himself by that name. It was a combination of YHWH and Adonai that the Hebrew writters used and the "dumb white men" couldn't decipher or understand properly.

There are intricacies and minutiae to the biblical languages that we still are coming only now to understand that they had no clue about 4 centuries ago.

Scripture memorization, which has been an incalculable blessing in my own Christian life, is almost a lost art these days.

I agree and share in this lament, but how does this have anything to do with what Bible version we read from? This has to do with lazy theology, poor discipleship and easy-believism, not what version of the Bible you read from.

And what becomes of our long-cherished belief in verbal inspiration? If it's only the "thought" that counts, then the words are flexible. Yes, but then the thoughts themselves easily become flexible also, and we can adjust the words to make them convey whatever thought we prefer. We forget that precise thoughts require precise words.

This is a false accusation. This may work levelled against the NIV, a dynamic (or thought-for-thought) translation, but not when discussing the NASB, the NKJV or the ESV, easily the most accurate version out there (yes, more accurate than the KJV). These are word-for-word translations, done by scholars who absolutely hold to the verbal, plenary, infallable inerrant view of scripture.

Another fast-vanishing form of Bible study is that of comparative word studies, comparing the various usages and contexts of a given key word or phrase as it occurs throughout the Bible. This has been a highly fruitful means of obtaining many precious insights into the mind of the divine writer who inspired all of them. A given word may have been rendered in various ways by the King James translators, of course, but they have assured us (in their preface) that this was always done very carefully and in accord with context and the known range of meanings carried by the word itself.

1. Word studies are not gone.
2. Doing word studies does not require one version of the Bible
3. The KJV translators' knowledge of the range of meanings of the Greek and Hebrew text would not fill a thimble compared to the olympic size swimming pool of knowledge of the languages and word usages that we have today.

As far as the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is concerned, the King James is based on the Masoretic text, while the modern versions rely somewhat on the Masoretic but also on the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various others, especially the Kittel Hebrew reference text, Biblia Hebreice, in its "Stuttgart" edition.

I find this argument of his quite hillarious since the KJV translators did not have Greek manuscripts for all of the NT. In particular parts of the general epistles and portions of Revelation were translated from the Latin Vulgate into the English. They were not working with Greek MSS in those areas.

Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland) Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century. Since these are both supposedly older than the more than 5000 manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus, they were accepted as "better."

This quote is EXTREMELY misleading. First off we have a total of maybe 6,000 greek MSS today. This quote makes it seem as though there are 5,000 identical to the TR and "just those 2 old ones". This is a blatant lie/falsehood.

There are thousands of discrepancies, whether in spelling, grammar, word ommissions, verse ommissions all throughout those 6,000 MSS. But when we compare them we can see what has happened. Let me give you a comparison. Say I gave you 15 sheets of paper. Let's say that:

1. 8 said "God so loved the world"
2. 2 said "God loved th world"
3. 1 said "God so lived the word"
4. 2 said "Dog so loved the word"
5. 2 said "God so loved te world"

Could you compare those and realize that the message is supposed to be "God so loved the world"? Well there are thousands upon thousands of simple variances like this, and they occur throughout ALL 6,000 of those MSS.

When we discuss what parts of the NT there is actual debate over, questions about the authenticity of, we are talking about 1.5% of the entire text. Now understand, some of these debatable portions do not appear in ANY manuscript before about 1200-1300 AD. We have not 2, but thousands of versions older than that. So we can rightly call some of this into question.

Furthermore, if we did remove all of that 1.5% (which we should NOT), there is not one single doctrine that we teach that would be endangered. It does not endanger the divinity of Christ, literal creationism, the trinity, salvation by grace through faith, holliness .... NOTHING is at stake in these few minor cases besides coming to a better understanding of what was originally written.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I agree and share in this lament, but how does this have anything to do with what Bible version we read from? This has to do with lazy theology, poor discipleship and easy-believism, not what version of the Bible you read from.

This is a tangent, but I strongly believe this is a consequence of not having a standard translation. A good number of us simply aren't able to remember and recite any length of scripture if we hear the same vearse read two dozen different ways. Even if we do memorize something, if our pastors read it in a different translation, what we remembered goes poof. It would be nice if the Anglophone Christian world sat down and decided on one translation as the standard for the purpose of public use. Of course, that standard needn't be the KJV.

 

[edie19]

This is a tangent, but I strongly believe this is a consequence of not having a standard translation. A good number of us simply aren't able to remember and recite any length of scripture if we hear the same vearse read two dozen different ways. Even if we do memorize something, if our pastors read it in a different translation, what we remembered goes poof. It would be nice if the Anglophone Christian world sat down and decided on one translation as the standard for the purpose of public use. Of course, that standard needn't be the KJV.

I hear what you're saying but have to respectfully disagree - primarily because you're putting the responsibility on the pastor.

IMO that responsibility is on the family (read parents). If children don't see their parents studying God's Word, don't hear their parents referencing God's Word, don't see a reverence for God's Word it doesn't matter what version their church uses. After all - who has the most influence - the parents who are around the child pretty much 24/7 or the pastor who has contact 2-3 hours (max) a week.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I hear what you're saying but have to respectfully disagree - primarily because you're putting the responsibility on the pastor.

IMO that responsibility is on the family (read parents). If children don't see their parents studying God's Word, don't hear their parents referencing God's Word, don't see a reverence for God's Word it doesn't matter what version their church uses. After all - who has the most influence - the parents who are around the child pretty much 24/7 or the pastor who has contact 2-3 hours (max) a week.

I'm putting repsonsibility on the English speaking part of the church universal, not just the pastor. I was brought up with a strong reverence for the word, but when I try to memorize, I simply cannot do it because I've heard everything I try to memorize in a dozen different translations and when I try to recite, some jumbling of all of them comes out. Maybe I've been overexposed to translations because I went to Christian schools from preschool through college, and maybe for others it's a lack of reverence that keeps them from memorizing, but I myself and many like me have been ruined for memorizing because of multiple translations. It is hard enough to keep one straight.

 

[edie19]

thanks for the clarification

and I understand what you're saying

 

[TwistTim]

So, Determine your own standard for memorizing scriptures.. which ever translation you can get into your head that you can know and can recall from there when you need it.

You are using the variety of interpretations for a crutch for not determining to do. Christians in countries where they are not allowed to read scriptures publicly still manage to memorize scripture verses, sometimes passages....

 

[edie19]

. . . Christians in countries where they are not allowed to read scriptures publicly still manage to memorize scripture verses, sometimes passages....

shades of Farenheit 451

 

[Epiphoskei]

So, Determine your own standard for memorizing scriptures.. which ever translation you can get into your head that you can know and can recall from there when you need it.

You are using the variety of interpretations for a crutch for not determining to do. Christians in countries where they are not allowed to read scriptures publicly still manage to memorize scripture verses, sometimes passages....

I'm not using anything for a crutch. I have sat down for hours upon hours over the course of days and months to attempt to memorize large chunks of scripture. I've had eight consecutive chapters down before. My problem is not from lack of trying. What I memorize will not stick if I even hear it read in another translation.

 

[BigNorsk]

Hello Cody, I read your message, and I visited the website that you referenced (for everyone else, the address is http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ESV_Foundation.html). Because you posted to my CF page, which is publically viewable, I assume that you don't mind if I respond to you on this thread. If you would prefer to continue this discussion via PMs, just let me know.

First, I would like to call to your attention a problem with this page. It quotes the following out of the ESV preface:

“Would you believe it took nearly 500 years to translate the ESV Bible? That’s because the ESV builds on the great translations of the past—including William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 and the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.”
(Preface, ESV)
​

I just skimmed the preface of my ESV, and I can't find this passage of text. It would appear that the authors of this website are misrepresenting the ESV translators. This is common among people who preach heresy. Deception and outright lying are very common among those who are not committed to the truth. Now I am not saying that you are here to intentionally deceive anyone or that you have any malicious intent. On the contrary, you like many other KJV-onlyists I've met on this forum seem to have completely pure motives. But I say this to warn you as a concerned friend that KJV-onlyism is usually supported by irrational arguments, and this necessitates deception on the part of its stronger proponents. I only ask that you read KJV-only materials with a critical eye, and that you base your conclusions on logical interpretation of Scripture. Remember that Scripture will never teach any doctrine that is irrational, because this would be outside of God's character.

I understand your concern, but realize that the ESV translators do not control the preface of every Bible out there that uses the ESV translation. If you go to http://www.esv.org/about/intro you can see that the quote is indeed accurate.

Marv