Interesting, But is it true.

[genestealerbroodlord]

YouTube - This Will SHOCK You! (Watch it in FULL screen!)

I posted this in moderates, But no one replied. I'm also going to post it in the conservative section. Hopefully between here and there, I will get a nice balanced view of this. If anyone replies of course.

 

[Dark_Lite]

KJV-Onlyism is not true. The KJV has been proven to be an inaccurate translation in several areas. The Johanine Comma is enough alone to throw the whole idea out the window.

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

KJV-Onlyism is not true. The KJV has been proven to be an inaccurate translation in several areas. The Johanine Comma is enough alone to throw the whole idea out the window.

I have read that quite alot. I dont have enough understanding myself, thats why I'm asking here. I am still searching for the best bible, I just dont want to get one that completely removes verses. I like the KJV purely for the peotic writing, But would never use it for study.

I'm confused though. Why would people believe that the KJV was best, considering that we probably have better methods of translating old texts now, than we ever have in history. I understand that some translations are suspect, from my last thread on finding the best bible, But even then, I find it difficult to believe someone would literally leave verses out.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Why would people believe that the KJV was best, considering that we probably have better methods of translating old texts now, than we ever have in history.

Ignorance, myopia, short-sightedness. Take your pick. KJV-onlyism was originally conceived as the idea that the KJV is the "perfect" English translation. People would use verse differences between the KJV and newer versions to show that this was true. Unfortunately, that only works if there's no problems in the KJV. Since there's problems in the KJV, it is an untenable position. It only takes one negative example.

A much more defensible position is "KJV-bestism." It's not plagued (as much) by negative examples, because it's not an absolute stance. It's still not a strong position, and can easily be argued down, but not as easily as KJV-onlyism.

 

[plmarquette]

the "perfect version" is the one your pastor reads/teaches from

 

[dyanis]

I'm confused though. Why would people believe that the KJV was best, considering that we probably have better methods of translating old texts now, than we ever have in history

I was told once that the KJV is the only version to be trusted because it was the type of English Jesus spoke. He was serious.

When I pointed out that Jesus had never spoken English; that English as a language wasn't even around then; and that even if Jesus HAD spoken English, we'd not be able to understand that version now (Old English), he didn't believe me. I wasn't sure whether I should laugh or just shake my head.

I am too new to post links, but a quick google shows which verses are omitted from the NIV Bible and, more importantly, why they're regulated to the footnotes. The NIV isn't my favorite translation - I prefer the New Living Translation personally, supplemented by the New Revised Standard Version. But I believe that it doesn't matter WHICH version one reads; it's the message that the bible contains that is important. Reading one that you find enjoyable and readable is more important than having a version you find cumbersome and difficult sitting on your shelf unread.

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

Ignorance, myopia, short-sightedness. Take your pick. KJV-onlyism was originally conceived as the idea that the KJV is the "perfect" English translation. People would use verse differences between the KJV and newer versions to show that this was true. Unfortunately, that only works if there's no problems in the KJV. Since there's problems in the KJV, it is an untenable position. It only takes one negative example.

A much more defensible position is "KJV-bestism." It's not plagued (as much) by negative examples, because it's not an absolute stance. It's still not a strong position, and can easily be argued down, but not as easily as KJV-onlyism.

Probably a fear of the new. Fear seems to be a real motivator for remaining ignorant.

the "perfect version" is the one your pastor reads/teaches from

Good point. I read the Good News Bible and that is the one my Minister uses. I didn't choose it for that reason, it was just an easy one to understand for me.

I was told once that the KJV is the only version to be trusted because it was the type of English Jesus spoke. He was serious.

When I pointed out that Jesus had never spoken English; that English as a language wasn't even around then; and that even if Jesus HAD spoken English, we'd not be able to understand that version now (Old English), he didn't believe me. I wasn't sure whether I should laugh or just shake my head.

I am too new to post links, but a quick google shows which verses are omitted from the NIV Bible and, more importantly, why they're regulated to the footnotes. The NIV isn't my favorite translation - I prefer the New Living Translation personally, supplemented by the New Revised Standard Version. But I believe that it doesn't matter WHICH version one reads; it's the message that the bible contains that is important. Reading one that you find enjoyable and readable is more important than having a version you find cumbersome and difficult sitting on your shelf unread.

I think that level of stupidity just begs belief. I have ran into ignorance of that level and have tried to talk to them, But yeah. I usually just laugh. I find it hard now to simply smile like I used to.

 

[cubinity]

I just dont want to get one that completely removes verses.

It is not so much whether a text completely removes verses or not, but WHY it removes those verses.

The Bible translated into English has multiple sources. Those sources are not identical. Appreciating that some verses appear only in one or a few transcripts, and therefore do not have substantial support for being considered "breathed by God," is a completely appropriate reason to leave them out of your publication, especially when you know people are going to take this publication more seriously then the world they see with their own eyes.

Sorry for the run-on sentence. I hope you get my drift.

God bless.

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

It is not so much whether a text completely removes verses or not, but WHY it removes those verses.

The Bible translated into English has multiple sources. Those sources are not identical. Appreciating that some verses appear only in one or a few transcripts, and therefore do not have substantial support for being considered "breathed by God," is a completely appropriate reason to leave them out of your publication, especially when you know people are going to take this publication more seriously then the world they see with their own eyes.

Sorry for the run-on sentence. I hope you get my drift.

God bless.

I can see your point. What I understand from your post is that it is better to err on the side of caution and leave something out, than to put something in that is not universally accepted and may be taken to an extreme conclusion by some. Is this what you mean?
It is better to only include what has absolutely been "breathed by God" or at least that which has good probability of such on its side?

 

[lismore]

'Last night when I was talking to my husband?'

She came up with all that last night?

 

[cubinity]

I can see your point. What I understand from your post is that it is better to err on the side of caution and leave something out, than to put something in that is not universally accepted and may be taken to an extreme conclusion by some. Is this what you mean?
It is better to only include what has absolutely been "breathed by God" or at least that which has good probability of such on its side?

Yep.

 

[lesliedellow]

The KJV is certainly not the most accurate translation. It was based upon Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament, and biblical scholarship has moved on quite a bit since then.

On the other hand, "most accurate" does not necessarily equal most devotionally useful, and, for purposes of devotion, I certainly prefer the KJV.

There are many discrepancies between extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. For the most part, a process of textual criticism nevertheless makes it possible to reconstruct the original texts with something very close to 100% certainty. But there are a few instances where certainty is not possible, and differences in scholarly judgment will lead to minor variations in the way the New Testament is translated in modern Bibles.

 

[Liberal Angel]

Yeah thats what ruined christianity for me....

 

[genestealerbroodlord]

Yeah thats what ruined christianity for me....

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What ruined christianity for you?

 

[dayhiker]

I know there are some differences in the old manuscripts that we use to translate the various versions of the Bible today. But for the most part the Bible and what it says is well known and documented thru the ages. This information is know to all the Christian groups that want to read and/or study it.

The differences in Christianity aren't in what the Bible says in its various translations, but in how we interpret the Bible and apply it to our lives. That's true not only among the Christians alive today, but often an equal or even greater difference exists between us and Christians in previous centuries. While we study to know what we can know, to me the important thing is if we Love Jesus. All the rest can be dealt with then we meet Jesus face to face.