• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

KJV better then the rest? List your thoughts.

Discussion in 'Non-denominational' started by JohnR7, Feb 20, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cb

    cb Member

    29
    +0
    Taoist
    i apologize, i did not know that this was a "KJV only" thread. i just got a link here and thought it was for actual "apostate bibles". i in no way condone KJV-onlyism. i think its just another attack on the body of Christ.

    the truth is, of course. if we could read the ancient greek and hebrew manuscripts, that would be the most accurate version. but since most of us can't read greek, the NASB is probably the next closest thing.

    as far as accuracy goes, the best thing is to have a few translations, including an interlinear along with a strongs concordance.

    bible.crosswalk.com

    has all this stuff.
     
  2. solo66 man

    solo66 man Well-Known Member

    +2
  3. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I would say the KJ is probalby the worst..since the guy didn't have anything neer the amount of manuscipts we do and only translated it because a king wanted to defy the pope.
     
  4. solo66 man

    solo66 man Well-Known Member

    +2
    I love the colorful language though.
     
  5. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Yea, Louis just has a way with words don't he.

    Instead of KJV only-ism why not Final Authority only-ism? Like a book you can read.

    Why doesn't man like to be under authority of God?
     
  6. Sharptee

    Sharptee New Member

    67
    +0
    The problem of KJV only is that they begin with an erroneous presumption, that the King James Version is the best translation. Thereby they make the KJV the standard of Truth, other translations that don't measure up are immediately suspect. What I would like a KJV'er to answer me is this, Since we know for a fact that the old testament was originally written in Hebrew, and since we know as fact that the Lord Jesus made use of the LXX (Mat.27:46) are you then going to apply the same rules to LXX as you do to the NASB,and NIV? Because to be consistent you are then accusing the Lord of using a faulty translation.
     
  7. Martin

    Martin Senior Veteran

    +12
    Christian
    Married
    I personally use the NASB....and whilst understanding why people view the accuracy as important (as I do now), I don't really think God gets hung up about it.....

    When I started to go to church (just before I became a Christian) I was invited to attend a house/family/cell (whichever you prefer) group. The only bible that I had was a KJV (relatively new, not even an old one), which I never used because it was difficult to read and understand. As the church I was attending at that time seemed to standardise on the Good News Bible, I decide to go to a book store and pick up a copy. Being the person I am, I didn't choose the basic version, I chose a version that was at least 2 inches (50cm) thick and included diagrams, charts, pictures, maps etc. Most importantly to me, at that time, it was easy to read.

    As time went by, God really began to speak to me through that Bible. Verses lept out of the page at me, as if God had written them personally to me. I kept showing them to people as if they had never seen them before. I highlighted these verses with a yellow or red highlighter. It got so bad that whole rafts of text (and almost every page in some way or other) were highlighted. I still have that Bible, even though it is battered and has lost it's covers.

    After a few years of being a Christian, I changed from using the Good News Bible to using the NIV. The NIV only lasted with me about eighteen months until, through a friend I moved on to the NASB, which I have had since 1985 because I prefer it. There is no standard version used in our fellowship, although the NIV and the NKJV are the most popular and I think that I am the only one who uses the NASB. Some people seem to argue that the NKJV is a more faithfully translation then the NASB, but I'm not convinced.

    I have heard people speak at length about which version of the Bible is most accurate and I do not profess to being an expert in this area. When I have looked at who wrote/produced the various versions and taken into account what I have heard/read from other sources, I would have to admit that I am VERY suspect about the authorship of the Good News Bible. I certainly believe that the NKJV and the NASB are more faithful translations. However, I cannot get away from the fact that God spoke MOST powerfully to me through the Good News Bible - even though now, I would be cautious about recommending it to anyone. The point I am trying to make is that even though there are differences in translation betwen various versions which may lead you to argue the case for the most accurate translation, provided they ascent to the truth - the Holy Spirit can and does use whatever version of the Bible you are using to bring truth to your spirit.

    My own views are that the NKJV and the NASB are the most faithful transalations, followed by the NIV. I wouldn't go much further than that. However, if a new Christian in the faith was using the GNB, I would'nt condemn him or her or stop them from continuing to use it. I might even recommed the GNB to someone who was interested in Christianity or just starting out. The important point is that it can and will be used by God to speak to the individual.

    I am firmly of the belief, that people who argue the case for one version being true over all others, even if they are right (and I might agree with them), are in danger of legalism, pride, religiousity and arrogance. I think that the Lord will have His way and gently move people on to, shall we say, more faithful translations of His word as they grow in Him.

    One final thought - we have to be careful to understand what we are reading.

    Firstly (in this final section), there are versions of the bible that contain paragraphs of notes and learning points written by the auhors. My own version of the NASB is a study Bible (still over 2 inches / 50cm thick) which contains such notes. This has its dangers. The danger is that the authors notes can be taken as authorative without thinking, because they appear on the same page as the scriptures themselves. I only noticed a few days ago that a notes paragraph made statemnets of interpretation, which I have read many time before, which I felt were not supported by scripture. I am now firmly of the opinion (and would recommend) that when you buy a copy of the Bible - you buy it as it is, without any notes or commentary. Buy a separate notes/commentary/study book if required.

    Secondly, there are versions of the Bible that are significantly enhanced or changed, and to be fair to the authors, they clearly state the case. I'm thinking of Bibles such as the Life Application Bible, Living Bible, etc. I would encourage Christians to purchase such bibles as an ADDITIONAL source of reference and only so long as their main study of the Bible is focused on one of the main accepted versions - such as NKJV, NASB, NIV etc. The danger here is that these versions become very attractive because of their additonal exposition of words or verses and eventually can become the basis of scriptural reference. The effect is similar to that stated in the previous paragraph.

    There is one version of the bible with which I really do have trouble, and that is The Message. To be honest - I haven't read it (so please remember that in reading these comments), but when people have quoted verses from it in a church setting etc., I have been really troubled in my spirit, and in each case considered the quotations to be an abortion of the truth. Yet I find that so many people think it's great..... Personally, I wouldn't have it in the house and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

    KJV?? Not for me....

    So..... Lets' not get hung up about which version is the most accurate, stay with what you've got and let the Lord lead you into all truth (even if that means buying another version).

    Many blessings.....
     
  8. ZiSunka

    ZiSunka It means 'yellow dog'

    +276
    Christian
    I'll take them! Mail them to me! I give out Bibles at the local food pantry, and everyone wnats one and I never have enough. Other than the New World Translation, I'll take every Bible you can give me, no matter what translation it is. People are so hungry for spiritual food, too, that they won't care that the translation isn't KJV. In fact, since the language is so hard to understand in KJV, they are usually the last Bibles to go...
     
  9. ZiSunka

    ZiSunka It means 'yellow dog'

    +276
    Christian
    By the way, at the food pantry, God's Word to the Nations translation is always the first to run out, then Here's Hope, then NIV, then NKJ, then last of all, KJV.
     
  10. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    >>Because to be consistent you are then accusing the Lord of using a faulty translation.

    We may accuse you of using "faulty" logic. When God says come let us reason together, He is refering to putting on the mind of Christ. He means the logic and the reason of God, not the foolishness of this world. You remind me of the people who thought they were crafty enough to catch Jesus at a mistake.

    1 Cor. 3:19
    For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
     
  11. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    ed, the KJV has been shown to be mistaken in some places..I was just telling you why it was created. The king wanted to be the head of the church so he defied the Pope by having it translated into english...the pope had outlawed any translation other then latin at the time.
     
  12. Egoinos

    Egoinos New Member

    35
    +0
    Irwin Hawkins,
    Just a small point - the 'original' KJV (by which I assume you mean the 1611 edition) would have been pretty much identical to the ones we have now, just the spelling (u instead of v, for example) would have been slightly different. It would be a bit harder to read, but not that bad.
     
  13. dependingonhim

    dependingonhim New Member

    42
    +0
    I do not understand what your reason for thinking the KJV is the only correct one???
     
  14. mcfly1960

    mcfly1960 Member

    159
    +2
    Protestant
    I grew up with the KJV and RSV. I had a TEV in college. The first Bible I read all the way through was an NIV. About 10 years ago, I learned about the differences in the KJV and the newer versions, so now only have KJV Bibles (but with good study notes in plain English :D )

    Seriously, the KJV is not that hard to understand. For those who do find it hard to understand, it is much easier to understand when it is read to you: Here is a link to an Audio Bible, with the dramatic voice of Alexander Scourby reading the KJV...you can read along the text on the side!:

    http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
     
  15. Sharptee

    Sharptee New Member

    67
    +0
    John, you don't see the parallel here? It's easy to see, I'll point it out to you. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (MT). Then along came the Septuagint (LXX), a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Consequently there were two readings of the Old Testament, one in Hebrew, the other in Greek.
    Now you may not like to hear this but it is true and it also parallels the "KJV only" reasoning. The Lord Jesus quoted the LXX time after time. And the dissimalarities between the LXX and the MT are clear to anyone who cares to check them out.
    Thus the parallel is obvious. We have had the KJV for centuries. Then in the 20th century comes many many versions. Since we had the KJV for so long some people think because of its longevity it must be superior! Now compare this line of reasoning to the Lord's day. Did the Lord regard the Hebrew text as superior because it was accepted for so long? Did the Lord refuse to make use of the LXX ? Obviously not! He quoted the LXX in Matt 13:14-15; Mark 7:10; 10:7-8 and many many other references!
    JohnR7 please let me know just where my logic is faulty!
     
  16. Sharptee

    Sharptee New Member

    67
    +0
    John, just answer this question, What exactly constitutes an "apostate Bible" ?
     
  17. Me4him

    Me4him New Member

    31
    +0
    John, just answer this question, What exactly constitutes an "apostate Bible" ?

    Can I answer that for him??

    "ONE MISTAKE".

    I Cor 5:7 Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

    Let me say "up front", I'm a KJV only fan.

    My questions concerns what you believe about God more than the various translations.

    God is "Perfect", and he made everything that is made, and he said heaven and earth would pass away but his "word" would never pass away.

    Question

    1. Would God tell us to be "perfect", yet give us an "imprefect word" to achieve that "perfection"???

    Mt 5:48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    2. How is it possible for God to create everything that is made, yet is unable to create a "book" that is as "perfect" as he??

    3. The Bible tells us "All Scripture is inspired by God", yet in discussing various translations, only the "translators" are mentioned as being "responsible" for choosing the "words", never God. Why???

    4. God said his word would never pass away, but the general concensus is that down through the ages/translations the "True word" of God has been lost, so "any" translation that teaches the same "general idea" is acceptable, even if it isn't "perfect".

    5. If "God's word" is under "divine protection", for all ages, can mankind destroy it, will it cease to be "Perfect"???

    What you believe about God determines what translation you'll accept.

    Jesus put it into a "nutshell" when he said:

    Mt 9:29 According to your faith be it unto you

    When you believe God is perfect, his word is perfect and he has preserved his word perfect, you can see that perfection that man's translations can't match, no matter how hard they try.

    I'm not a KJV only by "personal preferences", I don't care, I only want the "TRUTH", 100% TRUTH, no leaven, "whatsoever".

    What do you believe about God???
     
  18. tericl2

    tericl2 A Work in Progress

    741
    +6
    Christian

    Yes, how is that? And how is it that if he can do this then he couldn't keep later translations pure?

    I guess now the question is which one of you knows the mind of God??

    BTW, what about the translations that were universally accepted BEFORE the KJV?? Maybe we should just directly use and/or translate from those? (the Geneva Bible is the one that comes to mind right now)
     
  19. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    amen
     
  20. Navigator

    Navigator Pizzagator...

    337
    +1
    Protestant
    Unless one states axiomatically that the KJV is 100% true, then the KJV also fails this criteria.

    If one states axiomatically that the KJV is 100% true, then any further argument is folly, since unless that premise can be debated, any further discussion will fall on deaf ears...

    but what the hay...

    Lets assume for the moment that the KJV has at least one error., then lets answer these questions of Me4him:

    Why would he give an imperfect KJV? Why would he give an imperfect LXX? Why would he give an imperfect NIV/NASB/NLT? Perhaps in order to be truly saved one must have the autographs and speak the original language.

    Or perhaps God can work with the translations of the day and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit guide his chosen to the truth that th scpritures speak.

    The first 'book' God created was smashed to peices by Moses at the foot of Mt. Sinai. His Spirit guides us to the perfect truth, not just words, and not just the wisdom of man. And since his Spirit is perfect, its guidance is perfect.

    Just as an aside, God never called his creation 'perfect' he called it 'good' and 'very good'.

    If all Scripture is inspired by God why isn't the NASB, NIV, NLT etc. also inspired. Has God quit working in getting his word out to the world? Has the Spirit ceased its work in 1611? Most translator's notes I've read (including the KJV) don't claim inerrancy for thier translation, only that their work should suffice in getting the truth of the good news out to as many people as possible. FTR... No one that supports the 'aspostate bibles' says that one is 'superior' than any other. Only those that support KJV-onlyism are bold enough to claim inspiration and inerrancy to an English translation.

    So has God stopped preserving his word in 1611? Has he decided that Elizabethean english is the final tounge that he will support? Regardless of the ability of the spirit to make any language clear to his chosen audience (anyone remember Pentecost?).

    God's word is logos.. or Christ, and is eternal and living. That logos lives within redeemed people, and will guide them to all truth. Hasn't anyone read the gospel of John?

    So believing that God is manifest in the world that his presence in the life of a beliver, and God's knowledge is limitless, and perfect, will lead us to restrict ourselves to a single english translation?

    That seems dichotomous.

    Amen.. even KJV... you are close to that which you seek, Grasshopper.

    I believe that when Jesus said...

    John 16:13 [sup](KJV)[/sup]
    He meant that...

    Peace.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...