Oh, How Sad

[Ioustinos]

Today I had a rare opportunity to bring the Sunday Morning sermon. Usually I teach on Sunday nights or Wednesday nights when my pastor allows me. But today my pastor was away and I had the opportunity to preach. My sermon was entitled "Sanctification" and it detailed the ways in which God sanctifies man. I brought this even though it was Father's Day, becuase as father's our lives must be set apart from the world and be in the will and pleasure of God. Well, I believed I did justice to the Word; I am not the greatest teacher but I feel I did fairly well. I just pray that God will minister to the hearers and use it to equip them and strengthen their faith.

But to get to the point of this post, after the service I was shaking hands with people of the congregation thanking them for coming and this one gentlemen asked me this question, "What type of bible did you read from?" I replied, "The NKJV." The gentleman shook his head in disgust and asked me if I was in fear of the judgment of God for using the NKJV instead of the KJV

How poorly equiped and taught are the people of our congregations today

Jesaiah

 

[altya]

Yes this is sad. Thanks for sharing, seems to me to be a very good topic for fathersday.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

I've never heard a good argument for the KJV. I've heard everything except a good argument. I've used the KJV once for a bible study. It's because all the bells and whistles for my computer program only work on the KJV.
I'll never use the KJV again. I can't believe people are so fanatical over what I consider a poor translation. Remember, I've only used it once and it was screwed up.

 

[Gerry]

Amen! You are so right! It is beyond sad, and a terrible indictment of Christianity. But it is a part of dealing with Christians. I could share some stories about Churches that would rip your heart out!

But no matter. Thank God for the opportunity to serve Him and unlike Peter on the water, you keep your Focus fixed on Jesus and He will give you grace to deal with these disappointments. God bless you in your ministry!

 

[Martin]

I don't think that the Bible version is the issue, it's more one of whether it's the Holy Spirit who is bringing the revelation and interpretation to the Word.

 

[aggie03]

I think that the version is important in some aspects - though I don't believe that you'll be condemned for using the NKJV instead of the KJV. If you have the opportunity to talk to that person again about this, ask them if they know that there was only one manuscript used to translate the KJV and with the NKJV, not only has it been made easier to read, but now it is more true to the original Hebrew and Greek languages because many different manuscripts were used. I personally prefer the New American Standard because I think that it is probably the most literal translation of the original texts. The only time that I think I've ever known someone to run into trouble because of the version of the Bible they were using was because certain versions tend to paraphrase, or go for the idea of the passage rather than the literal meaning. This can lead to misunderstandings as far the true intent of the original texts.

 

[Ioustinos]

Originally posted by aggie03
I think that the version is important in some aspects - though I don't believe that you'll be condemned for using the NKJV instead of the KJV. If you have the opportunity to talk to that person again about this, ask them if they know that there was only one manuscript used to translate the KJV and with the NKJV, not only has it been made easier to read, but now it is more true to the original Hebrew and Greek languages because many different manuscripts were used. I personally prefer the New American Standard because I think that it is probably the most literal translation of the original texts. The only time that I think I've ever known someone to run into trouble because of the version of the Bible they were using was because certain versions tend to paraphrase, or go for the idea of the passage rather than the literal meaning. This can lead to misunderstandings as far the true intent of the original texts.

I tried to tell him this information but he wouldn't listen. So I have copied over 100 pages of proof that most of the modern translations are more accurate according to the original Greek and Hebrew. As well I have copied the preface of the 1611 King James Version that was written by the translators that said that 1)many translations were good and necessary, 2) only the original Greek and Hebrew were the inspired word of God, 3) that translations are made for the common man to read and learn God's Word. Also I have excerpts of scripture from a 1611 KJV which has references in the margins to other translations or to the original Greek and Hebrew. This shows that not even the translators of the KJV believed that only their translation was the only "good" translation.

Also when we began to briefly discuss the translation of the bible, he began saying that in 1611 there were 100+ scholars to translate the KJV and that most modern translations were translated by 2 or 3 men! So I took the liberty to obtain a copy of the names and credintials of the 100+ translators of the NKJV!

So his arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.


Jesaiah

 

[Patmosman_sga]

Logic and common sense won't work with people who are so idolatrously devoted to one particular translation. They live in their own little world and glory in their blissful ignorance.

One little known fact about the KJV is that the translators did not have a complete copy of the Greek text for Revelation. So they took the Latin Vulgate, translated it back into Greek and then translated the Greek into English. There's no telling how much was lost in that process.

 

[allieisme]

He must also not realize that Pastors can get their information from a variety of sources and bibles
that is so very sad. Especially since he was kinda rude (it seems) about it.

allie

 

[filosofer]

that most modern translations were translated by 2 or 3 men! So I took the liberty to obtain a copy of the names and credintials of the 100+ translators of the NKJV!

My professor of Greek at Seminary (Robert Hoerber) was on the translation team for the NKJV - Colossians was his for the first round.

Not only are there many translators, but each translation then is revieiwed by other translators, which are then reviewed by committees as well as English (or other languages as appropriate) stylists to insure that the translation follows conventional English style, grammar, etc.

Of the major translations, NONE are done by 2-3 translators. Realistically very few people in the world are qualified to deal with all aspects of translating Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as examining the early translations in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, etc. And then to assess the textual issues, and then the manuscript evidence (~5,500 Greek, ~30,000 translation manuscripts, > 1,000,000 quotations by the Early Church Fathers)... Well, you get the idea.

 

[Gerry]

I am so glad to see there are some people here that can see the awesome value of the NKJV and the unbelievable task that was completed to present it to us. I love it. It is now my 3rd favorite.

 

[aggie03]

I am a chaplain in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University. When I give a Bible study I try to list the quotes that I use from about three different versions of the Bible, including the official catholic Bible. It's very interesting to see the different levels of literalism within the various translations - the NKJV by far seems to be one of the most literal. I think that all of those involved with its translation did an excellent job.

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

What is the difference? I've cross-checked both after I cut off my involvement in the LDS church and found almost NO DIFFERENCES. Many verses are word-for-word.

You can't say "That's sad." though. It's jumping to conclusions, an unfair one at that. Perhaps he was an LDS, is an LDS, or has been mentally convinced by them. Perhaps he feels it's the oldest and "most correct." Perhaps he was joking. Perhaps our churches today are truly not equipped properly today.

I'd bank my money that about all of them are correct.

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

By joking I mean not comletely serious in all his intentions.

 

[aggie03]

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
What is the difference? I've cross-checked both after I cut off my involvement in the LDS church and found almost NO DIFFERENCES. Many verses are word-for-word.

Many are word for word - but it is the ones that are not where the problems arise. I'll give you a quick for instance:

1 Timothy 3:15 is used by many catholics to assert the authority of the church to define what is truth and what is not - this is the verse from the catholic Bible:

"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

This is the verse as it is translated in the New American Standard Bible:

"but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

It might not seem like that big of a difference but the "the" that is in the NASB translation becomes very important. And that's just a single word (the NASB is much more literal and word for word than the offical catholic Bible, by the way). That extra word makes it apparent the church is to support the word of God, not dictate it.

That's just one example.

 

[Ioustinos]

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
What is the difference? I've cross-checked both after I cut off my involvement in the LDS church and found almost NO DIFFERENCES. Many verses are word-for-word.

You can't say "That's sad." though. It's jumping to conclusions, an unfair one at that. Perhaps he was an LDS, is an LDS, or has been mentally convinced by them. Perhaps he feels it's the oldest and "most correct." Perhaps he was joking. Perhaps our churches today are truly not equipped properly today.

I'd bank my money that about all of them are correct.

Actually it is sad when someone claims that unless one uses a certain translation of the Bible they will be judged by God. Sad indeed.

Secondly this was/is a baptist church.

Thirdly, he was not joking. I don't know which part of the country you live in but in the south (especially among independent baptist churches) this KJV Onlyism is spreading. Here is a link to help with that statement:

KJV Onlysim Amongst Independent Baptist Churches


Jesaiah

 

[SCJ]

This is enlightening. I am a member of a Baptist Church in the heart of Georgia, and my ministry is here. Our pew bibles are American Standard Version and most sermons are preached from either the ASV or the NKJV.

The KJV is very important in my ministry though because in witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (the SE is one of the Mormon's main mission field) they will not listen to anything read from anything but the KJV. I make it clear that I do not trust the JW (New World Translation) so we always meet halfway at the KJV.

My personal favorite (and the one carried with me) is the NKJV, but I have the ASV and KJV on my Palm Pilot just in case!

I made sure that I got a Bible program that incorporates as many versions as possible with cross-referencing. Even though, as you can see by my signature, I have the default set for NKJV - and I memorize from NKJV.

I personally believe that God is still in control of His word, and if there is a glaring error in it given to bad translation (like the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses) then it becomes pretty widely exposed.