"Tom-in-the-box" had a cute little satirical article about "NASB-onlyism" a couple of years back.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Tom-in-the-box" had a cute little satirical article about "NASB-onlyism" a couple of years back.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 ?
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.
DeaconDean said:...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.
Well said!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.
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 said:KJV onlyism, is it right? No. But is it completely wrong? No.
Dean, come on you are smarter than that.
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.
Scripture memorization, which has been an incalculable blessing in my own Christian life, is almost a lost art these days.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
. . . Christians in countries where they are not allowed to read scriptures publicly still manage to memorize scripture verses, sometimes passages....
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....
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? Thats because the ESV builds on the great translations of the pastincluding William Tyndales New Testament of 1526 and the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.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.
(Preface, ESV)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?