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.
Memorizing Sacred Scripture has always interested me. The problem, like you say, is that there are many translations, and I never know which would be best to memorize. Plus, there's the fact that Scripture is so huge, and choosing which part to memorize is just as big a task as actually memorizing, for me at least. Then there's the issue of practicality. Do the benefits of memorizing large portions of Scripture outweigh the downsides, such as limiting yourself to one translation, the chance that you will forget over time, the loss of all that time you spent memorizing that could have spent, say, on reading textbooks (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.
~ I believe in King Jesus, not king James.
~ I don't use King James or any other English Bible when ministering in other countries and the people don't speak English.
~ Much of King James Onlyism is cultic (the last three selections mentioned before hand).
~ We are supposed to worship the Word of God, Jesus, not the Word of God, the Bible.
~ Salvation comes from faith in Christ, not faith in the Bible or dead theology.
-I believe in Jesus Christ also.
-I'm glad you don't use English versions with different speaking people. That would be kind of silly.
-Thanks for putting me in a cult.
-I do worship Jesus. I don't worship the Bible and nor does any other King James Onlyist I know, but I do put God's word on high. (Psalms 138:2)
There are no King James haters, or at least I've never run into anyone who really could be said to hate it, and I've been following this dispute for a good amount of time.
It was a fine translation for its day, and the people of its day would have been wise to take heed of it, but it has translational issues, its langauge is archaic, and it's unthinkable that we should ask people to be restricted to it as the only real Bible. The objection is not to the "King James," it's to the "Only."
Hi Cody. I hope you don't mind if I address the points you've raised.
I'm sure you do. But consider this. Saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't mean much these days. Muslims believe in Jesus. So do some Hindus. Mormons also believe in Jesus. In fact, the only people around who don't "believe in Jesus" are Jews and atheists. Intellectual assent to the existence of Jesus or the fact that some of his teachings are beneficial doesn't save. Faith that the death and resurrection of Jesus effects our salvation is what saves. I know that you have that faith, and I'm not trying to grou you in the same category as Mormons. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of false religions and cults out there who claim to believe in Jesus. So in this day and age it's all the more important that we be clear with our words.
Here's a question that no KJV-onlyist as ever given me a straight answer to. How do I provide a non-English speaker with the Word of God? One KJV-onlyist pointed me to a Spanish Bible that is translated from the Textus Receptus (I found this strange, since KJVO people believe that the KJV, but not the TR, was specially inspired by God). But what about someone who speaks, say, Swahili? There do exist Bibles in arcane languages. But by saying that all Bible translations except the KJV are inspired by Satan, you are denying non-English speakers access to the word of God. You are denying them salvation, because faith can only come by hearing the word of Christ. So again, how does a non-English speaker read the Word of God?
To be fair, KJV-onlyism bears at least a couple marks of cults. First of all, their apologists and proponents lie blatently about other Christians, and claim that anyone who disagrees with them is inspired by Satan. Abandonment of logic and reason is a common trait of cultists. Other KJV-onlyists adhere to rather strange doctrines. I've seen one KJV-only church which believes that the earth is the center of the universe. A member of this church (who was a very nice person) used to post here. Ultimately KJV-onlyism will lead to liberalism. When you abandon logic and reason, the only defense you can give for your faith is "I just believe it's true." That's very shaky foundation, and it will ultimately lead to universalism.
I believe that you worship Jesus. I'm not even saying that you're a false believer. But do you really reverence God's Word? A common objection KJV-onlyists level against modern translations is that they downplay important doctrines like the deity of Christ (actually the opposite is true, compare Romans 9:5 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV and the ESV). Let's say for the moment that this is true. Do you realize why this argument is terribly flawed? What you are saying is that we should invent a set of doctrines, and then choose the Bible translation that best agrees with the doctrines that we've created. Obviously I believe that Jesus is God. But I believe that Jesus is God because the Bible says that he is. I do not believe the Bible because it says that Jesus is God. We wouldn't know that Jesus is God unless the Bible said so. KJV-onlyism requires you to replace the Word of God with the wisdom of man
I'll go on record as saying that I do not hate the KJV. I don't hate KJV-onlyists either. But I hate KJV-onlyism, because it is a false doctrine and is supported by lies.
Thank you, I believe that you've spoken well.
Hi Cody. I hope you don't mind if I address the points you've raised.
I'm sure you do. But consider this. Saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't mean much these days. Muslims believe in Jesus. So do some Hindus. Mormons also believe in Jesus. In fact, the only people around who don't "believe in Jesus" are Jews and atheists. Intellectual assent to the existence of Jesus or the fact that some of his teachings are beneficial doesn't save. Faith that the death and resurrection of Jesus effects our salvation is what saves. I know that you have that faith, and I'm not trying to grou you in the same category as Mormons. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of false religions and cults out there who claim to believe in Jesus. So in this day and age it's all the more important that we be clear with our words.
Here's a question that no KJV-onlyist as ever given me a straight answer to. How do I provide a non-English speaker with the Word of God? One KJV-onlyist pointed me to a Spanish Bible that is translated from the Textus Receptus (I found this strange, since KJVO people believe that the KJV, but not the TR, was specially inspired by God). But what about someone who speaks, say, Swahili? There do exist Bibles in arcane languages. But by saying that all Bible translations except the KJV are inspired by Satan, you are denying non-English speakers access to the word of God. You are denying them salvation, because faith can only come by hearing the word of Christ. So again, how does a non-English speaker read the Word of God?
To be fair, KJV-onlyism bears at least a couple marks of cults. First of all, their apologists and proponents lie blatently about other Christians, and claim that anyone who disagrees with them is inspired by Satan. Abandonment of logic and reason is a common trait of cultists. Other KJV-onlyists adhere to rather strange doctrines. I've seen one KJV-only church which believes that the earth is the center of the universe. A member of this church (who was a very nice person) used to post here. Ultimately KJV-onlyism will lead to liberalism. When you abandon logic and reason, the only defense you can give for your faith is "I just believe it's true." That's very shaky foundation, and it will ultimately lead to universalism.
I believe that you worship Jesus. I'm not even saying that you're a false believer. But do you really reverence God's Word? A common objection KJV-onlyists level against modern translations is that they downplay important doctrines like the deity of Christ (actually the opposite is true, compare Romans 9:5 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV and the ESV). Let's say for the moment that this is true. Do you realize why this argument is terribly flawed? What you are saying is that we should invent a set of doctrines, and then choose the Bible translation that best agrees with the doctrines that we've created. Obviously I believe that Jesus is God. But I believe that Jesus is God because the Bible says that he is. I do not believe the Bible because it says that Jesus is God. We wouldn't know that Jesus is God unless the Bible said so. KJV-onlyism requires you to replace the Word of God with the wisdom of man
I'll go on record as saying that I do not hate the KJV. I don't hate KJV-onlyists either. But I hate KJV-onlyism, because it is a false doctrine and is supported by lies.
Thank you, I believe that you've spoken well.
But what about someone who speaks, say, Swahili? There do exist Bibles in arcane languages. But by saying that all Bible translations except the KJV are inspired by Satan, you are denying non-English speakers access to the word of God. You are denying them salvation, because faith can only come by hearing the word of Christ. So again, how does a non-English speaker read the Word of God?
If you're not raised in the KJV, it's not recognizable. Fornication and adultery mean the same thing, but people actually know what adultery means. Where I come from, we call spades shovels so people know what we're talking about.Also, I believe that we, in attempt to get rid of archaisms (replace words like "beget" with "become the father"), getting rid of timeless concepts (like infidelity instead of adultery). It's like calling a dog in America a canine American. Call a spade a spade will you? If it's fornication it is always fornication, and the doer is fornicator.
Except that's not really English anymore.Also, being originally Russian, I cherish the fact that Russian makes the distinction between you plural and you singular. The Greek has that too. The KJV has "thou" and "ye". Learn them and there's no need for footnotes like the NIV "the original is in plural/singular".
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?