Which One Are You?

[JM]

Quoted:

KJVO #1 "I PREFER THE KJV"

This group believes the KJV is the best single English translation available today. This is based on its history, usefulness, beauty, etc. It does NOT mean that there might not be a better English translation possible and that other present translations are "bad".

These are only marginally KJVonly and should NOT be lumped in with discussion on other issues.

KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.

KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

KJVO #5 "I BELIEVE THE KJV IS NEW REVELATION"

This group believes that the KJV was supernaturally inspired in such a way that the English text itself is inerrant revelation. The Bible was "re-inspired" in 1611, rendering it in the English language.

These would say that the Greek/Hebrew should be changed to agree with the "new" revelation in 1611 and that all translations into other languages (Spanish, French, etc) should match the KJV.

[TheScottsMen]

KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

[JM]

I set it up as a poll but the poll is gone???

I agree with numbers 2 and 3.

[BT]

I'd go under 2 and 3, though I'm thinking about 4.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I have a preference for the KJV, however, I accept the ESV as a good translation. I don't have a knowledge of greek, hebrew, latin or armimaic. I therefore consider myself a 1.

[J.A.I]

None :)

[JVD]

None...although close to KJVO#1 but not quite there

[TwinCrier]

I'm #4
Those are great breakdowns. Much more accurate that the "KJVO's worship the bible" claims.

[Perceivence]

None of the above, sir.

[BT]

None of the above, sir.
I find that odd for a fundamentalist.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I find that odd for a fundamentalist.

Nothing about being a fundie requires that you venerate the KJV in any fashion. There are better translations out there that use better texts and have more modern language. Why is it strange that someone that is sola scriptura does not hold dogmatically to something mentioned NOWHERE in scripture?

[JM]

I find that odd for a fundamentalist.
I do as well, fundamental has a different meaning on this forum then I have ever experianced in real life.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

There is a set definition of fundamentalist, and I completely fail to see where it mentions the KJV at all. I love the KJV but find it lacking a lot of times. I study the Greek and Hebrew and teach from the NASB most of the time, but I do go to the KJV for the Psalms. Belieivng the Bible is inspired and the final word dnot mean picking one translation. Scripture says "study to show thyself approved", when you study manuscript evidence you start to find that the KJV manuscripts are not the oldest we have, not considered the most reliable anymore, and you also find that even the KJV translators used a different translation for their forward. There is nothing in scripture that says the KJV is inspired and I think quite frankly to promote that is promoting an extra-Biblical doctrine, it is a position that cannot be supported with scripture so it is quite frankly only one of preference and nothing more.

[J.A.I]

There is a set definition of fundamentalist, and I completely fail to see where it mentions the KJV at all. I love the KJV but find it lacking a lot of times. I study the Greek and Hebrew and teach from the NASB most of the time, but I do go to the KJV for the Psalms. Belieivng the Bible is inspired and the final word dnot mean picking one translation. Scripture says "study to show thyself approved", when you study manuscript evidence you start to find that the KJV manuscripts are not the oldest we have, not considered the most reliable anymore, and you also find that even the KJV translators used a different translation for their forward. There is nothing in scripture that says the KJV is inspired and I think quite frankly to promote that is promoting an extra-Biblical doctrine, it is a position that cannot be supported with scripture so it is quite frankly only one of preference and nothing more.

Amen... To me, KJV has nothing to do w/being a fundamentalist. The KJV is not a fundamental of the Christian faith at all. If we want to be real, the KJV wasn't the 1st Bible... If we really want to get down to it, we'll all learn to read the original Biblical languages. Jesus and Paul and other Biblical figures did not speak in thees, thous, and thines. They did not even speak English. The KJV is Old English, so what makes it different than any modern Biblical translation ? Nothing at all. I will never understand how people have taken the KJV and deemed it THE inspired translation.

[Protoevangel]

I find that odd for a fundamentalist.Why? I also would have to say none ofthe above. "But look at your Lutheran Icon", someone cries, "you aren't a fundamentalist!"

But I am indeed a fundamentalist. I oppose liberalism, modernism, humanism, secularism, etc. I insist on the inerrancy, infallibility and historical accuracy of Scripture. I hold strong to the five points of fundamentalism; the virgin birth of Christ, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the substitutional atonement, and the physical second coming of Christ.

In addition, I fall under all the definitions of fundamentalist for purpose of this forum as well:


For the purposes of this forum, fundamentalist will be defined as:



Fundamentalist: (Defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976)

A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible;

4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

a. The doctrine of the Trinity

b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ

c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit

d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal

e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death

f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;

5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;

6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and

7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.


Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

However, exclusive allegiance to the King James Version of God’s word is not a necessary part of fundamentalism, nor is it a part I believe in. The King James is a very excellent translation of God’s word, as are a number of other translations. God’s word does not trump God’s Word. There is no such thing as a “better” version of God’s Word. God either speaks through the text or He does not. I do not know about anyone else here, but God has spoken to me through the King James, the NIV, the RSV, the ASV, the YLT, and more. Is that a lot of translations to read? Its ok, I can’t think of a much better activity than to be engrossed in the Word of God, regardless of which translation it is.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Why? I also would have to say none ofthe above. "But look at your Lutheran Icon", someone cries, "you aren't a fundamentalist!"

It doesn't matter which church you attend, all that matters for this forum is the points listed! So welcome fellow fundie ;)

[BT]

LOL. Ok that's more like fundamentalists.

[J.A.I]

Hahaha :)

[JM]

There is a set definition of fundamentalist, and I completely fail to see where it mentions the KJV at all. I love the KJV but find it lacking a lot of times. I study the Greek and Hebrew and teach from the NASB most of the time, but I do go to the KJV for the Psalms. Belieivng the Bible is inspired and the final word dnot mean picking one translation. Scripture says "study to show thyself approved", when you study manuscript evidence you start to find that the KJV manuscripts are not the oldest we have, not considered the most reliable anymore, and you also find that even the KJV translators used a different translation for their forward. There is nothing in scripture that says the KJV is inspired and I think quite frankly to promote that is promoting an extra-Biblical doctrine, it is a position that cannot be supported with scripture so it is quite frankly only one of preference and nothing more.
There is a set definition of a fundamentalist used on this forum, sure but like I wrote...I've never come across a fundie in real life that didn't use the KJV over all other translations...and I live in Canada!

[@@Paul@@]

There is a set definition of a fundamentalist used on this forum, sure but like I wrote...I've never come across a fundie in real life that didn't use the KJV over all other translations...and I live in Canada!
How can a fundie believe in 15 inerrant and infallible words of God?

Maybe the meaning of "fundamentalist" changed from "believing in the word which God gave us" to believing in the "inerrant and infallible original autographs"... :scratch:

Are there NIV toting fundies out there? :doh:

[JM]

How can a fundie believe in 15 inerrant and infallible words of God?

Maybe the meaning of "fundamentalist" changed from "believing in the word which God gave us" to believing in the "inerrant and infallible original autographs"... :scratch:

Are there NIV toting fundies out there? :doh::D Good question, is there a NIV toting fundie? Do any fundie's use paraphase Bibles?

[J.A.I]

I mainly use NIV, CEV, and NASB. No matter what argument one uses, there's no way that you can say the KJV is the end all be all to the inspired Word of God. I reiterate - If we want to resort to technicalities, let us all learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic!

[Protoevangel]

Are there NIV toting fundies out there?Yup. Well, lately, I do tote my KJV more often than my NIV, but I tote my ASV and RSV sometimes as well. I even have a copy of the New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate in my car sometimes (inherited). It is nice and small, and travels well. It's not my favorite, but it testifies to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I do have one copy of the KJV that I don't take anywhere; the language and typeface is almost illegible, besides, it is so old, I am afraid it will fall apart if it gets used too much.

Do any fundie's use paraphase Bibles?About as often as I use concordances and commentaries. NLV and the Message are great when evangelizing, especially to people who use the excuse that "It's too hard to read." There is no excuse anymore! :D

[@@Paul@@]

I'm so confused. :confused:

I thought a fundie "Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;". Note is says BIBLE not BIBLES.

How many "inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible(s)" are there?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Bi·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bbl)
n.

1.
1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
3. A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.
4. A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.
2. often bible A book considered authoritative in its field: the bible of French cooking.


The word is used correctly, it does not mean the KJV in any sense, there is more than one Bible out there, and all of them have their merits and pitfalls. The Bible is the word of God, period. It doesn't matter what translation you use. They are not different Bibles so to speak, but rather different translations. I believe the autograph to be inspired, I do not venerate one translation to the poibnt of bibliolatry as that is not scriptural. Until someone can show me where in scripture it says the AV 1611 is the only inspired ENglish translation then it is extra Biblical and according to the definition of fundamentalism cannot be a required doctrine. In fact why don't some of you AV 1611 folk explain why your MODERN version of the KJV has been revised over 100 times and doesn't have all the books it did when published in 1611. If the AV 1611 was inspired, what we have today is not due to corrections and the dropping of the dueterocanonicals, which were in the 1611 version. Furthermore if it were wholly inspired why have there been so many revisions to correct errors? It is not even logical to put your faith into a single translation and venerate it as is done with the KJV.

[BT]

The word is used correctly, it does not mean the KJV in any sense, there is more than one Bible out there, and all of them have their merits and pitfalls. The Bible is the word of God, period. It doesn't matter what translation you use. They are not different Bibles so to speak, but rather different translations. I believe the autograph to be inspired, I do not venerate one translation to the poibnt of bibliolatry as that is not scriptural. Until someone can show me where in scripture it says the AV 1611 is the only inspired ENglish translation then it is extra Biblical and according to the definition of fundamentalism cannot be a required doctrine. In fact why don't some of you AV 1611 folk explain why your MODERN version of the KJV has been revised over 100 times and doesn't have all the books it did when published in 1611. If the AV 1611 was inspired, what we have today is not due to corrections and the dropping of the dueterocanonicals, which were in the 1611 version. Furthermore if it were wholly inspired why have there been so many revisions to correct errors? It is not even logical to put your faith into a single translation and venerate it as is done with the KJV.

I didn't know that anyone was venerating the KJV here.

I read the KJV because I can. Take from that what you will.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Oh I read the KJV, along with other translations as well. The Psalms are always KJV for me to be sure. There are people that agree with points 4&5 in the OP:


KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

KJVO #5 "I BELIEVE THE KJV IS NEW REVELATION"

This group believes that the KJV was supernaturally inspired in such a way that the English text itself is inerrant revelation. The Bible was "re-inspired" in 1611, rendering it in the English language.

These would say that the Greek/Hebrew should be changed to agree with the "new" revelation in 1611 and that all translations into other languages (Spanish, French, etc) should match the KJV.


And that is not scriptural or even sound doctrine.

[BT]

Oh I read the KJV, along with other translations as well. The Psalms are always KJV for me to be sure. There are people that agree with points 4&5 in the OP:



And that is not scriptural or even sound doctrine.
Yeah you won't get an argument from me on that. I've heard of the "dual" inspiration theory, which is #4 I believe. I'm not too sure (as I said earlier) what I think of that. I'm not going to kick you out of my church if you have an NIV or NASB (mabey if you have a New World translation :P ). But if you asked me which Bible to buy... I'd recommend KJV everytime.

[@@Paul@@]

The word is used correctly, it does not mean the KJV in any sense, there is more than one Bible out there, and all of them have their merits and pitfalls. The Bible is the word of God, period. It doesn't matter what translation you use. They are not different Bibles so to speak, but rather different translations. I believe the autograph to be inspired, I do not venerate one translation to the poibnt of bibliolatry as that is not scriptural. Until someone can show me where in scripture it says the AV 1611 is the only inspired ENglish translation then it is extra Biblical and according to the definition of fundamentalism cannot be a required doctrine. In fact why don't some of you AV 1611 folk explain why your MODERN version of the KJV has been revised over 100 times and doesn't have all the books it did when published in 1611. If the AV 1611 was inspired, what we have today is not due to corrections and the dropping of the dueterocanonicals, which were in the 1611 version. Furthermore if it were wholly inspired why have there been so many revisions to correct errors? It is not even logical to put your faith into a single translation and venerate it as is done with the KJV.
At no point was anyone turning this into a KJV only debate… I could care less which bible you use,,, just pick one… the thought that God would give you 15 different inerrant and infallible bibles is not “logical”.
Why is it every time someone says the KJV has been “revised” the number gets bigger each and every time? – there has been no real revisions,,, only corrections… we are all human after all.
inerrant
in·er·rant [in érrənt]
adj
1. incapable of mistakes: incapable of making a mistake (literary)
2. correct: containing no mistakes
infallible
in·fal·li·ble [in fálləb’l]
adj
1. not erring: incapable of making a mistake
2. incapable of failing: certain not to fail
The whole point of being a “fundie - bible believer” is first to believe that God actually gave us,,,,,,, A Bible. At least that’s what I thought,,, so I asked.

According to this, every Christian is a fundie because they all think they are using the Word,,, correctly (which is the proper combination to achieve a belief in an inerrant and infallible word of God)…

Are the concluding verses to Mark in the inerrant word of God? What about that pesky verse in Acts 8??
---------Show me a modern translation with a greater soul-winning history than the KJV and I’ll gladly switch, logical or not.

My point was always,,, just what is the inerrant, infallible word of God that fundies believe in?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

NWT isn't one I have seen! When I study to teach I go straight to the parallel Bibles and the Lexicons. I usually teach out of either the NKJV or NASB with the whiteboard full of Greek or Hebrew depending on what I am teaching. I like the NIV for some stuff as well. I don't mean to run down the KJV, God forbid. But simply to point out that it is one of many valid translations and that the KJV has nothing to do with being a fundie.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

At no point was anyone turning this into a KJV only debate… I could care less which bible you use,,, just pick one… the thought that God would give you 15 different inerrant and infallible bibles is not “logical”.
Why is it every time someone says the KJV has been “revised” the number gets bigger each and every time? – there has been no real revisions,,, only corrections… we are all human after all.
inerrant
in·er·rant [in érrənt]
adj
1. incapable of mistakes: incapable of making a mistake (literary)
2. correct: containing no mistakes
infallible
in·fal·li·ble [in fálləb’l]
adj
1. not erring: incapable of making a mistake
2. incapable of failing: certain not to fail
The whole point of being a “fundie - bible believer” is first to believe that God actually gave us,,,,,,, A Bible. At least that’s what I thought,,, so I asked.

According to this, every Christian is a fundie because they all think they are using the Word,,, correctly (which is the proper combination to achieve a belief in an inerrant and infallible word of God)…

Are the concluding verses to Mark in the inerrant word of God? What about that pesky verse in Acts 8??
---------Show me a modern translation with a greater soul-winning history than the KJV and I’ll gladly switch, logical or not.

My point was always,,, just what is the inerrant, infallible word of God that fundies believe in?

The Douay-Rheims has brought as many if not more souls to Christ than the KJV, but it's a pesky Catholic BIble too bad about that huh? The KJV has been around since 1611 in one form or another. That almost 400 years. When the NASB has been around 400 years we could compare numbers, otherwise it's not logical at all to do so.

[J.A.I]

I own KJV, NKJV, CEV, NIV, NASB, MSG, NLT, and i value them all the same.

[@@Paul@@]

The Douay-Rheims has brought as many if not more souls to Christ than the KJV, but it's a pesky Catholic BIble too bad about that huh? The KJV has been around since 1611 in one form or another. That almost 400 years. When the NASB has been around 400 years we could compare numbers, otherwise it's not logical at all to do so.
I wasn't really talking quantity... There's no doubt ANY word of God can bring someone to a saving relationship with Christ... I was talking initial impact...

....but as i stated before,,, defending the KJV was never my intent. NOR did anyone say the KJV had anything to do with being a fundie...

[@@Paul@@]

PS... i think i would fall somewhere between 2 and 3. :)

[JM]

The Douay-Rheims has brought as many if not more souls to Christ than the KJV, but it's a pesky Catholic BIble too bad about that huh? The KJV has been around since 1611 in one form or another. That almost 400 years. When the NASB has been around 400 years we could compare numbers, otherwise it's not logical at all to do so.
Are you sure the D-R brought more souls to Christ, I thought it was a translation for scholars, used by English Catholics at Douai (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05138a.htm) college in Flanders.

[Protoevangel]

At no point was anyone turning this into a KJV only debate… I could care less which bible you use,,, just pick one… the thought that God would give you 15 different inerrant and infallible bibles is not “logical”.Good, at least we agree on that. We have only one Bible, which has been translated. God's word carries through the translation.

The whole point of being a “fundie - bible believer” is first to believe that God actually gave us,,,,,,, A Bible. At least that’s what I thought,,, so I asked.Good, we agree again. As long as you are not pushing the "one translation to rule them all" agenda. ;)

According to this, every Christian is a fundie because they all think they are using the Word,,, correctly (which is the proper combination to achieve a belief in an inerrant and infallible word of God)…Incorrect. Please read: http://www.christianforums.com/t672730

Are the concluding verses to Mark in the inerrant word of God? What about that pesky verse in Acts 8??Of course, but what does that have to do with the price of my boogers in Antartica? Every translation I use includes it. Some do include footnotes stating that Mark 16:9-20 is not included in some of the oldest manuscripts. What's the problem? That is the truth.

---------Show me a modern translation with a greater soul-winning history than the KJV and I’ll gladly switch, logical or not.False criteria. No one can know the heart of man, save God alone. Besides, no one is asking you to switch. :scratch: The KJV is a great translation, and has been for nearly 400 years. It will continue rockin' on as long as people have an affinity for archaic language. Note I do not intend that as a critical comment, I love the KJV as well.

My point was always,,, just what is the inerrant, infallible word of God that fundies believe in?Exactly that, the Word of God. The Bible. Not some "Lord of the Translations".

[BT]

NWT isn't one I have seen! When I study to teach I go straight to the parallel Bibles and the Lexicons. I usually teach out of either the NKJV or NASB with the whiteboard full of Greek or Hebrew depending on what I am teaching. I like the NIV for some stuff as well. I don't mean to run down the KJV, God forbid. But simply to point out that it is one of many valid translations and that the KJV has nothing to do with being a fundie.
NWT is the Jehovah's Witness Bible :P

[@@Paul@@]

Good, at least we agree on that. We have only one Bible, which has been translated. God's word carries through the translation.
hum,,, I do disagree here. Sounds nice though. Just where is the one Bible? Did it come from Antioch? Alexandria? Syria? Just which “collection” of copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the inspired original letters is the one bible? I’m not trying to belittle here but,,, do you realize there is just as much confusion over the greek texts as there is over the translations from those texts? There is not one bible anywhere, neither in a translation or preserved in some greek codex… It simply does not exist.
Good, we agree again. As long as you are not pushing the "one translation to rule them all" agenda. ;)
Of course I am!! ;) but that’s between me and God. I believe God preserved His word for me in the AV… I (singular) do not need any other translation. If you do,,, that’s is again between you and God.
Incorrect. Please read: http://www.christianforums.com/t672730
I am still confused on this matter…. Sorry. The “guidelines” say:
1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
How many “verbally inspired” bibles are there that are inerrant and infallible? Or is this talking about a “verbally inspired” person speaking from the bible?………. hopefully not the latter.

Of course, but what does that have to do with the price of my boogers in Antartica? Every translation I use includes it. Some do include footnotes stating that Mark 16:9-20 is not included in some of the oldest manuscripts. What's the problem? That is the truth.
Boogers in Antarctica!!! LOL……… riot….. The majority proves that the concluding verses in Mark should be in there… over 90% of the documents agree. AND church fathers have quoted from those verses even before the oldest manuscript…. Are ALL translations the inspired word of God?

………besides,, older is not always better. We usually throw what in the trash (only to be found 1800 years later) ? ;)
Exactly that, the Word of God. The Bible. Not some "Lord of the Translations".
But no one were has actually answered what verbally inspired inerrant and infallible Word of God the fundies read… What IS the Bible? If it’s translated from something,,, what?? I’d like to learn that language so I can read God’s words and not some other man’s idea of what it should be.

Kinda like,,,,,,, What IS the Matrix?......... Just what is the Bible? Even the answers 2 or 3 in the OP do NOT reveal an actual bible, they are collections of writings...
Psa 12:6-7 ASV
(6) The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.
(7) Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[Protoevangel]

hum,,, I do disagree here. Sounds nice though. Just where is the one Bible? Did it come from Antioch? Alexandria? Syria? Just which “collection” of copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the inspired original letters is the one bible? I’m not trying to belittle here but,,, do you realize there is just as much confusion over the greek texts as there is over the translations from those texts? There is not one bible anywhere, neither in a translation or preserved in some greek codex… It simply does not exist. Are you indicating you believe that there is NO Bible? :P Of course you are not, you KNOW you have the Bible in the KJV translation. I KNOW you do too. Arguing from confusion is exactly what the ELCA is doing, trying to convince it’s parishioners that the Bible really isn’t condemning all homosexuals, only some homosexuals. I don’t care about who is confused about what texts, that dosen't change the Word of God. Confusion is missing God because of focusing on the details. Confusion is the Pharases maintaining external purity but failing in love. Of course there is one Bible, it is the Word of God. The Bible testifies to Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, died, raised, at the Father’s right hand, and returning again. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. – Romans 10:17.

Of course I am!! but that’s between me and God. I believe God preserved His word for me in the AV… I (singular) do not need any other translation. If you do,,, that’s is again between you and God. Great! I love the KJV translation! The “singular” comment proves we really have very little to argue about (but I've never let that stop me before, why stop now?:D). I have no problem with the KJV translation; in fact, I have and will continue to testify that I love the KJV, because I do. Where my problem comes is when one is critical of other translations of God’s Word beyond their personal preference. That is a denial of the Holy Spirit, a disdain for the Word of God. Face it, when it comes to God’s Word, there is only two ways to go, with it or against it. If the Word of God has been corrupted, that is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of Satan. I am concerned for those who are disparaging of any translation beyond their personal preference, because that is getting mightily close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, see Matthew 12.

I am still confused on this matter…. Sorry. The “guidelines” say:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

How many “verbally inspired” bibles are there that are inerrant and infallible? Or is this talking about a “verbally inspired” person speaking from the bible?………. hopefully not the latter. Like I have maintained. One. There are however, a number of translations, some in English, and some in other languages.

Boogers in Antarctica!!! LOL……… riot….. The majority proves that the concluding verses in Mark should be in there… over 90% of the documents agree. AND church fathers have quoted from those verses even before the oldest manuscript…. Are ALL translations the inspired word of God? Boogers – yea, lame I know, I couldn’t think of anything witty.

We are in full agreement about Mark 16:9-20. It is interesting to note, that even out of the two major manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that are missing this testimony, one appears to be missing sections, and the other has room of it; as if it were known that something belonged there, but perhaps the previous source was damaged (speculation). Like I said, no Bible I read excludes this passage. May I ask this, though? If this passage were missing, would we not still have the Word of God? What essential doctrine would be in danger if we did not have this section? Unless you are in a snake-handling church, none. Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful it is there.

………besides,, older is not always better. We usually throw what in the trash (only to be found 1800 years later) ? Older has had fewer opportunities to be altered through numerous copings. But you are right; older does not guarantee a lack of alteration.

But no one were has actually answered what verbally inspired inerrant and infallible Word of God the fundies read… What IS the Bible? If it’s translated from something,,, what?? I’d like to learn that language so I can read God’s words and not some other man’s idea of what it should be. What is the Bible? The Bible is God’s word, whatever the language or translation. The Bible is the KJV I read in church on Tuesday, the Bible is the NIV I read on the train coming to work today, yesterday, etc. The Bible is God speaking to me through the text and the Holy Spirit when I seek Him. The Bible is the Korean translation that my friend Miong uses when she is on mission in her home country. The Bible is the spoken Word when God uses me to minister to a friend who is broken and ready to give up on Him. That is the one Bible.

Kinda like,,,,,,, What IS the Matrix?......... Just what is the Bible? Even the answers 2 or 3 in the OP do NOT reveal an actual bible, they are collections of writings... I think we are coming closer to agreement. The Bible is the Word of God. The Greek/Hebrew and the Recieved Texts are the Bible, but they do hold exclusive rights to the title.

Psa 12:6-7 ASV
(6) The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.
(7) Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.ASV? Good. I like the ASV as well.

In any case, use the KJV as much as you want, even exclusively if you want. Just recognize that another translation testifies to Christ, is not “another” Bible.

If I (have been) / (am being) overly confrontational, I apologize. I do not intend to debate over personal preference, only against the "confusion" expressed over the number of Bibles. There is but one, and it is bigger than one translation.

[@@Paul@@]

Are you indicating you believe that there is NO Bible? :P Of course you are not, you KNOW you have the Bible in the KJV translation. I KNOW you do too. Arguing from confusion is exactly what the ELCA is doing, trying to convince it’s parishioners that the Bible really isn’t condemning all homosexuals, only some homosexuals. I don’t care about who is confused about what texts, that dosen't change the Word of God. Confusion is missing God because of focusing on the details. Confusion is the Pharases maintaining external purity but failing in love. Of course there is one Bible, it is the Word of God. The Bible testifies to Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, died, raised, at the Father’s right hand, and returning again. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. – Romans 10:17.

Thanks for the reply Dan,,, i appreciate the conversation. :) I'll jsut touch on one thing... (PS, i know I have a bible....... see the sig ;) )

I think you mentioned all the bibles we have today are translations from the word of God..... So my point was not to confuse,,,, but to find out just what is the written inerrant and infallible word from which all translations are conceived?

[kayanne]

Where my problem comes is when one is critical of other translations of God’s Word beyond their personal preference. That is a denial of the Holy Spirit, a disdain for the Word of God. Face it, when it comes to God’s Word, there is only two ways to go, with it or against it. If the Word of God has been corrupted, that is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of Satan. I am concerned for those who are disparaging of any translation beyond their personal preference, because that is getting mightily close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, see Matthew 12.

i agree. it's interesting to see that you posted this this afternoon, because i posted nearly identical thoughts this afternoon over on the baptist forum (thinking that it was unique, original thoughts---great minds think alike?)

What is the Bible? The Bible is God’s word, whatever the language or translation. The Bible is the KJV I read in church on Tuesday, the Bible is the NIV I read on the train coming to work today, yesterday, etc. The Bible is God speaking to me through the text and the Holy Spirit when I seek Him. The Bible is the Korean translation that my friend Miong uses when she is on mission in her home country. The Bible is the spoken Word when God uses me to minister to a friend who is broken and ready to give up on Him. That is the one Bible.
beautifully said. your words here remind me of Matthew 7:16-20.
when i see the mighty ways God is working in individuals, in ministries i am involved in or help support, and in various churches which use various translations of the Bible, it would seem that we could judge these translations by the "fruit" that is growing. a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

blessings, kayanne

btw, how is it that we can get this site to do the Bible quote? i tried to do the [bible] thing, but it kept telling me "verse not found." :scratch:

[Protoevangel]

kayanne,

Thank you for the kind words! I will have to look for your post over in the Baptist forum!

I don’t use the Bible search here on this site, I like to use http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/) , http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bst/ (http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bst/) , and http://www.blueletterbible.org/ (http://www.blueletterbible.org/).

[kayanne]

kayanne,

Thank you for the kind words! I will have to look for your post over in the Baptist forum!

I don’t use the Bible search here on this site, I like to use http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible/) , http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bst/ (http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bst/) , and http://www.blueletterbible.org/ (http://www.blueletterbible.org/).yes, i often use the crosswalk site myself. but i was referring to the new feature here where you type in (insert reference here) , or something like that, and it will automatically insert the passage into its own box within your post.

[Harry the Heretic]

Tyndale's NT, the Geneva bible and the KJV were the bibles of the reformation. The KJV ruled in all protestant denominations for nearly 300 years. When I talked to some of my older fundie brothers they remebered their father's concerns about the newer translations. The 1st was the ASV. Most rejected it becaude of the text, but some embraced it because of the newer text (those are the same churches that now usually embrace the NASB). The arguement for an "easier" read seems to have been a later development, but the new text has been used in almost all of these translations, which was the source of the controversy. What many may not know is that the language of the KJV was probably never spoken. It was translated in a time when english was in a great flux. The original commision made this (at least in theory) an update to the Bishop's bible. By the time the KJV hit the presses the language of the bishop's bible was not in use. There is evidence that when the KJV was read aloud, that the Pastor or whoever automatically changed the archaic verb stuctures to the more modern usage, as well as many of the pronouns.

So on paper it is "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord,..."

was read aloud as "The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, Prepare you the way of the Lord,..."

If you look at the KJV like this, it is surprisingly simple to read. This is how I do it in the Bible class I teach, except the Psalms.:D

[JVD]

Can anyone point me to the history of the kjv only belief? I know it is here and is strong now but I don't believe that has always been the case.

I know the original translators didn't seem to believe they had made a bible that was absolutely true to original. They actually said in the preface that many times it wasn't possible to tell exactly which sense of a word to use as an english equivalent so they put other possible meanings in the margins. If the translators didn't believe in KJV only...when did it start? And with whom?

And is it true that the original KJV had the apocrypha?

[twistedsketch]

I did hear that while it was being translated, the translators were executed if the king did not approve of what they translated.

[twistedsketch]

:D Good question, is there a NIV toting fundie? Do any fundie's use paraphase Bibles?

Yes, I tote the NIV, that is what I was raised on, and I have found it to be an excellent, readable translation. I'm not afraid of using other translations for in depth study, mainly because there aren't nearly as many study resources for the NIV. If there's a version of Strong's out there for the NIV, I'd sure like it.

[Harry the Heretic]

Can anyone point me to the history of the kjv only belief? I know it is here and is strong now but I don't believe that has always been the case.

I know the original translators didn't seem to believe they had made a bible that was absolutely true to original. They actually said in the preface that many times it wasn't possible to tell exactly which sense of a word to use as an english equivalent so they put other possible meanings in the margins. If the translators didn't believe in KJV only...when did it start? And with whom?

And is it true that the original KJV had the apocrypha?
Yes it had the apocrypha. It was the bible for the Church of England, which was the 1st to split from the Roman Catholic church. The KJV only beliefs would have to be fairly recent as before the turn of the 20th century there was no other Bible of consequence for to contend with.

I am just guessing here but I would think that it was an idea propigated by some Baptists and various charismatic movements. I'll look into it.

[@@Paul@@]

Can anyone point me to the history of the kjv only belief? I know it is here and is strong now but I don't believe that has always been the case.

I know the original translators didn't seem to believe they had made a bible that was absolutely true to original. They actually said in the preface that many times it wasn't possible to tell exactly which sense of a word to use as an english equivalent so they put other possible meanings in the margins. If the translators didn't believe in KJV only...when did it start? And with whom?

And is it true that the original KJV had the apocrypha?
I do know the KJV was really the "only" bible in use, at least until some time after 1850...
Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880. However, they found no audience except in a few cults. Most went out of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly "King James only".
......Now, starting in 1880, we have been pelted with english translations at an alarming rate. Personally i think the KJV only postition started with the onslought if these translations... someone had to defend the bible they've used for over 200 years...

I'm not sure about the "possible meanings in the margins", but i did find this interesting (from the preface to the KJV):
THE UNWILLINGNESS OF OUR CHIEF ADVERSARIES, THAT THE SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE DIVULGED IN THE MOTHER TONGUE, ETC.

Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: [Sophecles] they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. [See the observation (set forth by Clemen. his authority) upon the 4. rule of Pius the 4. his making in the index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.] So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that theyare not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; [Tertul. de resur. carnis.] neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plaindealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation.
.......And this:
AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
............No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had been most slightly and convenient; [Plutarch in Camillo.] was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezra, and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former, wept when they considered the latter) [Ezra 3:12] notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of Translations.......

It's an interesting read.
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/1611pref.html

[LynneClomina]

i would say #2, that the texts that the kjv was translated from are superior, as such i prefer to use the Nkjv. :D

i don't like the niv, most of the time....

[Harry the Heretic]

I did hear that while it was being translated, the translators were executed if the king did not approve of what they translated.
Not true. The translation was proposed as an answer to the disputes between the zealous Presbyterians who wanted more reform in the church of England and the COE clergy which disliked the anti-authoritarian presbyters. The translation committee consisted of both ideologies though with more of the Episcopal influence. After the commission King James was not involved. It was his proposal to settle or distract a dispute in a diplomatic way. He was probably uninterested once the translation was set in motion.

The project was short on finances from the beginning and did not seem to be a pet project of the king. It was probably finished and published to protect his honor and integrity, but after the decree he was not the impetuous behind it. The translators though took it very seriously knowing it would be critiqued in every circle.

[richardsherratt]

This is me:


KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."