KJV only debate [Archive] - Christian Forums

AudienceOfOne07

18th September 2004, 11:22 PM

I work at Christian bookstore and this issue has always been of interest. What are your thoughts on Bible translations and the KJV only debate?

GreenEyedLady

18th September 2004, 11:44 PM

I am a KJV only person. These threads get pretty heated. Lets sit down and see who comes through the door! MUHOOOHAHAHAHAHAH
*Hands AndienceofOne a Dr. Pepper and sits at the table*

verismo

18th September 2004, 11:49 PM

Hi all!

My only question would be: On who's authority would one base that belief; i.e. it is the ONLY usable translation because... who said so? I mean, it isn't the original language; it isn't the first English translation...so what?

mesue

19th September 2004, 12:34 AM

I am KJV only. I believe it is on God's authority and that He has blessed this Bible.

verismo

19th September 2004, 12:36 AM

I am KJV only. I believe it is on God's authority and that He has blessed this Bible.
Yeah, that is what I am saying...where did you get that idea?

mesue

19th September 2004, 12:44 AM

Yeah, that is what I am saying...where did you get that idea?His Word
The very 2 middle words in the KJV are "The Lord"
but that's not why I believe God has blessed the KJV.
I can type up a summary, but not tonight.
I'm going to bed. I have church and work in the morning.

Sword-In-Hand

19th September 2004, 12:58 AM

I'm a NKJV only, which some argue is no different than other translations that are not the KJV. Personally I don't like reading Elizabethean English. When it was translated, no one really spoke like that it was done to make it sound "prettier" and if it's the only true translation, what of Bibles that are translated in other languages for other countries? Are these not correct because they aren't in Old English? Can you believe a hardcore Baptist has these thoughts on the KJV? LOL, Gasp!

God holds His word above His very head and His word is forever settled in heaven, so it should be settled on earth too, but we humans have to make things difficult :)
I won't post anything else that I know of this translation or any other, as some don't think I'm correct.

Cright

19th September 2004, 01:08 AM

Okay... I think this is a silly debate. The KJV is a great translation... but it's JUST THAT... a TRANSLATION... so how can you be JKV ONLY? What's wrong w/ the orginial language before it?
What about the NIV, was translated by over 100 scholars who worked direcdtly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and were from over 15 different denominations (including Baptist, Bretheren, Mennonite and Wesleyan) who all agreed that the NIV translation was indeed a modern English translation of the old text.

Why Are There Errors in the King James Version?

You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are worse!

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is [i]Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has " he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

[b]Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."

With that quoted.. I will close by saying that I don't think that any "translation" is perfet... and I think that KJV is excellent. I don't think anyone should be KJV only or NIV only or whatever ONLY!! (unless it's orginial text).

My $.02
Carina

Jessica Lauren

19th September 2004, 03:18 AM

I use the NKJV, and it seems to be exactly the same as the KJV, just without the "thees" and "thous".

Iosias

19th September 2004, 07:13 AM

I use the NKJV, and it seems to be exactly the same as the KJV, just without the "thees" and "thous".
Wrong! There are many changes to the text but obviously without reading the KJV you would not know that :)

Gold Dragon

19th September 2004, 07:37 AM

As others have stated, the KJV is a wonderful version and literary masterpiece of biblical scholarship written in some of the most impactful Elizabethan English known to man. It has served Christians well throughout the ages. However as with most good things, some Chrisitans have pulled it to the extreme beyond its intended use almost to the extent of idolization.

The authors of the KJV and its source materials (Textus Receptus) never claimed to be a perfect reflection of God's word at the exclusion of other translations at the time. When King James got puritan and conformist Anglican scholars together to agree on an English version of the Bible, they did the best job they could with the resources they had available to them and created a masterpiece that has been a wonderful blessing to the english world for a long time. It brought unity to english speaking Christians who disagreed on many other things, and for that, it must also be praised. Their work was truly blessed by the Holy Spirit working in them. That doesn't mean their work could not be improved.

Since 1611, biblical scholarship and archeology has advanced tremendously. Hoards of ancient biblical manuscipts have been found since then. Knowledge about the life and culture of the biblical authors have been unearthed and rediscovered. Resources available to modern biblical scholars are vastly superior to those in the middle ages. And from these resources, prayerful scholars filled with the Holy Spirit are giving us new translations that not only reflect the intent of the originals authors better, but also reflect language of people of this generation better. Probably in another 400 years, the english language will have evolved to the point where our current translations will seem archaic to them, just as the KJV is to this generation. And new manuscripts and resources will demand revisiting our translations.

Gold Dragon

19th September 2004, 07:47 AM

I personally use the New American Standard Bible for bible study because it is a quality word-for-word modern translation done by evangelical scholars.

The New International Version is a useful thought-for-thought modern evangelical translation that I use for devotionals and more casual usage.

I use The Message which is an evangelical paraphrase that strays significantly from the source materials to get a "different perspective" on a verse that is often insightful for non-Christians or young people because of the use of modern analogies.

I use the King James Version when talking to older folks or for a more poetic reading of the Bible.

I use the New Revised Standard Version when looking for the perspective of more liberal Christians and communicating with them.

Gold Dragon

19th September 2004, 07:49 AM

I posted this basic primer on this thread (http://christianforums.com/t773304)and thought it would be appropriate here too.

Ancient Manuscripts
Modern translations are done using the entire collection of Greek and Hebrew documents and fragments of the bible that have been preserved. Obviously none of them are the "originals" that were penned by Moses, Paul, etc. but compared to other ancient documents, the bible is one of the most well preserved documents in human history in terms of the age and number of preserved manuscripts.

Some examples of these manuscripts are:
1. Dead Sea Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) (2nd century BC - 1 century AD)
2. Codex Vaticanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus) (4th century AD)
3. Codex Sinaiticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus) (4th century AD)
4. Codex Alexandrinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04080c.htm)(5th century AD)
5. Masoretic Text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text) (9th century AD)

Greek and Hebrew Compilations
Granted some of the documents and fragments have discrepancies between them and biblical scholars generally try to go with the older documents, although there is an element of decision making that does need to be done. Most modern translations use the Greek and Hebrew compilation primarily done by Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-n.html#nestle1927)initially in 1897 with the latest revision in 1993 which is currently published by the United Bible Society. It was strongly influenced by manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type) dating back to the 4th century but also used manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type). Notable bibles that use the United Bible Society versions as a source are the NIV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html), NASB (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html), NRSV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html). Another significant compilation was the one used in the translation of the KJV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html) called the Textus Receptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus)which was created by Erasmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus) beginning in 1516 with his final edition in 1535. This work was based primarily on manuscripts with the Byzantine text-type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type) dating from the 12th century. Revisions are made as older manuscripts are discovered and the editors have a better grasp of the original languages or they change their mind on a word selection because of new evidence.

Translating into the modern language
Once a Greek and Hebrew compilation has been chosen as the source material, a translation into the modern language must be made. At this point, biblical scholars have many more choices to make in terms of word selection because as anyone with experience in multiple languages knows, one word in one language may not have an equivalent in another language or may have many equivalents depending on the context. And the grammar and sentence structure between languages is usually so different that a completely literal sequential translation would result in gibberish. This is especially true the further languages are from each other linguistically and historically. The decision process of selecting the appropriate words/phrases in most modern translations and the KJV was done by large groups of biblical scholars who agreed on a translation philosophy. They discussed and debated about the best translation for each verse within their philosophical framework. Some translations are done by individuals.

Literal Translations
A decision has to be made by translators regarding the "literalness" of a translation because highly literal translations, while being more faithful to the structure and words of the source materials, tend to be more difficult for modern readers to comprehend since they are not familiar with the language and sentence structure of the original language. Although an element of interpretation is necessarily, the aim of literal translations is to minimize this. English examples of more literal translations are the NASB (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html), KJV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html) and NRSV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html). I find literal translations highly useful for indepth bible studies.

Free Translations
On the other hand "freer" translation philosophies allow the translator to diverge more from the literal wording and sentence structure to produce a translation more easily understood by modern readers. It requires more interpretation by the translator but still tries to remain faithful to source material. The NIV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html) is an example of this. I find free translations to be useful for general church audiences who many not be very experienced with in-depth bible studies, but I would recommend a literal translation as they get more involved in bible studies.

Paraphrase Translations
Finally paraphrase translations make very little attempts to follow the literal wording of their sources and the primary aim is to relate to the audience of their time with language and idioms of the time. These translations allow the bible to become similar to easy reading for those not interested in serious bible study but often diverge significantly from source material. Examples of this are The Message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message) and the Living Bible. I find that paraphase translations are useful for young people and newer Christians, although I would always recommend a free or literal translation to go along with reading a paraphrase translation.

Theological leanings
The theological leanings of the translators also has an impact in word selection depending on their theological view. Generally, NIV and NASB were translated by evangelicals while the NRSV was translated by theologically more liberal translators. The KJV was translated by Anglicans in the 1600s with contributions from both conformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformist) and puritan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan) scholars.

Melly Monster

19th September 2004, 09:03 AM

Crimson Rose

19th September 2004, 09:19 AM

there are lots of translations of the Bible, each touch different people in different ways,
the usually purpose of a new translation is to write the Bible in words that the people of today can understand, with each new tranlations-- things get changed because errors were found or because things have been simplified to make it easier to understand

i like kjv but it is not always the easiest to understand, yet along with siplifing things some parts of the true meaning of the scripture gets lost

thats why for daily reading is suggest-- reading the version that is easiest for you to understand

but for study i suggest--- having many different versions of the Bible to compare, along with looking up the original jewish\greek meaning of words(and phrases), and looking up the original context that the scripture was written in and therefore is meant to address

Melly Monster

19th September 2004, 09:22 AM

WiredSpirit

19th September 2004, 09:31 AM

When I was growing up as a Baptist we used the KJV in church and us children used the "Good News" Bible (it was the new and popular thing). My mom is still a Baptist and I've noticed when I've attended her church that they use the CEV a lot.

Personally, I don't know much about the CEV, but I'm not fond of the NIV. When it was translated (along with the NAS and several other contemporary Bibles) the translators consulted religious leaders from various denominations to get their opinions on certain scriptures. I'd rather read a Bible that was translated to be as accurate as possible, not one that was influenced by church tradition and popular opinion.

A lot of innaccuracies have been pointed out to me in the KJV, but its still one of my favorites. I really like the language and its my favorite Bible to quote because I like the way it sounds. One of my favorite contemporary translations is the NRSV because it really was translated to be as accurate as possible, but my all time favorite is the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It has all kinds of footnotes that describe the original text and offers alternative and somewhat unorthodox interpretations of certain scriptures. There's nothing too radical about the text itself, but reading the footnotes and alternative translations really lets you take discussions of the text to a new level (especially if you're discussing it with someone who knows the original language)

Gold Dragon

19th September 2004, 09:32 AM

I understand things getting changed but when you make a new bible for better understanding atleast do it right 36 and then just totaly skip 37 and go right to 38 just don't make any sense to me. If you have both KJV and NIV please open them both up and see what I am talking about.I'm not sure about this particular verse, but omission of verses in modern translations relative to the KJV are not arbitrary decisions that the translators took lightly. These are a result of comparing the greek and hebrew source documents available to the translators. In many cases, older source documents (4th century) that are used in modern translations do not have sections/verses that are found in the newer source documents (12th century) used by the KJV suggesting that the originals may not have contained those verses and they could possibly have been later additions. 800 years of manual copying can result in that sort of thing.

Gold Dragon

19th September 2004, 09:42 AM

Here is the footnote on Acts 8:37 in the NIV bible.

8:36 Some late manuscripts baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Link (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Acts+8%3A36-38&version=NIV)Suggesting that earlier manuscripts and possibly the originals did not contain this verse.

TheScottsMen

19th September 2004, 10:04 AM

I am KJV, nothing is wrong with the Original version at all but the NIV I know for sure there is scriptures takeing out, if you have a KJV and a NIV please get them both out, turn to Acts 8:37 now tell me, is there an Acts 8:37 in the NIV, No there isn't and this is why I do not read the NIV. Thank you and God Bless

P.S.
That is just one of many scriptures takeing from the word. I don't read the NKJV or Living bible because there are also scriptures takeing away but I do not have them bibles in my home to look them up right now and I do not know them off of the top of my head. I have a NIV because my husband use to read it until I pointed this out to him, he is now a KJV reader also.

Melissa Those who are not KJV only would say the original manuscripts did not have the extras, long readings, that the KJV has, that the supposed oldest manuscripts to date do not have the extras that the TR has, that they were later added by scribes to bring out the meaning a bit more.

As for myself, I stick with the KJV for personal or group Bible studies, but have no problem reading other translations for devotional reading.

Jessica Lauren

19th September 2004, 07:19 PM

The problem with the KJV, is younger people cannot understand a word it's saying. I find it very hard, so I use the NKJV.

Bulldog

19th September 2004, 08:12 PM

Do KJV-only advocates believe that the KJV is even vetter than the original Gree, Hebrew, and Aramaic? :eek:

Jessica Lauren

19th September 2004, 09:59 PM

I hope not.

GreenEyedLady

19th September 2004, 10:22 PM

Do KJV-only advocates believe that the KJV is even vetter than the original Gree, Hebrew, and Aramaic? :eek:
NO. We do not think its better than the greek, well maybe some people but for the most of KJVO we think its the best english preserved word of God.
BTW, my daughter reads the KJV. She is 8. I think if you just read it, you get to know it and its easier than you think it is.
GEL

verismo

19th September 2004, 10:27 PM

...we think its the best english preserved word of God.
...
GEL
But, no one knows why?

Gold Dragon

19th September 2004, 10:28 PM

NO. We do not think its better than the greek, well maybe some people but for the most of KJVO we think its the best english preserved word of God.That is definitely a valid opinion that is not shared by non-KJVO folks who still feel that the KJV is an excellent translation for its time.

I think if you just read it, you get to know it and its easier than you think it is.I think the more I get to know a foreign language like Chinese or French, it gets easier to read their literature and probably their bibles as well.

JVD

20th September 2004, 04:12 AM

I like the one that said "I am NKJV only"....

TwinCrier

20th September 2004, 09:03 AM

The problem with the KJV, is younger people cannot understand a word it's saying. I find it very hard, so I use the NKJV.My 8 and 9 year olds have no problem with it. Thees and thous mean YOU, plural and singular form. No such distinction exists in modern English. When I first had to read Shakespere in school, we we'rent allowed to bypass the old English language, and were told to use a dictionary to look up words we didn't understand. That can still be done today. Dictionary.com works nicely. Also, since most hymns use that form of English, it makes it much easier to memorize scripture. Why keep singing "How great Thou Art" then read "you are great."

Gold Dragon

20th September 2004, 09:12 AM

When I first had to read Shakespere in school, we we'rent allowed to bypass the old English language, and were told to use a dictionary to look up words we didn't understand. That can still be done today. Dictionary.com works nicely.And that is why the average person doesn't read Shakespeare outside of the classroom. If you want to relegate the Bible to the realm of those who study languages or children who have been studying languages at a young age, then you are doing the same thing that the RCC did when they refused to authorize translations of the Bible outside of the Latin Vulgate. If you didn't know Latin, you couldn't read the bible. They viewed translations to the common languages as corruptions of the sacred scripture which resulted in the biblical illiteracy of entire generations of Christians. Fortunately the RCC learned their lesson. When will KJVO types?

Recognize that Elizabethan English is almost as different a language from our current english as Spanish is to Portugese or Cantonese is to Mandarin, etc. If it isn't now, very soon it will be.

JVD

20th September 2004, 10:12 AM

Melly Monster

20th September 2004, 12:44 PM

The problem with the KJV, is younger people cannot understand a word it's saying. I find it very hard, so I use the NKJV.

I have been reading KJV all my life, I have to disagree with that, you can't understand it because you don't take the time to try and understand it. Its not that hard yes there is things in every bible that we will not understand but that is the way God wants it. We are not meant to understand everything thats why we are not perfect and only God is.

Cary.Melvin

20th September 2004, 12:59 PM

SumTinWong

20th September 2004, 01:54 PM

I like the NIV, and the NASB by far more than the KJV. Although I do like the KJV for poetic license I get more out of reading the other two.

TwinCrier

20th September 2004, 02:24 PM

It's sad, but KJVO churches break fellowship with other believers for something that can only be called prejudice or ignorance. It really isn't possible for most KJVO persons to listen to reason because they believe in the KJV with the same faith they believe in Jesus. However, the KJV is not God, it is a translation of God's word, but only a translation.Thanks for speaking for all KJVO everywhere, but no KJVO believes the bible is God. We simply give it more credence then say, oh, the TV Guide. To accuse an entire group of people of being "prejudice or ignorance" is unfair and unjustifiable. You may want to educate yourself on what KJVO actually believe before you make such accusations. I suggest http://biblebelievers.com as a source.

mesue

20th September 2004, 02:29 PM

JVD,
As a KJV only person, I can honestly say I have not "Broken Fellowship" with another believer because of what Bible version they read. If you read back you'll see that we believe that the KJV is blessed of God, not that it is God.

mesue

20th September 2004, 02:31 PM

But, no one knows why?I have a doctor's appointment, however, when I come back be prepared to read ;)

Melly Monster

20th September 2004, 03:58 PM

It's sad, but KJVO churches break fellowship with other believers for something that can only be called prejudice or ignorance. It really isn't possible for most KJVO persons to listen to reason because they believe in the KJV with the same faith they believe in Jesus. However, the KJV is not God, it is a translation of God's word, but only a translation.

Passing judgement on everyone who is KJVO is wrong, My grandmother belongs to a church who reads out of the NIV but if thats what they want so be it, I"m not gonna judge you because of what bible you read, just as long as you read one. My church is KJVO and we fellowship with lots of other churches that arent we go to my grandmothers church as a church function to plays and lockins and much more and they come to ours, please get your facts straight before passing judgement thanks I said my piece :)

Adammi

20th September 2004, 04:08 PM

WiredSpirit

20th September 2004, 04:42 PM

Passing judgement on everyone who is KJVO is wrong, My grandmother belongs to a church who reads out of the NIV but if thats what they want so be it, I"m not gonna judge you because of what bible you read, just as long as you read one. My church is KJVO and we fellowship with lots of other churches that arent we go to my grandmothers church as a church function to plays and lockins and much more and they come to ours, please get your facts straight before passing judgement thanks I said my piece :)
Actually, I understand what JDV is saying. When I was in high school I had a friend who wasn't allowed to go to my church because we didn't use the KJV. His mother didn't want him to go because she did not believe in contemporary music and she said our church was too worldly, but after we talked her out of that she let him go... until she found out we used the NIV. I'm not sure if her opinion is the same now, but I think her son spontaineously combusted.

TwinCrier

20th September 2004, 04:53 PM

The Bible was written by fisherman, shepherds, and for the most part, very unlearned people, in poor Hebrew and poor Greek.
It was not written by a high and lofty king and his chief theologians and scribes for the use and furtherance of the Church of England. It was not written to have the sound of a classical Elizibethian-style English.
Though I do think that the KJV is a wonderful version, it is only a version, not the version.
I have ALWAYS wondered about this, what Bible do KJVOs want for non-English speaking people to read, or should they learn English?There are accurate versions of the bible translated from the texus Receptus in other languages. Just as with English speaking people, it is up to them to find the accurate version of God's word in their language. If English isn't your first languge, please, by all means, find God's word in your native tongue. That's what KJVO did, and we came to the conclusion that the KJV is God's word in English for us. I'm sure you did much research into many bible versions before deciding on the version you chose... right?

TwinCrier

20th September 2004, 04:55 PM

Actually, I understand what JDV is saying. When I was in high school I had a friend who wasn't allowed to go to my church because we didn't use the KJV. His mother didn't want him to go because she did not believe in contemporary music and she said our church was too worldly, but after we talked her out of that she let him go... until she found out we used the NIV. I'm not sure if her opinion is the same now, but I think her son spontaineously combusted.And as his mother it's her right to chose where her son goes. I wouldn't let my kids go to a church that disagreed with my doctrine either. I presumme the spontaneous combustion comment was hyberbole.

WiredSpirit

20th September 2004, 05:04 PM

Absolutely it was her right, but I find it quite petty and I'm backing up JDV who said that some KJVO people break fellowship with Christians who use other Bibles.

GreenEyedLady

20th September 2004, 05:10 PM

Absolutely it was her right, but I find it quite petty and I'm backing up JDV who said that some KJVO people break fellowship with Christians who use other Bibles.
I disagree with this statement. This is so untrue!
KJO people do not break fellowship with others because of the bible they use!! Come on now, be fair and make statements that are true. Also, why is it that everytime a KJV only thread starts someone HAS to make things personal? If your convicted to use the KJV FINE, if not FINE, we are still saved! Good night people, what is next???

Adammi

20th September 2004, 05:12 PM

I'm sure you did much research into many bible versions before deciding on the version you chose... right?I don't believe that any one version has it.

No matter how wonderful a translation is, it has limitations. The Bible was originally written using 11,280, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word, but the typical English translation uses only around 6,000 words. Obiously, nuances and shades of meaning can be missed, so it is always hewlpful to compare translations.
-The Purpose Dirven Life (p. 325)

Rick Warren explains it so well.
I use many different translations and paraphrases, though I primarily use NIV and KJV.

Melly Monster

20th September 2004, 05:21 PM

Actually, I understand what JDV is saying. When I was in high school I had a friend who wasn't allowed to go to my church because we didn't use the KJV. His mother didn't want him to go because she did not believe in contemporary music and she said our church was too worldly, but after we talked her out of that she let him go... until she found out we used the NIV. I'm not sure if her opinion is the same now, but I think her son spontaineously combusted.

Yes but does this make all KJVO this way No it don't that is what I'm getting at I was offended by that statment because that is passing judgement on all KJVO users and I will only use the KJV but I want break "fellowship" with those who don't, yes I believe that is wrong but don't point fingers at all kjvo. Thats all I'm saying.

Melly Monster

20th September 2004, 05:24 PM

Absolutely it was her right, but I find it quite petty and I'm backing up JDV who said that some KJVO people break fellowship with Christians who use other Bibles.

Sorry I didnt see "some" I seen KJVO people I didn't see some now if this JDV meant some then JDV needs to refraze the comment and get his/her facts straight.

Melly Monster

20th September 2004, 05:25 PM

I disagree with this statement. This is so untrue!
KJO people do not break fellowship with others because of the bible they use!! Come on now, be fair and make statements that are true. Also, why is it that everytime a KJV only thread starts someone HAS to make things personal? If your convicted to use the KJV FINE, if not FINE, we are still saved! Good night people, what is next???

:amen:

SumTinWong

20th September 2004, 05:30 PM

The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior?

Pro KJV Site (http://www.kjvonly.org/)

Con KJV Site (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/)

sobresaliente

20th September 2004, 06:41 PM

The problem with the KJV, is younger people cannot understand a word it's saying. I find it very hard, so I use the NKJV.
I object!

I am young and have been reading the good ol' KJV for a few years now...once you get used to it it is so much easier than any of the modern versions. Modern versions tend to add new unnecessary words, I'll give you an example from the message:

MATTHEW 5:1-8-- AKJV

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

MATTHEW 5:1-8--TM

1 When Jesus saw his ministry drawing huge crowds, he climbed a hillside... This is what he said:

2 "You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.

3 "You're blessed when you feel you've lost what is most dear to you. Only then can you be embraced by the One most dear to you.

4 "You're blessed when you're content with just who you are no more, no less. That's the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can't be bought.

5 "You're blessed when you've worked up a good appetite for God. He's food and drink in the best meal you'll ever eat.

6 "You're blessed when you care. At the moment of being 'care-full,' you find yourselves cared for. 7 "You're blessed when you get your inside world your mind and heart put right. Then you can see God in the outside world. 8 ? (where is it? verses 1 and 2 combined?)

MATTHEW 5:13-16-- AKJV

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

MATTHEW 5:13-16--TM

Jesus said, "Let me tell you why you are here. You're here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You've lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage. "Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven." (148 words)--[NOTE:I did not write this "148 words. I don't know what it means.")

MATTHEW 5:43-48-- AKJV

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

MATTHEW 5:43-48--TM

Jesus said, "You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best -- the sun to warm and the rain to nourish -- to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. "In a word, what I'm saying is, Grow up. You're kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you."

MATTHEW 6:1-4, 6-- AKJV

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

MATTHEW 6:1-4, 6--TM

Jesus said, "Be especially careful when you are trying to be good so that you don't make a performance out of it. It might be good theater, but the God who made you won't be applauding.

"When you do something for someone else, don't call attention to yourself. You've seen them in action, I'm sure 'playactors' I call them treating prayer meeting and street corner alike as a stage, acting compassionate as long as someone is watching, playing to the crowds. They get applause, true, but that's all they get. When you help someone out, don't think about how it looks. Just do it quietly and unobtrusively. That is the way your God, who conceived you in love, working behind the scenes, helps you out. . . . "Here's what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won't be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace."

ROMANS 5:7-10--AKJV

5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

ROMANS 5:7-10--TM

We can understand someone dying for a person worth dying for, and we can understand how someone good and noble could inspire us to selfless sacrifice. But God put his love on the line for us by offering his Son in sacrificial death while we were of no use whatever to him. Now that we are set right with God by means of this sacrificial death, the consummate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a question of being at odds with God in any way. If, when we were at our worst, we were put on friendly terms with God by the sacrificial death of his Son, now that we're at our best, just think of how our lives will expand and deepen by means of his resurrection life!

ROMANS 5:20-21, 6:6-9 AKJV

5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

ROMANS 5:20-21--TM

Sin didn't, and doesn't, have a chance in competition with the aggressive forgiveness we call grace. When it's sin versus grace, grace wins hands down. All sin can do is threaten us with death, and that's the end of it. Grace, because God is putting everything together again through the Messiah, invites us into life-a life that goes on and on and on, world without end. . . . Could it be any clearer? Our old way of life was nailed to the Cross with Christ, a decisive end to that sin-miserable life no longer at sin's every beck and call! What we believe is this: If we get included in Christ's sin-conquering death, we also get included in his life-saving resurrection. We know that when Jesus was raised from the dead it was a signal of the end of death-as-the-end. Never again will death have the last word.

PHILIPPIANS 2:1-6-- AKJV

2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

PHILIPPIANS 2:1-6--TM

If you've gotten anything at all out of following Christ, if his love has made any difference in your life, if being in a community of the Spirit means anything to you, if you have a heart, if you care then do me a favor: Agree with each other, love each other, be deep-spirited friends. Don't push your way to the front; don't sweet-talk your way to the top. Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead. Don't be obsessed with getting your own advantage. Forget yourselves long enough to lend a helping hand. Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all.

PHILIPPIANS 2:12-16-- AKJV

2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

2:14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

PHILIPPIANS 2:12-16--TM

Be energetic in your life of salvation, reverent and sensitive before God. That energy is God's energy, an energy deep within you, God himself willing and working at what will give him the most pleasure. Do everything readily and cheerfully no bickering, no second-guessing allowed! Go out into the world uncorrupted, a breath of fresh air in this squalid and polluted society. Provide people with a glimpse of good living and of the living God. Carry the light-giving Message into the night so I'll have good cause to be proud of you on the day that Christ returns. You'll be living proof that I didn't go to all this work for nothing.

PHILIPPIANS 4:4-9-- AKJV

4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.

4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

PHILIPPIANS 4:4-9--TM

Celebrate God all day, every day. I mean, revel in him! Make it as clear as you can to all you meet that you're on their side, working with them and not against them. Help them see that the Master is about to arrive. He could show up any minute! Don't fret or worry. Instead of worrying, pray. Let petitions and praises shape your worries into prayers, letting God know your concerns. Before you know it, a sense of God's wholeness, everything coming together for good, will come and settle you down. It's wonderful what happens when Christ displaces worry at the center of your life Summing it all up, friends, I'd say you'll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse.

Now, tell me, which one makes more sense and is easier to read?

Maybe someone would be so kind as to supply some comparisons to other Bible versions.

God bless and keep you,
Sobresaliente

sobresaliente

20th September 2004, 06:55 PM

Are there any NIV only people in here?:thumbsup:

The NIV is the best English translation for the everyday Joe Six-pack English speaking Christian. It sells so well, it must have God's Blessing. Now if Zondervan would only make one with the Deuterocanocal Books (Apocrypha) for us Catholics and Orthodox, it would be da bomb (that means good for you people over 40 ;) ).
Zondervan also publishes the satanic bible...and we all know God blesses that one:o ...makes me sick.

Just because something sells well does not mean it's blessed...some people just have itching ears, and some are ignorant of the discrepancies between versions.

Sobresaliente

WiredSpirit

20th September 2004, 07:18 PM

Actually "Satanic Verses" is published by Harper Collins. Not sure about any other books that are referred to as the Satanic Bible.

I do have a very pro-Islam book that was published by Zondervan. It outlines similarities between the Bible and the Koran.

Gold Dragon

20th September 2004, 07:59 PM

Modern versions tend to add new unnecessary words, I'll give you an example from the message:

Now, tell me, which one makes more sense and is easier to read?

Maybe someone would be so kind as to supply some comparisons to other Bible versions.

God bless and keep you,
SobresalienteThe Message is a type of bible known as a paraphrase bible that is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the original Greek and Hebrew but tries to find words, ideas and analogies that interpret the bible in ways that would relate to a specific audience, usually the generation they are written in. Other examples of paraphrase bibles are the Living Bible and the New Living Translation. They are not intended to be used for bible studies and I would always recommend using a more literal translation along side a paraphrase bible.

The KJV is a literal word-for-word translation of the source materials. Comparable modern translations that also use this translation philosophy are the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New Revised Standard Version. I think you'll find the NASB to be quite similar to the KJV in most of the passages you cited.

Cary.Melvin

20th September 2004, 07:59 PM

Zondervan also publishes the satanic bible...and we all know God blesses that one:o ...makes me sick.
Zondervan is a Christian Book Publisher. I doubt that you would find a Satanic Bible being offered by them. I am not familliar with their entire product line but their NIV Study Bible has been very helpful to me.

Bulldog

20th September 2004, 08:08 PM

Disclaimer: I like the KJV, think it is writeen very bueatifully, but I do not believe it to be the best English translation or an infallilb eone.

And as his mother it's her right to chose where her son goes. I wouldn't let my kids go to a church that disagreed with my doctrine either. I presumme the spontaneous combustion comment was hyberbole.Just curious, would you let your choldren read any other translation than the KJV?

God Bless

@@Paul@@

20th September 2004, 10:25 PM

Zondervan is a Christian Book Publisher. I doubt that you would find a Satanic Bible being offered by them. I am not familliar with their entire product line but their NIV Study Bible has been very helpful to me.
Zondervan is owned by Harpercollins......

"We were trained in all phases of warfare, both psychological and physical for the destruction of the Capitalistic society and Christian civilization. In one portion of our studies we went thoroughly into the matter of psychopolitics. This was the art of capturing the minds of a nation through brainwashing and fake mental health... During the past few years I have noted with horror the increase of psychopolitical warfare upon the American public." [3] Kenneth Goff, member of the U.S. Communist Party from 1936 to 1939.

Gold Dragon

20th September 2004, 10:51 PM

Zondervan is owned by Harpercollins......
The NIV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html) bible was first published by Zondervan in 1973 and revised in 1978 and 1984. Harper Collins bought Zondervan in 1988.

kyzar

20th September 2004, 11:22 PM

I personally use (most of the time) the NASB, but I also regularly use the NKJV and the KJV to compare verses and commentaries... I'm not a fan of saying that one translation is the definitive, but the KJV is pretty good, (the best of a bad bunch?)...
However when I study the bible I read from my NASB with my dad's greek and hebrew (word for word Hebrew and Greek to English (usually with a couple of different 'meanings' for the words) with the english directly beneath the heb/grk). Personally its the only way I can be sure I'm not reading some shonky interpretation...
Thats just me though!
Thanks guys! God Bless

JVD

21st September 2004, 12:18 AM

I just came back to this thread and must make a correction of my post.... I should have said SOME KJVO churches break fellowship because of this. I apologize for hurting anyone by that mis-statement.

I have to say that in my experience many and perhaps most of the KJVO people I have met will not go to a church that uses another version from the pulpit. That is what I mean by breaking fellowship.

I do know many, many KJVO people, and have had many discussions on the subject. I still stand by the statement that many and perhaps most KJVO people are very strong on the subject. It is a very important doctrine to those who believe it. I am not talking about people who just happen to prefer the KJV but people who believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God for english speaking people.

I happen to live one block from such a church and it is actually part of their doctrinal statement.

GreenEyedLady

21st September 2004, 12:36 AM

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gif

THANK YOU JVD!
Its apart of our doctrinal statment in our church! I am strong on the subject, but I do not allow that to come in between me and other brothers and sisters in Christ. If I lived in a box all my life, how could I possible glorify God? You understand? We are strong in our beliefs, but there is so much more that all of us agree on!
GEL

@@Paul@@

21st September 2004, 02:41 AM

The NIV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html) bible was first published by Zondervan in 1973 and revised in 1978 and 1984. Harper Collins bought Zondervan in 1988.
They also publish childrens books...

...so they must be OK.

SumTinWong

21st September 2004, 07:46 AM

Both Harper Collins and Zondervan have and do publish KJV Bibles as well.

SumTinWong

21st September 2004, 07:51 AM

I did a search on Amazon for the Satanic Bible and came up with one written by the witch, Anton Szandor Lavey, and it is published in paperback by Avon books.

I found this interesting it is a quote from a reviewer of the book on the Amazon site:
"To start off I'm a Minister of the Lord - A Christian. I did read Anton's "Satanic Bible". I found it an interesting read, and read it so I could be a little more informed. To start with Man thrives on Hypocrisy - whether you are a Christian or Satanist. I didn't find Anton totally off base, and he had a few interesting points. "Choice" is an original gift from the Lord - He is the first one to say that a person can decide what it is they want to do. Satan didn't invent that. Most people like Satan and his works more than they would like to admit - some would argue to the death that it just isn't so. Satan has a way of shedding light on things mostly to a person's ultimate dismay. I would recommend that Christians inform themselves - The "Church of Satan" is a recognized religion in the United States. This book is worth a look at, and to have it in a religious study library. The Lord "Loved" us enough to let us go our own way. 2Timothy 3:1-5 "

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 08:25 AM

They also publish childrens books...

...so they must be OK.
I wasn't making any judgement calls on Harper Collins or Zondervan. Simply stating some facts.

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 08:48 AM

Both Harper Collins and Zondervan have and do publish KJV Bibles as well.Zondervan (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/types-study.htm) publishes the following bibles:

New International Version (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/niv.htm)
Today's New International Version (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/tniv.htm)
New International Reader's Version (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/nirv.htm)

King James Version (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/kjv.htm)
New American Standard Bible (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/nasb.htm)
The Amplified Bible (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/amplified.htm)
The Good News Translation (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/gnt.htm)
New Revised Standard Version (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/nrsv.htm)
New American Bible (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/nab.htm)

Harper Collins (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/search/default.aspx?words=bible&searchtype=Title) publishes the following bibles:

Contemporary English Version (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=28703)
English Standard Version (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=28704)
Good News Bible (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=27842)
King James Version (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=28322)
New Revised Standard Version (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=21230)

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 08:49 AM

I did a search on Amazon for the Satanic Bible and came up with one written by the witch, Anton Szandor Lavey, and it is published in paperback by Avon books.
Avon books is also owned by Harper Collins.

Melly Monster

21st September 2004, 10:01 AM

TwinCrier

21st September 2004, 10:40 AM

Maybe someone would be so kind as to supply some comparisons to other Bible versions.Sobresalientehttp://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html (http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html)

JVD

21st September 2004, 10:41 AM

So...do those of you here who are KJVO actually believe that the KJV is God's inspired word for english speaking people? Every jot and title?

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 10:48 AM

http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html (http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html)If you believe the Textus Receptus (based on manuscripts dating from the 12th century) is a more accurate reflection of the originals, then those verses appear to be omissions.

If you believe that the Nestle-Aland Greek and Hebrew source (based on manuscripts dating from the 4th century in addition to the ones used by the Textus Receptus) is a more accurate reflection of the originals, then those verses appear to be additions.

However, the appearance of an addition or an omission does not necessarily mean it was. Most modern translations will include a footnote of the omitted verses indicating that it is only found in later manuscripts. It is also important to note that most of these differences do not have doctrinal impact to core Christian doctrines.

Melly Monster

21st September 2004, 11:52 AM

So...do those of you here who are KJVO actually believe that the KJV is God's inspired word for english speaking people? Every jot and title?

I have seen a copy of the original bible but I do believe the kjv is close, no I don't believe it is cover to cover but I do believe is is awfully close.

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 12:03 PM

I have seen a copy of the original bible but I do believe the kjv is close, no I don't believe it is cover to cover but I do believe is is awfully close.By original bible, I assume you are referring to the Greek compilation of the NT called the Textus Receptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) that Erasmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus)originally compiled in 1519 with a final revision in 1535. It was based on greek manuscripts from the Eastern Orthodox Church dating around the 12th century.

The first edition of the King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version) in 1611 used the 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus as its source for the NT and the Masoretic Text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)as its source for the OT.

As I've said in previous posts, the KJV is an amazing translation that has been invaluable to the english speaking world. Erasmus' work on the Textus Receptus has been equally invaluable. I don't want you to think that I am in any way trying to discredit the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

SumTinWong

21st September 2004, 12:59 PM

At the risk of sounding redunant, what was the final authority of English speaking people, pre-1611?

BBAS 64

21st September 2004, 01:04 PM

At the risk of sounding redunant, what was the final authority of English speaking people, pre-1611?

Good day, Lollard

I would say there were 2, the one used by the King james translators and refered to by them would be the Bishops bible and the Geneva bible.

Peace to u,

Bill

BBAS 64

21st September 2004, 01:08 PM

By original bible, I assume you are referring to the Greek compilation of the NT called the Textus Receptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) that Erasmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus)originally compiled in 1519 with a final revision in 1535. It was based on greek manuscripts from the Eastern Orthodox Church dating around the 12th century.

The first edition of the King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version) in 1611 used the 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus as its source for the NT and the Masoretic Text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)as its source for the OT.

As I've said in previous posts, the KJV is an amazing translation that has been invaluable to the english speaking world. Erasmus' work on the Textus Receptus has been equally invaluable. I don't want you to think that I am in any way trying to discredit the KJV or the Textus Receptus.
Good Day, Gold dragon

Nicely put. I do have question if the TR is dated as you postedthen what did the ECF such as Ambrose, Justin, Augustine use in their work on the NT? As far as the OT we know they used the Septuigaint [sp].

Peace to u,

Bill

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 01:26 PM

Good Day, Gold dragon

Nicely put. I do have question if the TR is dated as you postedthen what did the ECF such as Ambrose, Justin, Augustine use in their work on the NT? As far as the OT we know they used the Septuigaint [sp].

Peace to u,

BillGreat question Bill. I don't believe we know the NT sources for the Codex Vaticanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus)and the Codex Sinaiticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus). Yes, the Septuagint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) (LXX) was the OT for the ECFs.

My guess would be that Justin Martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr) used copies of the letters circulating around the Christian church during that period. Especially since there was no authoritative NT canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon)at the time. By the time of Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose) and Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo), the canon was much more accepted and probably the NT letters were gradually incorporated into the LXX resulting in the uncial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial) codices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex) we currently have preserved. Since it was all in greek and most literate people read greek and latin, it was simply a matter of carrying more books/scrolls. Of course this is simply my guess and it may have been totally different.

Wikipedia: Biblical Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon)

Christian New Testament
When Christianity began, it had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) and relied on the oral tradition of what Jesus Christ had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias), c. 125 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125)).

By the end of the 1st century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century), the letters of Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus) were collected and circulated, and they were known to Clement of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Rome) (c. 95 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95)), Ignatius of Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch) (died 117 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117)), and Polycarp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp) of Smyrna (c. 115 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115)).

The first person to propose a definitive, exclusive canon of Christian scriptures was Marcion of Sinope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope), c. 150 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/150). He accepted only the Gospel of Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke), and ten of Paul's epistles. He rejected the entire Old Testament, the other three Gospels, the book of Acts and the epistles of Peter and John. From the books he did accept, he removed any passages that connected Christianity with Judaism. This was because Marcion believed that the God of the Jews who gave them the Law was an entirely different god than the Supreme God who sent Jesus Christ and inspired the New Testament scriptures. By editing the books he accepted, he thought he was removing judaizing corruptions and recovering the 'original' inspired words of the text. Marcion's canon and theology were soundly rejected as heretical; however, he forced the Church to consider which texts were scriptural and why. Marcion spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism), a form of Gnostic Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity).

...

SumTinWong

21st September 2004, 01:27 PM

Here is a pretty good site on the subject.
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html

Gold Dragon

21st September 2004, 01:30 PM

Most of them used Jeromes' translation of the Bible in Latin.

Here is a pretty good site on the subject.
The Vulgate was completed in 405.

Of the three ECFs mentioned by BBAS 64, only Augustine was alive at the time and in the last 25 years of his life.

SumTinWong

21st September 2004, 01:35 PM

My bad. I did change it before you responded, because I wasn't quite sure.

verismo

21st September 2004, 04:49 PM

Where are all the "if it ain't a 1611 AV it ain't a Bible" folks? I've seen them on the board before.

@@Paul@@

21st September 2004, 05:16 PM

Where are all the "if it ain't a 1611 AV it ain't a Bible" folks? I've seen them on the board before.
I'm sure they're around... http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_2_126.gif

If the english could spell, the 1611 would be great!!! ;)

SumTinWong

21st September 2004, 05:26 PM

Me thinkest thou protesteth too mucheth

@@Paul@@

21st September 2004, 05:36 PM

Me thinkest thou protesteth too mucheth
:D

mesue

22nd September 2004, 12:00 AM

:blush: I am embarrassed to say that I have not had the time to write out a study on this matter. I lent out my study materials. It will take me a lot longer than anticipated. :blush:

@@Paul@@

22nd September 2004, 12:23 AM

:blush: I am embarrassed to say that I have not had the time to write out a study on this matter. I lent out my study materials. It will take me a lot longer than anticipated. :blush:
You can have mine!! ;)

PreacherFergy

22nd September 2004, 06:03 PM

Thanks for speaking for all KJVO everywhere, but no KJVO believes the bible is God. We simply give it more credence then say, oh, the TV Guide. To accuse an entire group of people of being "prejudice or ignorance" is unfair and unjustifiable. You may want to educate yourself on what KJVO actually believe before you make such accusations. I suggest http://biblebelievers.com as a source.

I know and have read numerous authors from that site. Dr. Bill Grady, Dr. D.A. Waite, etc.

However, I wonder what the author of their page on Bible versions would say to a reply to their assertion,
"Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to befounded upon corrupted manuscripts"

Well, how about in Acts 19:20 where the Textus Receptus and the KJV disagree? :preach:
:)

jukesk9

22nd September 2004, 08:46 PM

verismo

22nd September 2004, 08:52 PM

tee hee

TwinCrier

23rd September 2004, 08:42 AM

I know and have read numerous authors from that site. Dr. Bill Grady, Dr. D.A. Waite, etc.

However, I wonder what the author of their page on Bible versions would say to a reply to their assertion,
"Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to befounded upon corrupted manuscripts"

Well, how about in Acts 19:20 where the Textus Receptus and the KJV disagree? :preach:
:)Other than being in English instead of Greek, how do you feel this verse differs?

TwinCrier

23rd September 2004, 08:51 AM

ZiSunka

23rd September 2004, 09:09 AM

I'm jumping in late and don't have the patience to read through all nine pages to see if this has been asked. So if it has, forgive me :)

The original KJV contained the Deuterocanons/Apocrypha. It actually contained 80 books (http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html) but in 1885 the Archbishop of Cantebury conformed to the rest of the non-Catholic Christian world and omitted the D/A down to the current Protestant canon of 66. So, which 1611 Version is the true word of God? The one with the D/A or the one without? and why? Thank you.
Apocrypha (websters):
1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament -- see BIBLE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bible+)table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

Deuterocanonical:
1: books other than those found in the canon of scripture
2 any writings outside the accepted canon of scripture
3 of, relating to, or constituting the books of Scripture contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon, typically accepted by Catholic and Othrodox sects, but not by Jews or Protestants. http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

The one without I would guess.

Gold Dragon

23rd September 2004, 09:19 AM

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
The Apocrypha are Apocryphal, hence the name.There are tons of historical and factual errors and misrepresentations on this link. We could be here all day. But I'll just look at the section regarding the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. The Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonicals, like the 39 books of the OT were writen by Jews.

In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired.This is what the Council of Trent had to say about those who disagreed with their canonical list.

Fourth Session Council of Trent (http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html)
...
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema....Anathema (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm) has been used in councils to denote a status of heresy or excommunication.

Catholic Encyclopedia : Anathema (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm)
...
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm), beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two...The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture.While the KJV translators may not have considered the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired, they probably held the general protestant opinion at that time that the Deuterocanonicals were still respected books that were still valuable which is why they were included. It is also important to note that the KJV translators were puritan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan) and conformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformist) Anglican scholars who never formally protested against the RCC like Luther and the other reformers. The conformists were probably very sympathetic to the Deuterocanonicals while the puritans tended to be more in line with the positions of the reformers.

Their later exclusion was in line with general protestant reactions and distancing from the RCC due to tensioned Protestant-Catholic relations.

ZiSunka

23rd September 2004, 09:22 AM

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 09:36 AM

Other than being in English instead of Greek, how do you feel this verse differs?

KJV: Acts 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
Textus Receptus says "tou kuriou ho logos" or "word of the Lord" (literally it translates, "of the Lord the word") :idea:

:)

Gold Dragon

23rd September 2004, 09:49 AM

I don't think the apocrypha really ADD anything valuable to the scriptures.

And I seriously doubt that some of them should be included in the canon. Like the story of Judith, a widow who seduces a man so she can kill him in a violent, disgusting manner after they have sex. What is really gained through that book? What do we learn about God or His dealings with us through such a horrible story?
I've never read Judith so I can't really comment on its value as a book.

However, I can comment on some of the horrible characters we read about in the other biblical histories involving sex and violence.

We have the story of how the sons of Jacob trick, circumcise and kill all the men of a town because their sister Dinah slept with a man in the town who sincerely seemed to love her. Genesis 34 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+34&t=kjv&st=1&new=1&l=en)

There is also some pretty disgusting sex and violence in Judges 19-20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Judges+20&section=0&translation=kjv&oq=jud%252020&new=1&nb=jud&npc=%A0%3C%3C%A0&ng=20&ncc=20) where a woman is raped, killed and cut to pieces. The rest of Israel goes to civil war against the tribe of Benjamin and almost destroys the tribe.

What is gained by these stories?

ZiSunka

23rd September 2004, 09:57 AM

I've never read Judith so I can't really comment on its value as a book.

However, I can comment on some of the horrible characters we read about in the other biblical histories involving sex and violence.

We have the story of how the sons of Jacob trick, circumcise and kill all the men of a town because their sister Dinah slept with a man in the town who sincerely seemed to love her. Genesis 34 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+34&t=kjv&st=1&new=1&l=en)

There is also some pretty disgusting sex and violence in Judges 19-20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Judges+20&section=0&translation=kjv&oq=jud%252020&new=1&nb=jud&npc=%A0%3C%3C%A0&ng=20&ncc=20) where a woman is raped, killed and cut to pieces. The rest of Israel goes to civil war against the tribe of Benjamin and almost destroys the tribe.

What is gained by these stories?
Those are incidents in books of the Bible. The so-called book of Judith is ALL about the brave acts of this woman Judith, who seduces a man with the intent to kill him as revenge. But God says that it is up to him to exact revenge and that fornication is evil, so how can it be that Judith is honorable for doing the things that God hates?:scratch:

Cary.Melvin

23rd September 2004, 01:07 PM

Those are incidents in books of the Bible. The so-called book of Judith is ALL about the brave acts of this woman Judith, who seduces a man with the intent to kill him as revenge. But God says that it is up to him to exact revenge and that fornication is evil, so how can it be that Judith is honorable for doing the things that God hates?:scratch:
It has been a while since I have read the book of Judith, But I didn't think that she killed the Assyrian General (I think) for revenge. I thought she did it to deliver the Jews that were under seige at the time. Also, I don't think she commited fornication.

As I remember, the story sort of sounded like the Book of Judges where God would raise up an individual to deliver Israel in a time of persecution.

@@Paul@@

23rd September 2004, 01:14 PM

The one without I would guess.
full circle
back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages

Which would be 1885 right??

Anyone feel like guessing when Tyndale's New Testament was published?

:)

verismo

23rd September 2004, 01:27 PM

verismo

23rd September 2004, 01:29 PM

@@Paul@@

23rd September 2004, 01:32 PM

Pre-Luther wasn't it?
Yup...

HINTS:
full circle
back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages
come full circle to return to an earlier or first position or situation after leaving it

:)

Gold Dragon

23rd September 2004, 01:36 PM

full circle

back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages

Which would be 1885 right??

Anyone feel like guessing when Tyndale's New Testament was published?

:)
He's trying to suggest that the Archbishop of Cantebury had a fetish for circles and Tyndale's NT (http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndalebib.html) and synchonized his declaration that the Deuterocanonicals were to be excluded from the KJV with the 360th anniversary of Tyndale's NT.

@@Paul@@

23rd September 2004, 01:39 PM

He's trying to suggest that the Archbishop of Cantebury had a fetish for circles and Tyndale's NT (http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndalebib.html) and synchonized his declaration that the Deuterocanonicals were to be excluded from the KJV with the 360th anniversary of Tyndale's NT.
LOL... i never said the "Archbishop of Cantebury". :)

Gold Dragon

23rd September 2004, 01:43 PM

LOL... i never said the "Archbishop of Cantebury". :) ;)

ZiSunka

23rd September 2004, 01:50 PM

So WE, i.e. the believers, are to decide what is canonical?
Who else would? Should we let unbelievers decide???

Weren't the people who decided Believers??

SumTinWong

23rd September 2004, 01:51 PM

Good point lambs Love.

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 02:52 PM

Remember in the Old Testament it was the tribe of Levi that kept holy writ. Even so today, we as Christians (who are priests unto God, Rev. 1:6) are to keep the scriptures. It is not the responsibility of a religious sect or group, but for Christians. :)

verismo

23rd September 2004, 03:14 PM

Who else would? Should we let unbelievers decide???

Weren't the people who decided Believers??

YES!! They were believers.

But not the LAITY! It was the Church officials, the Men of God. If it were up to just every believer to decide the canon of Scripture, we might all have different Bibles. I might not think that Revelation is necessary, so I just decide, since I am a believer with the Holy Spirit that it is not canonical Scripture, so it's out. And someone might add the Gospel of Thomas in!

No, the Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures also guided its Church to compile its canon. Not leave it up to the individual believer. We didn't decide the canon: we inherited the canon, and since the Scripture itself doesn't speak to the canon within itself, we accept the canon that has been passed down to us, a canon that was decided on my the Church.

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 03:20 PM

YES!! They were believers.

But not the LAITY! It was the Church officials, the Men of God. If it were up to just every believer to decide the canon of Scripture, we might all have different Bibles. I might not think that Revelation is necessary, so I just decide, since I am a believer with the Holy Spirit that it is not canonical Scripture, so it's out. And someone might add the Gospel of Thomas in!

No, the Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures also guided its Church to compile its canon. Not leave it up to the individual believer. We didn't decide the canon: we inherited the canon, and since the Scripture itself doesn't speak to the canon within itself, we accept the canon that has been passed down to us, a canon that was decided on my the Church.
Good point!

On a side note, who's picture is that in your avatar? :wave:

verismo

23rd September 2004, 03:27 PM

Good point!

On a side note, who's picture is that in your avatar? :wave:
Thank you!

It is me.

heh heh, just kiddnig.

It is G.K. Chesterton.

Lynn73

23rd September 2004, 06:09 PM

I am KJV only. I believe it is on God's authority and that He has blessed this Bible.I'm KJV only also. I found this site one time about it and thought it explained the reasoning for KJV only real well.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 06:22 PM

I'm KJV only also. I found this site one time about it and thought it explained the reasoning for KJV only real well.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

That's not really a good site to get credible information. For example, on that site it says,
The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, "In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed." Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both. (emphasis mine)

No, Logsdon didn't lay the groundwork, nor help in doing so. He was at about 1 or 2 of the several meetings that were held regarding the NASB. He never helped to translate it nor did he really make a contribution, he was just an "on looker" so to speak.

www.aomin.org has a lot of interesting debates (real audio), articles, etc.

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 06:26 PM

Let's compare Jude 25 in the KJV and NASB. Let's turn the table and ask, which version "omits" something? ;)

KJV Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

NASB Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Lynn73

23rd September 2004, 06:28 PM

I also will say that most in my church use the NIV and I have no desire to look for another church because of it. There are a few of us that stick with the KJV, though. When they read the NIV out loud I just follow in my KJV.

@@Paul@@

23rd September 2004, 06:38 PM

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 06:44 PM

"through Jesus Christ our Lord" is in the NASB, isn't in the KJV ;)

I use the KJV, I love it, I just don't think a translation is inspired or perfect. I hold the KJV in my hand and I can confidently say, this is the Word of God

@@Paul@@

23rd September 2004, 06:48 PM

ZiSunka

23rd September 2004, 07:21 PM

YES!! They were believers.

But not the LAITY! It was the Church officials, the Men of God. If it were up to just every believer to decide the canon of Scripture, we might all have different Bibles. I might not think that Revelation is necessary, so I just decide, since I am a believer with the Holy Spirit that it is not canonical Scripture, so it's out. And someone might add the Gospel of Thomas in!

No, the Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures also guided its Church to compile its canon. Not leave it up to the individual believer. We didn't decide the canon: we inherited the canon, and since the Scripture itself doesn't speak to the canon within itself, we accept the canon that has been passed down to us, a canon that was decided on my the Church.
Your church officials, not ours. Our church officials decided on a different canon of scripture that didn't include books of doubtful or outside origin. I'm fine with that. The earliest NTs didn't have the "middle testament" either, so who and when was it decided to put them in? Just because someone decided to add them in at some point doesn't mean they belong there or have to stay there forever.

Dikaioo

23rd September 2004, 08:48 PM

Yes, the Apocryphal writings aren't canonical. The KJV translators knew this as well, that's why they put them in the middle of the 1611 and translated them as historical and not theopneustos or that is, inspired by God. This is the reason why the Puritans for quite some time wouldnt' use the KJV as it had the Apocryphal writings in it.

@@Paul@@

23rd September 2004, 08:58 PM

Just out of curiosity.... Who decided the contents of the canon?

verismo

23rd September 2004, 09:38 PM

Your church officials, not ours. Our church officials decided on a different canon of scripture that didn't include books of doubtful or outside origin. I'm fine with that. The earliest NTs didn't have the "middle testament" either, so who and when was it decided to put them in? Just because someone decided to add them in at some point doesn't mean they belong there or have to stay there forever.
My officials? Your officials? Outside origin? New Testament with middle testament?? Added in? What are you talking about?

jukesk9

24th September 2004, 12:32 AM

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight14
The Apocrypha are Apocryphal, hence the name.Well, I learned something new today. I'm not a true Christian. Nice link...

jukesk9

24th September 2004, 12:34 AM

Those are incidents in books of the Bible. The so-called book of Judith is ALL about the brave acts of this woman Judith, who seduces a man with the intent to kill him as revenge. But God says that it is up to him to exact revenge and that fornication is evil, so how can it be that Judith is honorable for doing the things that God hates?:scratch:God also says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," however, several instances in the Old Testament AFTER Moses was given The Law has many men of God having multiple wives. Gideon had 70 something children from his many wives...oh and God blessed Gideon.

Dikaioo

24th September 2004, 09:14 AM

Well, I learned something new today. I'm not a true Christian. Nice link...

I wonder what the Hussites would say?

ZiSunka

24th September 2004, 10:23 AM

God also says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," however, several instances in the Old Testament AFTER Moses was given The Law has many men of God having multiple wives. Gideon had 70 something children from his many wives...oh and God blessed Gideon.
Having multiple wives is NOT adultery. It's called marriage. Nothing I've seen in the Bible condemns or forbids having multiple wives.

ZiSunka

24th September 2004, 10:28 AM

My officials? Your officials? Outside origin? New Testament with middle testament?? Added in? What are you talking about?
You, as a catholic, have different church officials than we do as non-catholics.

The words "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean "of doubtful origin" and "of outside origin," respectively.

The apocrypha are sometimes called "the middle testament" by para-Christian churches.

The apocrypha were not part of the earliest versions of the Bible, dating from as early as 100 AD.

What about those things is confusing you so much??:scratch:

Unnamed Servant

24th September 2004, 11:14 AM

Having multiple wives is NOT adultery. It's called marriage. Nothing I've seen in the Bible condemns or forbids having multiple wives.
What about Titus 1? (I think I know what you will say;) )

Love-In-Christ,

Unnamed Servant

ZiSunka

24th September 2004, 11:32 AM

Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town: 6 someone who is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion. 7 For an overseer, as God's manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding to the faithful message as taught, so that he will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.

That part? Come on, you know that is about men who want to be elders. It can't get anymore specific than that.

Gold Dragon

24th September 2004, 12:20 PM

The words "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean "of doubtful origin" and "of outside origin," respectively.Close but not quite.

Actually apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha) comes from the greek word for "hidden", but is commonly used to refer to any book that is not considered canonical. So the Deuterocanonicals are not apocryphal to Catholics because they do consider them part of the biblical canon.

Deuterocanonical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books) comes from the greek for "second Canon", just as Deuteronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy) comes from the greek for "second Law".

ZiSunka

24th September 2004, 12:28 PM

Close but not quite.

Actually apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha) comes from the greek word for "hidden", but is commonly used to refer to any book that is not considered canonical. So the Deuterocanonicals are not apocryphal to Catholics because they do consider them part of the biblical canon.

Deuterocanonical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books) comes from the greek for "second Canon", just as Deuteronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy) comes from the greek for "second Law".
According to the catholic dictionary, anyway.

Lynn73

24th September 2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:http://www2.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif http://www2.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-left.gifOriginally Posted by: TwinCrier http://www2.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gifhttp://www2.christianforum