Why the KJV is used by Adventist

[Castaway57]

There may not have been any "sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine", as Westcott and Hort were trinitarians, but there was a plot to eradicate the Protestant Bible. Watch the videos and learn.

Sorry but the videos are based on falsehoods that are not proven...only alleged. many have come along with supposed new light to disprove the KJV but. I have yet to see anything credible. BTW, what videos are you talking about? I dont see them posted in this topic.

 

[taikachanz]

Sorry but the videos are based on falsehoods that are not proven...only alleged. many have come along with supposed new light to disprove the KJV but. I have yet to see anything credible. BTW, what videos are you talking about? I dont see them posted in this topic.

First, Vieth supports all his presentations with documented and historical evidence. He even uses the letters and books of those involved.

Second, these videos are not a refutiation of the KJV bible but an afforemation of its authintication in relation to the original texts from which it was translated... the received text.

These videos can be found @ AmazingDiscoveries.org, go to the video section and then to the "Total Onslaught" series go through the pages, there are 36 videos in this series, until you find "Battle of the Bibles"

 

[Castaway57]

First, Vieth supports all his presentations with documented and historical evidence. He even uses the letters and books of those involved.

Second, these videos are not a refutiation of the KJV bible but an afforemation of its authintication in relation to the original texts from which it was translated... the received text.

These videos can be found @ AmazingDiscoveries.org, go to the video section and then to the "Total Onslaught" series go through the pages, there are 36 videos in this series, until you find "Battle of the Bibles"

OK; that would be my mistake then. You do sound like you are criticising Adventist use of The KJV and when you earlier referred usto 'the videos;' I thought you were referring to something else that I saw on another thread here. At any rate, you could have made life way easier for us by stating specifically which videos and providing us the link so that there ais no mistaking of which material you are referring to.

What is the context & intent of your comments for this topic regarding use of KJV by the Adventist Church? Are you saying you don't agree, or are you saying something else?

 

[taikachanz]

What is the context & intent of your comments for this topic regarding use of KJV by the Adventist Church? Are you saying you don't agree, or are you saying something else?

I'm saying that we need to be very careful as to what we use for God's word. We must understand that as Adventists we oppose much of what the RCC and the apostate protestant churches teach. The newer version were created to support their teachings rather than to accept what scripture teaches. By using their versions we are in danger of corrupting our beliefs and opening ourselves up to an ecumenical mindset of which we are warned against both in scripture and by EGW. We are safer to hold to what was originally used by the founders of the SDA movement then to use those corruptions that were introduced after its formation.

 

[Castaway57]

I'm saying that we need to be very careful as to what we use for God's word. We must understand that as Adventists we oppose much of what the RCC and the apostate protestant churches teach. The newer version were created to support their teachings rather than to accept what scripture teaches. By using their versions we are in danger of corrupting our beliefs and opening ourselves up to an ecumenical mindset of which we are warned against both in scripture and by EGW. We are safer to hold to what was originally used by the founders of the SDA movement then to use those corruptions that were introduced after its formation.

We must be careful to mention that a true Adventist also wont oppose everything that a Roman Catholic believes/teaches. A true Adventist is not the least bit scared of differences or similarities; and both can be found. This thing about the different Bible versions is getting to be a pretty old hat to wear; but I would prefer to see specific examples of what, and in which Bible, would make us more "in danger" of becoming more Catholic? Without specific examples; it sounds kind of superstitious to me, and not based on reality.

 

[reddogs]

While I agree that KJV is one of the best to use in terms of accuracy; I also think that many other of the versions do have great value in today's culture. In many of our churches, I do see other versions - and I myself, when I first started to study the Bible with others, as a literature evangelist, used mostly the NIV.

I dont think there was any sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine; for it is all there, just couched in different words. Although some words or phrases in most Bible versions do have flavorings from the various doctrinal bents of individuals doing the translating; I would still need to see better evidence for secret, sinister plots to systematically change the truths therein.

A couple of exceptions, of course, would be the NWT, and The Book of Mormon, which I do not consider Bibles at all.

But the other versions can be good for initial study with people who are more "modern" than us, and would be turned of by the archaic language of the KJV. I know that when I gave several family members a KJV Bible; it sat on the shelf collecting dust, because they had so much trouble understanding it, yet when given an NIV, they began to read regularly.

That is the hook, easy to read, but if the truth is changed, then what?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This thread is like Lazarus...

But I'm glad you did bring it back to life Reddogs, it's a very important issue that needs to be understood.

The sinister or malevolent plot isn't in making it easier to read, it is in the complete omission of dozens of verses, a lot dealing with the deity of Christ.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

I admit that I didn't read the whole of what was presented, because it was long and tiresome to read... however, the thesis that the KJV is the best version and preferred by Adventists in general is incorrect. That may be the OP's opinion, but it is not by any means a consensus paradigm.

If our doctrines are version-specific, than they are false doctrines. Remember that any English translation is still a translation and not the closest to the original text. Besides that, doctrine should be transcendent of language and culture and should be applicable to everyone. Therefore, very few but powerful biblical messages should be held as doctrine and the rest we are free to interpret as opinion/speculation. The message of salvation for the fallen world is greater than what version we prefer to read.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

We must understand that as Adventists we oppose much of what the RCC and the apostate protestant churches teach. The newer version were created to support their teachings rather than to accept what scripture teaches. By using their versions we are in danger of corrupting our beliefs and opening ourselves up to an ecumenical mindset of which we are warned against both in scripture and by EGW. We are safer to hold to what was originally used by the founders of the SDA movement then to use those corruptions that were introduced after its formation.

The comment that newer versions were created with intent to support particular teachings of any group is a false statement. Newer versions were translated as an update to assist in understanding the closest to the original texts as are available. With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient copies of Scriptural texts, we have been given opportunity to gain more insight from Scripture in its more recent translation. Also, since they are translated in contemporary language it does make it easier to read and understand what the text says, rather than reading into the text based on our "outsider" understanding of old English. The only exceptions to this are bible paraphrases authored by only one individual. The Clear Word is one such example, which is an Adventist paraphrase with Adventist interpretations including Ellen White's insights from an Adventist author - and such paraphrases are not written for doctrinal direction, teaching, or academic study but are intended to be useful as devotional material.

I'm not meaning to say that the KJV isn't useful - is it, and it has been for a very long time. To discredit it would be to discredit the faith of English speaking believers since the medieval times. That would be wrong. But it is equally wrong to discredit modern versions for the same reason that to do so is to discredit the faith of many many believers who find them useful.

Differences in biblical translations have less to do with accuracy as with the dynamic nature of human language. Language changes depending on culture, on regional dialects, on tradition, etc. and the same words can have completely different meanings depending on context and different words can mean the same thing.

In regards to sticking with what the founders of the Advent Movement used as a safe-guard against ecumenism, here's a question submitted for your consideration... Are you concerned with following Jesus Christ or are you more concerned with being particular and different than everybody else? Because the message of salvation through Jesus Christ is transcendent of all the failings of human language. So if that's the concern than why is there a problem?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The comment that newer versions were created with intent to support particular teachings of any group is a false statement. Newer versions were translated as an update to assist in understanding the closest to the original texts as are available. With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient copies of Scriptural texts, we have been given opportunity to gain more insight from Scripture in its more recent translation. Also, since they are translated in contemporary language it does make it easier to read and understand what the text says, rather than reading into the text based on our "outsider" understanding of old English. The only exceptions to this are bible paraphrases authored by only one individual. The Clear Word is one such example, which is an Adventist paraphrase with Adventist interpretations including Ellen White's insights from an Adventist author - and such paraphrases are not written for doctrinal direction, teaching, or academic study but are intended to be useful as devotional material.

I'm not meaning to say that the KJV isn't useful - is it, and it has been for a very long time. To discredit it would be to discredit the faith of English speaking believers since the medieval times. That would be wrong. But it is equally wrong to discredit modern versions for the same reason that to do so is to discredit the faith of many many believers who find them useful.

Differences in biblical translations have less to do with accuracy as with the dynamic nature of human language. Language changes depending on culture, on regional dialects, on tradition, etc. and the same words can have completely different meanings depending on context and different words can mean the same thing.

In regards to sticking with what the founders of the Advent Movement used as a safe-guard against ecumenism, here's a question submitted for your consideration... Are you concerned with following Jesus Christ or are you more concerned with being particular and different than everybody else? Because the message of salvation through Jesus Christ is transcendent of all the failings of human language. So if that's the concern than why is there a problem?

Maybe you haven't studied this out but I would ask you if it is wrong for the NKJV to use an occultic symbol on the cover of it's translation? Or is it wrong to completely omit verses that speak of the diety of Christ, which the NIV and NKJV among others do?... what are we told about adding to or subtracting from the words contained in the scriptures?

I don't think anyone would argue that the KJV doesn't have it's shortcomings but the newer versions are not an improvement to God Word to it but rather an excuse to further adulterate it.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Maybe you haven't studied this out but I would ask you if it is wrong for the NKJV to use an occultic symbol on the cover of it's translation? Or is it wrong to completely omit verses that speak of the diety of Christ, which the NIV and NKJV among others do?... what are we told about adding to or subtracting from the words contained in the scriptures?

I don't think anyone would argue that the KJV doesn't have it's shortcomings but the newer versions are not an improvement to God Word to it but rather an excuse to further adulterate it.

I have studied the subject actually. We may have to agree to disagree on this subject. And I wouldn't say newer versions are an improvement, but rather a different way of saying the same thing. Sometimes a more clear way of saying the same thing. But the KJV isn't any more accurate than any other version just because it's been around longer. It can be very helpful. It's a good thing. Anyway...

 

[reddogs]

While I agree that KJV is one of the best to use in terms of accuracy; I also think that many other of the versions do have great value in today's culture. In many of our churches, I do see other versions - and I myself, when I first started to study the Bible with others, as a literature evangelist, used mostly the NIV.

I dont think there was any sinister plot to systematically remove the trinity doctrine; for it is all there, just couched in different words. Although some words or phrases in most Bible versions do have flavorings from the various doctrinal bents of individuals doing the translating; I would still need to see better evidence for secret, sinister plots to systematically change the truths therein.

A couple of exceptions, of course, would be the NWT, and The Book of Mormon, which I do not consider Bibles at all.

But the other versions can be good for initial study with people who are more "modern" than us, and would be turned of by the archaic language of the KJV. I know that when I gave several family members a KJV Bible; it sat on the shelf collecting dust, because they had so much trouble understanding it, yet when given an NIV, they began to read regularly.

Any that take out whole verses or delete parts are corruptions and are just to confuse the 'modern' readers to say the least

 

[overcomer]

Actually Adventists don't use KJV. Most of them use NKJV which destroys our sanctuary message and the children's reading materials printed out by the church officially are exclusively in NIV.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Actually Adventists don't use KJV. Most of them use NKJV which destroys our sanctuary message and the children's reading materials printed out by the church officially are exclusively in NIV.

Sad but true.... that was one of the catalysts for us leaving the conference church and studying on our own with like minded brethren. The verse in question was in the Sabbath quarterly and it was about adultery. The NIV version that was quoted said that you 'shouldn't' commit adultery, not an emphatic, 'do not'. Making it a suggestion rather than a Command was a big problem for me and when we approached our pastor at the time about it, he laughed and said we were being to picky...

Also, I've noticed a problem with the description of the mark of the beast in the newer translations saying that you will receive it "on" you hand or forehead, not "in". Non consequential to those that don't understand the context perhaps but it changes the understanding of what the mark is.

 

[Dave-W]

Any that take out whole verses or delete parts are corruptions and are just to confuse the 'modern' readers to say the least

Or. Is it because the underlying Greek leaves out those verses in the best and oldest manuscripts?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Or. Is it because the underlying Greek leaves out those verses in the best and oldest manuscripts?

That just so happen to eliminate references to the divinity of Christ? Seems convenient, donchathink?

 

[Dave-W]

That just so happen to eliminate references to the divinity of Christ? Seems convenient, donchathink?

Perhaps. But I can equally see some ancient scribe reading the text and inserting something to refer to HIS divinity when that was not stated (but implicitly understood) in the original.

 

[BobRyan]

The King James Version has been a tried and true text that shows the truths of Adventism and if you go into a Adventist church, on the whole you will find this is the Bible of preference as most other versions have issues. Take a look at this comparison of a few verses on key doctrines in the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....

That is true "in general" -- but a few key exceptions.

the NASB is far superior when it comes to the book of Hebrews and the "holy place" vs the "most holy place" terminology.

And the NIV excells in a few tiny places such as 1 John 2:2 and in Romans 3 where the greek pagan term "propitiation" gets the more correct Biblical term "atoning sacrifice" which points to the cross - in Day-of-Atonement blood-sacrifice terms.

 

[BobRyan]

Or. Is it because the underlying Greek leaves out those verses in the best and oldest manuscripts?

"best and oldest" needs some qualification.

"old junk - scratchout wadded up tossed in garbage" is still "older" than the new. It does not make it more reliable. Rather the fact that it is older AND was deemed unworthy to be used - is a big hit against it.

 

[Dave-W]

Rather the fact that it is older AND was deemed unworthy to be used - is a big hit against it.

Who exactly deemed it "unworthy?"

By "it" I mean the NU text.