Cults and versions

James Newman: "If they disagree with the KJV, the KJV is right, they are wrong."

And Westcott and Hort said the best method was to follow Aleph and B when they agreed. And if they disagreed, follow B, so long as it was supported by any other manuscript, father, or version. and if B stood quite alone, then the best course usually was to follow B.

Sounds like the KJVO position has adopted the same methodology as certain of those whom they despise and lambast as heretical.....

 

It's a small part of the KJVO version of "The Emporer's New Clothes".

HankD

 

Regarding other cults that require use of the KJV:

Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science) mandated that *only* the KJV could be used in all their church services, printed lessons, and reading room displays. And, since she is regarded as their "prophet", no one within the Christian Science cult can alter her wishes on this matter.

One item of interest that I'll bet a lot of people have no knowledge regarding:

I "liberated" for 50c a nice large-print KJV from a Christian Science book sale some years back. Certainly a 1769 revision, but whether following the Oxford or Cambridge text, I know not.

The kicker is this: title page bottom has "Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan" (no particular surprise, since they would have to get a KJV printing from somewhere). BUT -- on the inside title page it states:

Authorized King James Version
Published by Zondervan Publishing House
Distributed by the Christian Science Publishing Society.

Wonder why there has never been any apparent flak from that from KJVO or any other quarter? If Ruckman, Waite, or Riplinger ever catch on to this tidbit (they will now ), I expect to hear this one trumpeted from the rooftops.

 

Hardly,

I think you'll find that there is a strong correlation between the religious backgrounds of the founders of cults and the Bible versions that they grew up with. Additionally, there is likely a strong correlation between the Bible versions cults use and the version that is popular either within a target population or the wider population either at the inception of the cult or the time the cult is extant.

As others have stated, some of them either are becoming or actually are NIV only. This doesn't speak to how "cultic" a translation is at all, however. That would be the genetic fallacy (guilt by association) to say that because Mormons use the KJV, for example, the KJV is a bad or "cultic" translation, or, because some modern cults use the NIV exclusively, the NIV is a "bad" or "cultic" translation. It simply shows that cults are trying to appeal to the population, which is just common sense really.
Cults couch their language in the vernacular of the day, and, where that vernacular includes the Bible, it only makes sense to use a Bible that is familar to their adherents and potential adherents.

It helps, however, when trying to reach out to people in cults to know what Bible version they use, because that gives us some common ground, a common language, so to speak. If somebody doesn't believe that any other version of the Bible is acceptable to use and is, say, a Mormon, then I, who myself use the NASB revised edition, am going to use the KJV in order to witness to such a person or engage them in a discussion about their beliefs, or else it'll probably go completely unheard, much like the adults speech in an old Charlie Brown cartoon.

Only those that suffer from their own myopia and feel the strange paranoia that their beliefs are needless attacked would think that having such knowledge would not be useful or edifying. Clearly the purpose of this thread serves an educational purpose. Simply put, knowing what version of the Bible a particular cult uses is useful as a witnessing tool if nothing else.

 

It helps, however, when trying to reach out to people in cults to know what Bible version they use, because that gives us some common ground, a common language, so to speak. If somebody doesn't believe that any other version of the Bible is acceptable to use and is, say, a Mormon, then I, who myself use the NASB revised edition, am going to use the KJV in order to witness to such a person or engage them in a discussion about their beliefs, or else it'll probably go completely unheard, much like the adults speech in an old Charlie Brown cartoon.

So your saying when dealing with someone that does not believe the Bible, you would use their bible to witness to them? So if I used the Koran, you would use it instead of the King James Bible? Why?

 

RR, here's the distinction:

The KJV is a Bible version.

The NASB is a Bible version.

The Koran is NOT a Bible version.

----------------------------------------------

Don't get all riled-up for no reason, RR. No one was implying that we should try to lead a Muslim to Christ out of the Koran. Your analogy is spurious.

 

Straw man fallacy of argumentation (and a poor one at that)...to state a weaker version of what somebody else has said or written in order to discredit them or make another point. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the King James Bible. Why do people continue to insist that this thread is here to criticize it?

What I wrote is very plain. I guess I need to clarify it for you. Most cults thus far listed are derivative of Christianity. They use Bibles that are either altered versions of the Bible (e.g. their own takes on translation as in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses) or based on a particular translation (like the KJV Bibles that Mormons use), or the KJV itself, like Christian Science or, as others have written, the NIV. If witnessing to somebody that believes, for example, the NIV is the only version the Bible that is useful or "correct," then you should use the NIV to witness to them, even if you are a KJVOnliest. If they use the KJV only, then you would be wise, if an MV, to use the KJV to witness to them.

Islam is a completely different religion. If they wish to discuss the Koran, it would be helpful to have a knowledge of what the Koran contains, e.g. to be familar with their beliefs. However, in order to articulate what I, as a Christian believe, I should certainly use the Bible. The Koran is not the Bible, but it is certainly helpful to know what the Koran says and what Islam teaches. The same is true with regard to the literature of any religion, so you can know what that person believes, why they believe it, and why it isn't true. If nothing else, to broaden your own mind. Even Paul found the monument to the unknown god in Athens and knew the Greek philosophies and used them as a common language from which to begin his presentation of the gospel and the Word of God in Athens. It's the same principle.

The Bible is not the Koran. However, the Bible is the Word of God. People are saved regardless of the translation of the Bible one might use. I prefer the NASB revised edition, so I am most likely to use that translation. If they are only familar with the KJV, and I learn that or know that already, then I'll use the KJV. It's simply good communication. What is so difficult about understanding that principle. Would you use the KJV to witness to a Spanish speaking person? Of course not, you'd use a Spanish translation of the Bible. The principle is the same: use the language of the recipient; if that language is English, and, if that person has a particular affinity for a particular version, for whatever reason, then use that version, as long as it is not a tweaked version (like the version the Jehovah's Witnesses use) that alters vital doctrines, like Word being a god, not the Word actually being God.

 

RR, here's the distinction:

The KJV is a Bible version.

The NASB is a Bible version.

The Koran is NOT a Bible version.

----------------------------------------------

Don't get all riled-up for no reason, RR. No one was implying that we should try to lead a Muslim to Christ out of the Koran. Your analogy is spurious. </font>[/QUOTE]According to you, but ask someone over in Iraq and they will disagree with you. Saying that, would you use the Koran over in Iraq to witness to those folks?

 

RR, here's the distinction:

The KJV is a Bible version.

The NASB is a Bible version.

The Koran is NOT a Bible version.

----------------------------------------------

Don't get all riled-up for no reason, RR. No one was implying that we should try to lead a Muslim to Christ out of the Koran. Your analogy is spurious. </font>[/QUOTE]According to you, but ask someone over in Iraq and they will disagree with you. Saying that, would you use the Koran over in Iraq to witness to those folks? </font>[/QUOTE]Would you witness to such a person without knowing what the Koran says or would you at least have a working knowledge of the Koran? Nobody is saying you would not, should not, or should never use the Bible. Nobody here is saying that you should use the Koran in order to prove that Jesus is the Christ or even present Jesus as the Christ. However, it's helpful to know what the Koran says about Jesus. For example, Muslims ascribe to the swoon theory, because that is what the Koran says. However, since the Bible contains a different account, we would certainly counter that with what the Bible says. The gospel is in the Bible. Nobody here is alleging otherwise.

You're getting apologetics confused with simply finding common linguistic ground. See above.

 

I think the difference in what we're saying has to do with the definition of "Bible". Technically, "Bible" is the term that Christianity uses to refer to the Word of God.

Islam does not use the term "Bible" in reference to the Koran. They consider it their holy scripture/holy book, if you will; but it is not their "Bible". A Muslim would not use the term for the "holy book" of Christianity to refer to their holy book, the Koran.

In reply to your specific question, no, I would (obviously, I hope) not use the Koran in witnessing to Islamic Iraqis. I would use the Bible (i.e. God's Word as recognized by Christians). If the Iraqis I was witnessing to understood English, I would be comfortable using either the KJV, the NASB, or some other valid English-language translations.

Having said that however, as Gene points out above- it might be useful to at least be familiar with what the Koran states about Jesus, simply as a frame of reference. I don't believe that any missionary to any Islamic peoples would disagree with that assessment.

 

RR, why would someone try to win someone to Christ using the Koran? You, knowing that the Koran is in no way about Jesus Christ should know better, and I'm pretty sure you do. So, why are you acting uneducated in the matter?


AVL1984

 

I think the difference in what we're saying has to do with the definition of "Bible". Technically, "Bible" is the term that Christianity uses to refer to the Word of God.

Islam does not use the term "Bible" in reference to the Koran. They consider it their holy scripture/holy book, if you will; but it is not their "Bible". A Muslim would not use the term for the "holy book" of Christianity to refer to their holy book, the Koran.

In reply to your specific question, no, I would (obviously, I hope) not use the Koran in witnessing to Islamic Iraqis. I would use the Bible (i.e. God's Word as recognized by Christians). If the Iraqis I was witnessing to understood English, I would be comfortable using either the KJV, the NASB, or some other valid English-language translations.

Having said that however, as Gene points out above- it might be useful to at least be familiar with what the Koran states about Jesus, simply as a frame of reference. I don't believe that any missionary to any Islamic peoples would disagree with that assessment. </font>[/QUOTE]BINGO!

Another good example is Jehovah's Witnesess and Mormons.

The official theologies of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not permit prayer to nor the worship of Jesus. They also deny that He can be called their God. But the Bible permits, even encourages, these things for the true believer. The true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is prayed to, worshiped, and called God. And, this is where we must begin.
If you can prove a Cultist wrong in a minor point of theology, he is still a Cultist. But, if you show him that the Jesus he believes in is not the same one found in the Bible, then you have undermined his entire theology.
In brief, you should introduce the Cultist to the real Jesus: the one of the Bible who is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called God (John 20:28 - Heb. 1:8). The hope is that once the Cultist sees that he is without the Jesus of the Bible, he will realize he doesn’t have the true God. Then, hopefully, he will accept Christ and leave his cult. If not, at least the seeds of truth will have been planted and he will have been exposed to the true Jesus.

(paragraphs above from www.carm.org).

I would do this using a version of the Bible they accept. Mormons use the KJV, therefore, I'd make a point to use the KJV if possible. However, the International Churches of Christ, as stated elsewhere in this thread, are NIVonly. Therefore, I'd use the NIV, even if I was a KJVonlyist. That way, we'd have common linguistic ground and would avoid the whole, well, the KJV isn't relevant argument or the NASB isn't relevant argument. In short, I'd seek to speak their language with regard to Bible versions. That's why this thread is useful. For me, it has been useful, because, until today, I was unaware the the ICOC is NIVonlist.

 

rapture ready: My point is, they believe that they need something else besides the KJB to complete God's word, so my question to you all is, what's the difference between them and you?

Why do we need anything other than the NIV to complete God's word?

There are umpteen little cults, sects, and weird churchettes that use the KJV only. There are umpteen legit congregations that use the NIV only, or the NKJV only, or the NASB only...and for every BV, valid or false, there's some group, legit or apostate, that uses only their fave version.

BVs are legitimized or discredited upon their own merit, and not by who uses them. IMO, the arguments against the NIV because a lesbian had a hand in its making, and against the KJV because its translators were baby-sprinklers and its sponsor may have been less-than-upright, are all poppycock. I believe the debaters on each side of the issue should find a more weighty argument.

 

And to think, Dr. Bob, when they came to my door and tried to explain that I was workin' on being "God" that I laughed at them........BBbbbbbwaaaaahhhahhhaaahhaaaaa!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

AVL1984

 

Cults like the KJV because of its cumbersome wording and use of archaic terms, both of which must be "interpreted" for the masses. Since the syntax of the KJV is, at times, almost alien to normal English sentence structure (I prefer literalness in translation, but not at the expense of readability), it is very simple to rearrange the words and phrases to create new meanings, not to mention "redefining" any word that is not familiar.

If I were to attempt to begin a cult, I would definately use the KJV. Most modern versions clear up the confusion caused by outdated words and phrases, as well as cleaning up the hodge-podge sentence structure.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Point of interest: The JW, according to their handbook, "Reasoning From the Scriptures", use 38 different translations of the Bible to prove their points and back up their theology.

However, their main text is the Watchtower 'translation', which is basically the King James Version altered to fit their theology.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Thank you for that bit of information, Trotter. I didn't know that the JW's used that many versions. I used to have a New World Translation, but don't know where it ran off to.

AVL1984

 

No great loss, Tony.

I had a class on JW's as part of my coursework. The instructer used "Reasoning From the Sriptures" to outline the JW beliefs, then used the bible to refute and disprove each and every one. It was a short, but very enlightening, class.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

The style of the Book of Mormon is written very closely to the style and language of the KJV (and many believe Joseph Smith copied some of the KJV into the Book of Mormon), so it makes sense they would use the KJV when recruiting. However, I would not say the Mormons *use* the KJV because they actually prefer their own writings such as the BOM, Doctrines and Covenants and other writings. They do not actually know the Bible well at all, and you can find that out if you are willing to spend time talking to the Mormon missionaries who ring your doorbell.

The JW's will also use the KJV in recruiting (this is all for show) but actually like their own New World Translation. I think since both the Mormons and JW's got started when the KJV was the main English version around, it makes sense they stick to that.