Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

ScottJ,

Just curious, but how do you know anything about my church? It has been a while since I signed on the BB boards, is this indicated in my profile or something?

In answer to your question, my church teaches, preaches and stands for the KJV, but my Pastor, since I have been attending, does not talk about this issue. I know that in the past, prior to my attendance, they had discussed this issue, but to what extent, I do not know. When I was looking for a church in my area, one of the things, and the most important thing for me to find out was what Bible version was used. I called them and asked them many questions on their beliefs, and standing that were not indicated in their doctrinal statements, to which I agreed also, but that needed to know what their stance was on some other issues not stated. The first question I asked was what Bible version do you use. I was delighted to find their sole use of the KJV, because many churches in my area do not use the KJV as their sole Bible, and I desired to attend/fellowship in a church that did/does.


I do not recieve my understanding of God's truth from anyone but God himself. Others have shown me things that the Lord gives me understanding in, or that confirm what he has already shown me. I am not saying that I do not learn from counsel from others, for there are they who have most assuredly helped me (Phillip you included), but it is God through his Holy Spirit of truth that gives me the understanding. So my KJV stance does not come from my church, or Pastor, or anyone else. As I have said, it is a personal conviction that the Lord has put upon my heart. Is this what you were trying to determine by checking out my church? As I agree, many people are greatly influenced by their churches, and Pastors, but I do not like to blindly follow something someone says just because they are christian. I take it to the Lord in prayer, and meditate upon the scriptures, and he gives me the understanding, and urges me to repent if needed. I hope this better explains to you, about myself.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Your profile says St Charles and Grace Baptist Church. Primarily because you live in MO also, I put those two things into a search engine and found a website.

If your church is Grace Baptist of St Charles... then I found a couple of interesting things. First, your church's article of the faith on the Bible agrees with us, not you.

Note that only the originals are "free from error".

Second, none of your pastors come from KJVO schools.

Most of us on this side of the debate stand for the KJV... but against false beliefs about it. I use it and teach from it as does our pastor.

That might be something you want to research more fully. Many KJV churches are strongly against KJVOnlyism- similar to my position. The KJV is still my primary version.

 

Many of us are trying to help you understand that this is patently false Michelle. You make statements about the KJV that did not come from God.

How do I know this? First, it is not said, implied, nor exemplified by any passage in scripture. Second, It goes beyond what scripture says in violation of commands not to add to scripture. Third, it conflicts with what is implied when the Bible says that the authority of "holy men of old", prophets, and apostles was required for the writing of inspired, inerrant scripture. Fourth, it contradicts examples given in scripture and history. Fifth, it violates numerous biblical principles- the primary offense being the constant employment of double standards. Sixth, most KJVO's will at some point cite experential religion as a source for their false beliefs. There are probably others I could list but that should give you an idea.

Then please explain why others of us have prayed for the truth on this issue and subsequently left KJVOnlyism. Your beliefs on the KJV do not originate with scripture or else you could give us a legitimate scriptural defense. But you can't.

This is what I mean by experential religion. Our "convictions" in our "heart" are not authoritative. That "conviction" may very well come from a fear of what you think is uncertainty rather than the Holy Spirit's guidance. A conviction can be tested by scripture and by scriptural principles for discerning the truth. That requires one to drop their presuppositions and accept the outcome of study. It requires one to be open to the truth and to use a single standard for evaluating ideas by logical discernment.

But back to your point. Your views about the KJV did come from a person. Either you or someone you have listened to.

We have proven that every one of your arguments is full of holes. They are demonstrably false imaginings that may be comfortable for you... but they prevent you from possessing the truth on this issue.

Partly, but I also have a personal motive that has nothing to do with you.

Me either... which is precisely why I am not KJVO.

Hopefully this is all of our attitude. Many of us here after doing this repented from being KJVO. I sincerely hope that at some point one of us will strike a cord with you that will enable you to see the truth. We are not Bible haters or doubters- far from it. We simply accept what God said and what can be proven or believed that is consistent with a fair weighing of the evidence.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Scott,

You are accusing me, as many others here, of being KJVonly. This I have explained many times to you all that I am not. Just because I reject the modern versions, and do not encourage anyone to read them, does not make me a KJVO, and even if in your eyes it does, so what, it is only a label placed upon me, by the opinions of men.

You are denying that the Lord has given me understanding regarding this issue and calling me a liar and claiming that they are coming from my own understanding and others, and not the scriptures, and I have given you many scriptures to you and all for the reasons I have been led to reject these versions. You also may claim I am denying what the Lord has shown you and others. I can't say, nor would I say matter-of-factly that he has or hasn't, as only you yourself know, and it would be presumptuous for me to say. However, either you and others are right on this issue, or I and others are right on this issue. The same Spirit cannot be giving us understanding of opposite things. There is unity in the Spirit of truth, not division.

You and others, have not given reasons for your acceptance and use of these modern versions with the scriptures. You all have not provided one scriptural reference that the Lord would not preserve his words, and that he would allow his people to believe added lies for generations. You have not provided me, or anyone else for that matter, why you still approve of and use a Bible that has additions to God's word, and why you do not reject it, and separate from it, and where your scriptural authority for not separating from such is. If you believe the KJV has added to God's words you should reject and separate from it. You also have not provided me with the scriptures, where God has said only his message is important, and not his words. When you can truly show me with the scriptures, all these things, then I might consider. However, I will obey God, and separate myself from those things that have taken away/added to his words of truth, and I will not touch the unclean thing, nor will I approve of it/them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

It looks like at least 3 of your pastors (assuming Scott's information regarding your church is correct) came out of Baptist Bible College. I know a lot of BBC grads, and my former pastor was a BBC graduate. To a person, they're all KJV-preferred, but not KJV-only.

KJV-preferred (but not KJV-only) is the present status of the school today. On their website, here's what they say about the school's sanctioned Bible version for use in classes:

"Approved Bible Text for Curriculum:
1.We agree God inspired the Bible in its original languages.
2.By the 16th century, Wycliff and Tyndale had both translated the Bible into the English language. These were both considered acceptable translations.
3.Through the efforts of the King of England, a new English translation was placed into the hands of common man.
4.In time, the changes in word usage and punctuation necessitated several revisions.
5.We believe our students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God; we believe the King James Version is God’s Word kept intact for the English-speaking people.
6.This statement does not preclude the study of the individual Greek and Hebrew words in the original languages for the clarity of meaning.
7.The Textus Receptus is the approved Greek text of our curriculum."

This statement is interesting both for what it says, and for what it doesn't say. To my eyes, it appears that they're trying to walk a tightrope here.

They affirm inspiration in the originals; but make no specific reference to subsequent inspiration of the KJV. They affirm that some earlier translations were acceptable translations of God's Word. They acknowledge that changes in word usage (even in punctuation) can necessitate revisions. They affirm that the KJV is God's Word; but don't specifically disavow other versions or make an exclusivity claim for the KJV. They don't disavow study of the original Hebrew or Greek. Finally, they affirm the TR as being their approved Greek text (but do not disallow the CT or make an exclusivity claim for the TR).

This statement I believe is carefully crafted so as not to position the school too strongly one-way-or-the-other on either side of the KJV-only issue. In practice, they want both KJV-only and non-KJV-only students to feel comfortable in attending. A split occured a few years ago, with many truly KJV-only faculty & students leaving BBC for Heartland Baptist Bible College in Oklahoma City, which formally split with the Baptist Bible Fellowship (the parent fellowship of BBC). The KJV issue was a primary (but not the only) reason for the split. Here's a link to the withdrawal letter:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/heartlandwithdraws.htm


Here's a statement from the BBF's leadership about their stand regarding the KJV issue:

http://www.tribune.org/Archives/Preacher/1999/SepOct/SeptOctPg4.shtml


The BBF's response to Heartland's withdrawal:

http://www.tribune.org/Archives/Preacher/2000/NovDec/NovDecPg4.shtml


Since both the BBF and BBC have chosen to distance themselves from KJV-onlyism, I have doubts that your pastoral staff is KJV-only. Certainly, the church's statement of faith on the website (I'm still assuming this is your church) doesn't indicate that they are.

 

Michelle,

Do you believe that the KJV is a perfect translation, without any translational errors in it?

Do you believe that the KJV should be the sole English translation used by the English speaking world?

Do you believe that the KJV has authority over any other translations, English or otherwise?

Do you believe that the KJV is inspired and infallible to the same level as the source texts from which it came?

Here's a hypothetical: If the OT manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which predate the KJV by some 1500 years) contradict the KJV, which would you consider to be in error?

I'm sincerely not asking to argue. I'm asking to better understand your view and position.

 

Hi Michelle,
Let me say something for Scott here. Do not take this the wrong way. We understand that you believe that the Lord has told you something about the Bible. That is between you and the Lord. What Scott is trying to get across is that WE as individuals who know you only through this bulletin board cannot accept your revelation from God because we have no way to prove it except that it be proven by scriptures (now wait--don't say it....).

If we were to accept your truths, we would be open to accept anybody's truth including that of Mormonism. The Mormons (as you probably know) have a way of testing to see if the book of Mormon feels good to you. You take the book and hold it and pray until you get a warm feeling in the pit of your stomach and that is the spirit of God telling you that it is true---so say the Mormons.

Now, back to backing it up with scripture. We have told you many times that we do NOT disagree that the King James is the Word of God. We DO agree that God has preserved His Word for every generation. Because of this, we have to look at all of the Bibles which have been printed up through 1611 too. Looking at the (oh well) Vulgate, The Bishop's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, etc. etc. we find the Word of God has been given to every generation; but not always in English (although most of the ones I quoted were English--one Latin).

The KJV was first printed in 1611. Its wording has been modified many times since then and the actual Word of God is always maintained. As Skan kindly corrected me, the KJV is printed in Modern English, but as a person on the street that is a technicality and I as a person who speaks typical street English, I find out that I have difficulty understanding the KJV. Yes, technically it may be closer to Modern English than Old English, but the fact remains that many people (especially children and new Christians who have not grown up in a church using the KJV as we have) have a great difficulty with understanding it. Even a dictionary can provide us with erroneous understanding due to the changes that have occurred since the 18th century.

Michelle, you have mentioned that the KJV has been the Bible for many generations. We also have no arguments there. (I'm trying to find our common grounds so we can narrow down to our seperate grounds.) Actually, 400 years is less than 25% of the time back to Jesus' time. There were obviously Bibles containing the Word of God going back very close to the time of Christ. The Old Testament obviously existed then. The New Testament was originally passed around to churches in their individual books or groups of books until the Canon was finalized.

Now, Skan can butcher me on my history here, but I am simply giving a light and easy overview so that we understand where I am coming from. During this long period of time, God's Word existed in many different languages. As it spread across the early world, translations were made. They all contain the Word of God.

Even as Skan indicated on the other subject, he feels the end of Mark is from the original manuscripts. If this is indeed true, then that is another instance where scholarship prevails and preserves. If he is found wrong at some later date with further manuscripts, what occurred in those verses that harms the Word of God.

I didn't go as far as to check out your church. Yes, I think that was a bit much, because as we talked earlier, our church does not necessarily believe in everything we believe in. In today's world, we must find a church that is closest to our doctrine. We will never find a human organization on this earth where everybody agrees with everybody else, it just does not happen, simply because we are human. I have a few issues with my church, but they are extremely minor and do not effect the major doctrines, therefore I am satisfied to ignore the hills that I do not need to die on just to prove my point.

I think everybody here is serious enough that they do care about the way you believe, although they may not agree with it. They feel just as dedicated at showing you the truth as you are to show us the truth.

I for one, will debate, but I realize that I have limitations when it comes to the levels of education and experience found on this board. Therefore, even though I will take a stance, I usually stand corrected quite often; but that correction requires that enough evidence has been shown in the form of scripture and to a lesser extent physical evidence.

All of us can say God showed us this. I don't think anybody here believes they do not have the "truth" within them. Somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong.

Let me give you an example. A church I once attended (larger than the small church I now attend) was considering building at another location. About 47% voted against the move. Now, my question, if I were the pastor, would be: "Wait a minute, we have essentially a 50/50 vote here. Do those few deciding votes actually show God's will? What if the 47% were wiser and knew what God wanted, while the others thought they knew what God wanted."

Now, let me cover your scripture: You claim that the scripture tells you that God will Preserve His Words for all generations. Guess what? I believe that too. I have NO DOUBTS that what I read in my KJV is the accurate Word of God. I even believe it is inerrant as far as the Word of God is concerned. Now I do believe that with translations and many streams of copies which have come down through the ages can have "anomolies" which changed issues, but again, nowhere has doctrine been shown to have changed. If God promised to preserve his Word, then obviously it exists, but not just in one form, in many forms. Can there be corrupted MV's? Yes, absolutely, but the mainstream translations have been proven to be very accurate and contain this "Word of God" that He himself said He would preserve. By believing in this, we must seperate ourselves from a book written in 1611 and modified many times since as the ONLY Word of God. YES, it IS the Word of God, just not the only one.

This is the reason it is so important to actually take a look at what is being left out and attempt to make a determination as to whether they existed in the originals or not. But in reality, I personally do not feel it matters because I have yet to see doctrinally where changes exist.

I noticed with somewhat surprise that the first question you asked your church was "What Bible do you believe in?" I would think more appropriate questions might be "Do you believe that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God?", "Did Jesus die on the cross for us?", What is the requirement for salvation.?" The questions relating to the doctrine that actually appear inside the Bibles we all read and study.

Whether we look at words or phrases, I challenge you to take a good parallel Bible that has at least three or four translations, including the KJV and actually read one verse at a time in each one. I think you will find out very quickly that the Word of God is just as POWERFUL if not more so in a language closer to our own.

Just food for thought!

God bless,

 

I can attest to this being true. I grew up with the KJV, went to Baptist schools which were KJV-preferred, and used the KJV exclusively until almost the age of 40. Up until that age, the KJV was all I knew. I was aware of other versions, but I viewed them with suspicion, even though I had some Godly men recommend some to me.

The first non-KJV I actually read for myself was the NASB. The second was the NIV. Now, I've read the KJV cover-to-cover numerous times, but I have to say that in each of these two new versions many verses & passages that I thought I knew- that I thought I couldn't get a fresh perspective on or couldn't learn anything new from- suddenly began to jump off the pages at me.

God's Word can speak to people in new, fresh, powerful ways when studying it in more than one version. I consider my own experience proof of that.

BTW, I've never ceased to use the KJV.

 

This topic is being continued at:
Attack of the Imperfect Translations #2

C. U. There!