Honest question

Dear Harvest,

I use the KJV almost exclusively in the ministry God has given me because of 1) the manuscripts from which it is derived and 2) Everyone will hear it including the KJVO, no one is completely turned off by the KJV.

But personally my final authority is not ANY translation but the TR, the Scrivener 1894/5.

To exalt the English KJV to the originals is not right (imo). The revisions to the KJV were made FROM the TR as the standard (in most cases).

HankD

[ February 19, 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I for one would not stipulate this. I would call for the Berean test.

No. I would want the version that most accurately resembled the originals. I don't think it is necessary for man to add strength to what God said.

I don't. I use it as my primary Bible and attend a church that uses it exclusively. I oppose KJVOnlyism because I consider it a terrible doctrinal error and a very real danger to historic Baptist fundamentalism.

 

I don't agree with it. In fact, many times I think other versions make a *stronger* case for such doctrines.

You totally misunderstand. No one is fighting the KJV. No one hates the KJV. I love it, and defend it. I (and the others here) are fighting KJV-onlyism: a *doctrine* about the KJV, not the KJV itself.

 

Good question Harvest,you'll get a bunch of replys for sure
I'm fairly new to the board and have enjoyed watching on the sidelines mostly.
But must reply to this posting:
In my opinion the KJV speaks to us believers in the strongest language possible condemning the world,the devil and sin.Some of the other versions tend to soften these a bit and therefore can be found appealing to some.
To your second question I wouldn't say "hate" is the word that is appropriate word,"Afraid of" might be a better term.
now we'll get some replys for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well said

 

This has been shown to be fallacy. Same argument could be made against the KJV.

We all want the most faithful, accurate translation, I believe.

Actually, I don't know of anyone who fights or hates the KJV, just the heresy of KJVO. And the NIV is far and away the most attacked version in my experience.

 

As it should be.

James N. Kime
Preach the Word
NKJVO, NASBO, & ESVO

 

Preach the Word,
With all due respect, I think your assessment of the NIV is unfounded. While it is by all means not the most literal version available, it is one of the most popular. I would hate to be limited to one version, but if I were, I might well choose the NIV as that version. God bless.

 

Someone said that the KJV is the most attacked version. This is most certainly not true. I have observed that the most attacked version is the NIV.

I join in the attacks, however. The NIV is not accurate enough to be my main Bible.

"Attacks," or more proplerly, corrections to the KJV are certainly needed. The KJV is not the most doctrinally accurate version. I can show you one doctrine on which the KJV is miserably inaccurate in the New Testament: homosexuality.

In most of the New Testament passages condemning homosexuality, the KJV is the weakest. I have all the main N.T. version compared on those homosexuality passages at the following URL. (Note: it is a very large page, and takes a long time to load.)

http://www.bibletranslation.ws/comp.html

 

The Harvest said he wanted me to answer an "honest" question, so here I am.

Not surprisingly, I didn't find one.

The other versions (non AV) are not as strong on salvation by grace, the necessity of the blood, the Deity of Christ, etc. From reading the many threads on here I think most people agree with this. And if you agree with it, why would you want to use something other than the AV?

This question is based on false premises. I do not believe that Bibles other than the AV are "not as strong" on salvation by grace. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.

Since this question requires me to accept a false premise, it is not an honest question.

Next question:

Wouldn't you want the version that takes the strongest stance on these extremely important doctrines?

No, I want the version that most accurately represents the written revelation of God as given to the biblical authors.

The above is based on a false, emotional premise: that the version we feel is the "strongest" is the right one. Essentially this boils down to a rhetorical version of "might makes right."

Again, the question is not an honest one. (Of course, for me to even answer it still requires me to agree to the false premise that modern translations of God's Word are weaker on essential Christian doctrine. I categorically reject this assumption as contrary to experience and plain reason.)

Second question is...why do people fight against the AV so hard?

Strike three. Again you assume false premises. We are not fighting the AV, we are fighting the fairy-tale notion that God specially approves of the AV in a way that he does not the NIV or NASB.

There is a difference between the AV and an opinion about the AV. I'm sure the KJV-onlyist are capable of understanding this, yet why do they all insist on confusing them?

The only reasonable alternative I can suggest is that they are being deliberately intellectually dishonest about this debate.

So, after all this, I am still waiting for an honest question from The Harvest.

 

I love and admire the KJV and use it very often. I don't think anyone here is fighting against the KJV. I think most, if not all, on here would be content to let you use the KJV alone so you would be happy. However, insisting others have to use it is not appropriate.

As a side note, most of the 'attacks' I see in this forum are from the KJVO crowd against some solid MVs. I very rarely see an 'attack' on the KJV. No one comes into a discussion and posts "The KJV is not the word of God! It is lies! Heretics translated it! It is a bible of the devil!" However, I have seen KJVOs do this many times.

Neal

 

The Harvest said:


Obviously you didn't read the question. It does not REQUIRE you to accept a false premise.

The question said that you believed "most people" believed this. You specifically invited me to this thread, implying that you believed I was one of "most people." Don't try to weasel out of the consequences of your word choices.

Yet you say you "reject this assumption as contrary to experience and plain reason" (ie. your feelings). So it is wrong for me to believe one way because of my "feelings", but it is OK for you to feel the opposite way because of your "feelings".

Look, do you think you can try to be intellectually honest just for a few minutes?

Experience is not "feelings." While you have been busy condemning the Word of God, I have been busy reading modern Bibles, studying them, and teaching from them. In all this time I have never found them to be contrary to sound doctrine. Not once. That is not "feeling," that is a fact that I happen to have a personal acquaintance with.

Nor is sound reason "feelings." The claims of weak or false doctrine put forward by KJV-onlyists, uniformly and without exception in my experience, are based on a poor understanding of the English language, a poor understanding of Christian theology, a poor grasp of logic, or outright dishonesty, among other things. That again is not "feeling," it is a fact.

So nice attempt at spin, but again you are blowing smoke. Try asking an honest question for once. You might like it.

 

I think you have over estimated the people who agree with you on this. It has been shown to be wrong.

People hate the AV for the same reason they hate the NASB, NIV, or NKJV. They hate it because they hate the word of God; they hate authority. No one here however is fighting against the AV.

 

Not having anyone special in mind I want to say something about using the word "feel" in connection to some standpoint or conviction. I think many use the word "feel" who do not necessarily mean their feelings alone guide them in some issue. If one says "I feel the AV is the best version" I think most who say thus mean they both think and feel that it is so, with a slight emphasis on a feeling of being convinced in their minds. As for me when in some area my conviction is strong I rarely use "I THINK the KJV is the best version", but rather I may say "I feel the KJV etc.". By that I mean my affections and thoughts are in harmony as to the conviction under consideration, not so that it is based on some goody goody emotion, but the whole heart is pro KJV. Another issue requires another word like "know", as "feel" is not appropriate in all settings. It would sound awkward if I said "I feel Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father". "know" would suit better in such a sentence. So, I think very rarely in fact do people mean their feelings or emotions guide them, as considered apart from persuasion of the mind.

Harald

 

Harvest, do you really not understand the difference between a feeling and experience/reason?

To answer the question, yes emphatically! It is wrong to base a belief on a feeling... especially when those feelings run contrary to reason and fact. If feelings and passions are overwhelming reason when it comes to beliefs and actions then the wrong side is winning according to Romans 7.

 

I respectfully disagree. The word "feel" has a meaning that is not only not the same as "think/reason" but often contradictory. "I think" denotes a process of reason leading to a conclusion. "I feel" simply means I have emotion or passion about something that may or may not be reasonable.

 

Scott. I feel what you say is quite reasonable. I will not take issue with it. Perhaps I stand corrected on this. Yet I would say a person's conclusion arising from thoughts may, likewise as an "I feel", be a wrong conclusion, just as a feeling or passion for something may be in disharmony with objective reality. If one man says "I feel this or that", and another says "I think this or that", none of them is necessarily right on track in their feeling or thinking when brought to the searchlight of objective reality. Objective facts may be false, and a subjective feeling or passion may in the check-up be shown to agree with objective reality, although a passion or such like has virtually no substance to grab hold of. And vice versa.

Harald