Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

Nothing. It is the incessant view that everyone MUST agree that it is the only acceptable [English] translation that sparks such controversy and judging.

Everyone agrees that it is an excellent translation and that anyone who chooses to use it can trust their choice of translation.

I don't know if we can call people who believe in one version unbiblical, but the view that God only preserves in His word one specific translation is certainly not based on the scriptures.

 

Several on this thread have made mention of the fact that KJVO people have made an issue of this. Where are these people? I would think a thread of this nature they would flock to it.

 

At least one of them was recently banned over the ME issue.

 

I can't vote in the poll because I don't like the language used in the question. Not a criticism I just don't think there is much extra biblical stuff that can be called "unbiblical."

For what it's worth I believe in one authentic version of the Bible, that is the original texts in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek as it existed in its authorized form at the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397.) That is the Bible, everything else is translation.

Granted I will use one particular version in my teaching and speaking, and often refer to others. In my personal study I use other translations. I really don't care what translation one uses, so long as they don't care what version I use.

I guess, in light of the poll question, I would say we only have 1 version of the Bible and thousands of translations. But I wouldn't consider anything else "unbiblical."

 

Does it not matter that Jesus and our Bibles affirm more than one version as scripture? Doesn't that mean that if we are going to be biblical, we must allow for the possibility that wording different from the one we find in our preferred text may also be scripture? Doesn't that mean that we can't automatically rule out versions that contain differences to ours?

 

I guess I am unbiblical because I will only read KJV. The first bible I had was 1611 edition and If God wanted me to read another he will put it on my mind to. I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else. He has wrote what I need to know in it. I rule out other versens because what it said in rev.Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book Re 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. I have receaved the 1611 edition of KJV as my first bible and the words of rev. as the first true writen english words of God and if that bible don't match it then I will not read it. If in rev. say not to add or take away and I read another so called bible and the words are changed in it then how can that be the writen words of God. And you can say they changed it to make people understand better. But God does not give any of us to change or add on and that is being disobedaint to God. This is the reason I will not read anything else of what I have receaved of God. I just don't think God would put them words in Rev. and want us to change it to fit are needs. Some people say I can't understand the 1611 edition. Well I could not read at all when I started to read the 1611 edition. Thanks be to God I can read now. I don't need to go to another book to get more answers when I got all that I need in this bible. I don't think it is unbiblical to trust that the king james Versen is the first true english words of God.

 

Charles, what would you do if someone showed you where the KJV added to and took away from the originals?

Would you apply that same logic?

And are you serious about using a real 1611, or is it a 1769?

 

You do realize that these verses weren't originally written in the King James Language...right? So in that case...according to your logic, we should only use the originals, right?

It isn't KJV and the "other versions". KJV is also "another version".

 

I was responding to your statement that both are equally unbiblical.

That's not my merely my opinion. It is a conclusion drawn directly from the text of scripture.

I gave an example previously in this thread where Jesus reads from a place on a scroll of scripture, and he calls it scripture, and it is a different version than our Old Testament. I don't know how anyone can read that account and check the same passage in our OT and deny that it is possible for two different versions to both be scripture. If two different versions can't both be scripture, then either Jesus was wrong in calling what he read scripture, or our OT text is not scripture.

They keep affirming it as fact because it is a fact that scripture quotes texts that are different than ours and calls them scripture.

Then they are ignoring the clear witness of scripture that at least some different wording outside of the text they prefer is indeed scripture. It is not biblical to rule out what scripture allows for.

Not unless you want to unbiblically rule out what scripture allows for.

Deciding what version you think is best or what version you prefer to read is a matter of personal choice. Ruling out other versions as scripture simply because they differ from your favored one is unbiblical.

It is a clear biblical fact that it is possible for differing texts to both be scripture. That is not based on merely opinion, but taken directly from biblical examples. Denying that is going against scripture.

 

Earlier English versions had the same passage from Revelation. Was wrong for the KJV to add to and take away from them.

You say you read the 1611 version - does that mean you reject latter editions of the KJV which clarified 'son" as "son of God" in 1 John 5v12?


No one is unbiblical because they read only one version. That is their choice. What is unbiblical is turning that practice into a doctrine.

 

That is the best way I've heard it yet.

 

God bless you, Bro. Charles for having child like faith in Christ and God's Word, although you are not a child but a full grown man. I'm sorry for what you will have to endure in life and on the BB because of your views because people don't seem to like simplistic faith in Christ and/or allegiance to a particular version, especially the KJV. See they love to take you to task on your beliefs apparently because their touchy and sensitive about their own. Although believers that cherish the KJV are not all dogmatic about it they are treated as if they are and other believers immediately get defensive when they know where you stand. But keep holding to the Word and living for Christ, because He is the One we seek to please, not the world, or the know it alls.

Matthew 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

 

I wish there was a way to play a violin as you read this....just kidding.

Cutter, that is silly. You know that the reason people get "touchy" or "sensitive" as you put it, is because of the reputation that has been created by KJVO. I freely admit that not all who prefer KJV are this way....but to intentionally close off other translations because "I just believe it is the written word of God and that there is no need to read something else" is a bit silly. It isn't about allegiance to a translation. I think that is where people get lost....you start to miss the forest for the tress....or the trees for the forest....or however that saying goes. The point is....YOUR MISSING IT!

 

I think I speak for everyone saying that we all cherish the KJV. That is not the question of this thread.

 

Absolutely.

 

Cutter, I have been personally attacked by KJVO's, even in my own church, so I know from personal experience it is a real issue. If you care to, you can go back and read many really nasty debates on this subject (bible versions section), with KJVO's condemning others for reading another version, calling them "perversions".

It's for these reasons that those of us who read versions other than the KJV are a little sensitive.

There is a huge difference between KJV preferred and KJV only.

 

And these verses were not even translated from the Greek to the KJV..

Erasmus couldn't find the Greek text so he used the RCC Latin to go backwards into the Greek, and then translated his new Greek text into English...

Here is the note from the NET Bible translators...
37tc The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while “the tree” of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek mss, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators. (This textual problem is not discussed in NA27.) http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Bolded my emphasis..

So the verses that Charles quoted are not even from any original text... They are from a translation that most KJVOs view is corrupted.. The Latin Vulgate...

So here is an example of the KJV that has messed up the original text... Can we say that Erasmus removed some words, and added others? And yet, the KJVOnlies, loves this guy!

 

What is silly to one man may be conviction to another. Is it your place to stand in judgment of anothers ability to choose the particular version he/she uses? The one they relate to and that ministers to them?

I think not!

In fact your statements wreak of arrogance and bulliness.