Featured KJV Only Folks: What Bible translations should non-English speakers use?

Apparently you just felt like trolling today.

 

When people learn that their Bible is not equivalent to God then perhaps they might take God more seriously and have an active relationship with Him as the living God. Satan knows the Bible better than anyone. One can easily know the Bible well and yet be bound for hell. One can know the Bible and not know God.

 

shhhhh...I'm Listening

Amy....do you hear a noise in here????? Shhhhhhhh!!! I'll say this...all I know about my Lord I learned by the hearing,reading and memorizing of His wonderful Word. God has been so good to me. I do love the Word of God because by it I know Him. Also...I love Him because He first loved me.

:godisgood:Bro.Greg

 

This has nothing to do with this thread. You aren't qualified to judge the hearts of anybody here.

 

Amen brother! :thumbsup:

 

If you would quit making assumptions and think about what I actually wrote you would quickly see the difference between loving God and knowing the Bible. For one to claim that all he knows about God is through scripture does not know the mysteries of the faith. God only reveals the mysteries of the faith through obedience to Him and not just a knowledge of scripture.

 

A Question...

What I know about the "mysteries" of the faith, obedience to God, and both receiving AND returning God's love (in the meager ways that I as a man can), I know by the Word of God as revealed by His Holy Spirit.

Are YOU casting doubts about my salvation? I don't believe you are qualified to do that either. God is my judge. As my Creator He and He alone has that right.....and this much I do know....we will all be judged according to His Holy Word. I do, however, forgive you for over-stepping your boundaries. Simple knowledge of the scriptures does NOT save anyone...nor can it.

Bro.Greg

 

Well said, Brother Greg.

 

Dear Brother Greg

Don't worry about what these folks say. Many seem to hate the KJB. Oh, they will say they don't, but then they constantly attack it and anyone who holds to it. Actions speak louder than words.

The scriptures themselves say God has magnified his word above his very name.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

I guess these folks would accuse God himself of idolatry.

 

Scripture must be applied to know God. When God gives wisdom in a specific situation that goes beyond God's word.

Never gave that any thought.

It is one thing to love God's word and quite another to love a translation. To love God is to love His word too. One can claim to love their Bible and yet not apply it. They may claim to love it because they gain intellectually knowledge. I would contend that the more one loves god the more lacking he find himself and the more he realizes how little He loves God. If one were to read the men and women who were imprisoned for their faith for many years (such as Rev. Richard Wurmbrand) they would learn that the person could not remember scripture but still loved God. The early church people did not have a personal Bible and yet loved God. Around 2% could even read. In America many years ago a large number could not read unless they went to school. In America the vast majority did not attend a a church. Attending church is more of a thing of the last century. It was something the educated did. Much of America was rural at the time.

 

NONE here posting"hate the KJV", we all uphold it as being a good translation, its just we do NOT see it as the ONLY english version God uses, nor is it the best version...

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and those who are King James Only are entitled to their opinion.

But as I have argued in the past, no one can honestly say the King James and the MVs are the same. Either one version is accurate and all others corrupt, or else they are all corrupt. I happen to believe the King James is the accurate version.

Why do you and others care what I or Brother Greg believe? I don't start threads to attack your version. Trust me, if I wanted to do that, it would be easy to do.

Read whatever version you want, but don't criticize me because I believe the KJB is the accurate version of scripture in English.

 

No one will be critical if you feel that way, its ONLY if you feel that NO other english version is any good, not the bible, that we find fault!

 

You don't get it, if I choose to believe that only the KJB is accurate and all the MVs are corrupt, that is my right. You have the right to disagree.

If you ask me, you folks seem very insecure. It seems to bother you very much that KJOs believe your versions are corrupt. Why does that bother you?

My church is King James only, and we have no issues among ourselves. If you came there, you would be told that is what we believe. If that offends you, there is another Baptist church across town that uses MVs, go there. We don't force you to believe what we believe, but we are not going to change our belief because it offends you.

 

But what is it that makes them corrupt?

 

They often give a different understanding. A perfect example is that I was involved in the debate with several Preterists recently. As you know, they argue that Jesus said he was coming "soon". Jesus NEVER said he was coming soon, he said he was coming "quickly" which means suddenly and unexpectedly.

KJV- Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

NIV- Rev 2:16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

ESV- Rev 2:16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

Now, to be fair, not ALL MVs say "soon".

NLT- Rev 2:16 Repent of your sin, or I will come to you suddenly and fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

To say Jesus is coming quickly or suddenly is not the same as saying he is coming soon. The Preterists constantly argue that Jesus MUST have come in one generation before 70 A.D. because they insist he said he was coming SOON.

But what Jesus really meant is that he was coming quickly, very suddenly when a person least expects it. There will be no time for a sinner to repent. It might happen a thousand years from now, but if you are not ready you will be shut out like the five foolish virgins. In fact, that is exactly what this parable is teaching.

This is just one example that came up this week, but I can think of a half dozen times where the MVs gave a different understanding than the KJB, but I refrained from making an issue over it. But anybody who says these Bibles all say the same thing and give the same understanding is in error.

 

According to Strong's it also means soon.
tacu tachu takh-oo'
neuter singular of 5036 (as adverb); shortly, i.e. without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily:--lightly, quickly.

Using "soon" doesn't mean the translations are corrupt.

You can't call other versions corrupt simply because they may use different words than the KJV. You're going to have to show that modern versions corrupt the original language.

 

Bishops Bible
Revelation 2:16 Repent, or els I wyll come vnto thee shortly, and wyll fyght agaynst them with the sworde of my mouth.

Tynedale's
Revelation 2:16 But be converted or elles I will come vnto the shortly and will fyght agaynste the with thes wearde of my mouth

Wycliffe
Revelation 2:16 Also do thou penaunce; `yif ony thing lesse, Y schal come soone to thee, and Y schal fiyte with hem with the swerd of my mouth.

Are these corrupt? Apparently at least Wycliffe's is.

 

Amy, Jesus saying he was coming quickly or suddenly is not the same as saying he was coming soon.

But if you want a better example;

KJV- Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

NIV- Rom 7:5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,* the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

Note that the KJV says when we were "in the flesh", whereas the NIV says, when we were "controlled by the sinful nature".

Couple of points, the KJB does not imply we are "controlled" by the flesh. The ESV omits the word "controlled"

ESV- Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

The ESV agrees with the KJB, it simply says when we were "in" or "living" in the flesh. It does not say we are "controlled" by the flesh.

That is one difference, but there is a far greater difference here. The word "flesh" in the KJB, and the words "sinful nature" in the NIV are the Greek word "sarx". This Greek word is usually translated "flesh", even in most MVs as I just showed.

This is the same word used in 1 John 4 that says Jesus came in the "flesh" and that any person who denies this is the spirit of antichrist.

KJV- 1 Jhn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

NIV- 1 Jhn 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

The word "flesh" in 1 Jhn 4:2-3 is the Greek word "sarx". Notice how the NIV is inconsistent and translates it "flesh" here, while the KJB consistently translates "sarx" as "flesh".

Now, if "sarx" means "sinful nature" as the NIV translates in Romans 7:5, then the NIV is saying Jesus had a sin nature, although only folks who know the Greek would realize this.

The KJB consistently translates "sarx" as "flesh" in both Romans and 1 John. It does not say, or imply that Jesus had a sin nature.

 

Before we move on to more "corruptions", what do you say about the versions I quoted? Wycliffe's in particular. Is it corrupt?