mission field

Unfortunately, much of this KJVO lunacy abounds, especially when it comes to missions. Some KJVO mission boards and their corresponding KJVO IFB's are requiring that missionaries use and even translate from the KJV when on the field. Regardless of whether the missionary is being sent to an English speaking country or to a country with a predominant foreign language, the KJV-onlies make this a litmus test of fellowship, and correspondingly 'force' the missionary to use an English based translation that is over 400 years old!

My advice to your missionary friend is to separate from this missions board and find another one that believes in the historic fundamentals of the Christian faith.

 

I've seen some "missions" that use bibles translated into a nation's native language FROM THE KJV! Imagine that-a translation of a translation! Brilliant!

I don't know the names of any of those missions, and they may not be in operation any more, but they DID exist. Maybe another reader knows who they are?

 

So, PH, what's wrong with telling people what the Word of God actually says? Instead it seems you would have them shortchanged and left still wanting.

Yall say they need to be taught "this", but then you fail to teach THAT which is already precise and accurate, our AV 1611 KJB. Hmmm? Give me that which is first peacable, (uh, the reason for the KJB and why it is so widely accepted) and then pure! But I really don't expect you to agree. That's sad.

 

I was editing my post when the time to edit ran out:

BTW, PH, can you define the Greek w/o defining concupiscence? Do we have another English word that better defines uncontrollable, unlawful lust?

Why even the modern secualrists say that "lust" isn't always construed as a bad thing, or sin, because w/o it we would never be fruitful and multiply. Now that I should be specifically clear, I do not fully agree with the secular modernists, but I can see what they are trying to say, but tainted with much allurement to try and justify nudity and sexual depravity as the sinister agent.

Just may be that we do need to take much time in defining the Word of God, understanding really isn't such a bad thing, but I can't fathom the reasoning to promote lower levels of literacy. And to think, some would dare to promote themselves in the haneous act of doing such a thing. Uh, perverted hierarchy.

Prevention is through education, not educating in how sin is committed, but in how it is avoided. "Deliver us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" Ever heard that one before?

(orvie, there's my smiley icon to show the Balm of Gilead coating my sword)

 

Yeah, I didn't think you'd get it, you say the word concupiscence is such a hard word to understand in your attack on the KJB and then have to use three words to tell us that already know what it means to describe it.

Then Mr. Hadik, you try to detract my post by alluding to as if I had denigrated the literacy of an island of non-English speaking people.

Your reference to the visitor that holds to the KJB is then used to put him down by the very same antics you've tried to accuse me. I see there is not much hope of reasoning with you.

 

QS,


Are you suggesting that the KJB 1611 be used on the mission field with people of a different language or those who speak English as a second language? Just looking for clarification. Thanks.

 

I've heard that there's a Spanish translation made from the KJV..imagine when they translated "Holy Ghost" into Spanish (instead of consistently the Holy Spirit, as it is in the Greek NT). I don't know too much Spanish (or English either ), however Holy Phantom? That's in effect how they would read, I've been told. A Spanish speaking person correct me if I got it wrong. I am convinced that a foreign language could translate the Bible the very same place where the KJV translators did....well, a modern English Bible too!

 

Concupiscence is a real word?

 

Paul,

I heard about a missionary who was in a similar situation. The people he dealt with were of a language other than English but they do most of their reading in English. They are what some people call ESL (English Second Language). These people had the Bible translated a long time ago from the old American Translation. The missionary found that people had a hard time understanding their own Bible, because of the old words in it and the way it was translated, and were opting for English Bibles. The missionary used a KJV for his own use but began to notice that nationals trying to use it were struggling with it. He began to use another English translation like the NASB or the NKJV. When he informed his mission board he was told to either use the KJV or a local translation that came from the TR. From my understanding this really put him in a corner. He either had to retranslate the whole local Bible from the KJV or he had to teach an older type of English language the people were not familiar with.

A couple things stuck out to me.

1. It was clear that the native language had changed overtime and was in need of an update. Why do some then have problems seeing that our own English language changes over time?

2. It seemed that politics became more important than people understanding the word of God. Even though some with the board agreed with the missionary, the policy seemed largely driven by a need to satisfy a certain KJVO faction that were supporting the board.

By the way Paul, I've never met a KJVO person anywhere carrying a real 1611. I met a national once who had been influnced by the KJVOism. He was so proud that he had the only word of God, the KJB 1611 and did not even know that the Bible he was carrying was not a 1611 with the apocrypha. : )

 

Bro Paul- I love America, having served my country in her Navy. However I agree that many KJVO's have become spiritual fascists when it comes the venerable translation of the KJV.They would force the Final Authority in the 400 year old English translation, and downplay the very languages that the KJV is based upon. As I've said, all versions are to be based on the Originals, as the KJV is (was). And although we don't have the very Originals, we have the the veracity of the Originals. BTW, the Original KJV is no longer w/ us, that is the very first copy off the press, although we have a very reliable representation of that Original AV1611.

 

PackerBacker- The NKJV is based on the Traditional Text, essentially the same as the KJV's T.R. (for what it's worth).

 

Yes, I was aware of that. The problem is that it is still not the word of God for KJVO's because it is NEW. Silly aye?

 

Yes, I was aware of that. The problem is that it is still not the word of God for KJVO's because it is NEW. Silly aye? </font>[/QUOTE]Many have said here; "If it ain't the KJV, it ain't for me". I guess the 1611(1769) is the Classic Edition of the KJV

 

Betcha can't define abnormal lusts and abnoramal sexual desires w/o defining concupiscence!

There's more to concupiscence than meets the eye!

Some of you will get that one by sssslllllloooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww freight.

 

Yes, I was aware of that. The problem is that it is still not the word of God for KJVO's because it is NEW. Silly aye? </font>[/QUOTE]O.K. tell me what the difference is in Job 24:22 in the AV 1611 KJB and the reading in the nkjv is?