Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:
Take the NIV for example. You can argue, moan, groan, whatever that it is not God's word, but I can tell you, if you will sit down and read through it, you will leave with the very same gospel that you got from your KJV. In fact, you might even see a LOT of things you don't in the KJV because we simply do not use a language that is 300 years old today. There are many, many words in the KJV that I bet you cannot even tell me their true meaning because the language has changed. It looks like something, but it means something else. This is the reason for the need for modern versions. Have they gone overboard with modern versions, yes, probably, but that does not mean that the main-stream versions are no less the Word of God than the KJV that you hold in your hand. Yes, the KJV IS the Word of God, it was especially good for the people who lived in the 1700's and early 1800's, then as language changed, it became evident that it is now time to translate the Bible into our language, not the archaic, language used in the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------
Please show me where the english of the KJV is not the same language we use today?
Please then explain to me, how you can condone the omissions of the words of God that have been preserved, long standing, believed, taught, lived within the bible believing churches of past unto this day, that the modern versions have ommitted, and explain to me what scripture the Lord convicted your heart of, that this is the truth.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
A) In answer to the first question, about the English Language. I agree with the scholars that it is definitely not "Old English" per se, but it is an older language than that used in modern times.
Many, many words have been listed throughout this forum that do not mean the same as they meant in the 1700's. Therefore, today, we get the "wrong" understanding when we read it.
Try going into a restaurant and saying: "Thou shalt bringeth thus a chalice of water." and see how they laugh at you. This is probably a poor example, there have been better examples posted. But, the reason it is a poor example is exactly my point; I am not well versed in the less modern English of the KJV and therefore, I cannot write it well.
The response of others may be that if you read it you can understand it. Well, somewhat. I read tons of material every single day and I can understand things much better than I write. I have grown up with the KJV and I can still tell you that even with the Holy Spirits help, I spend a lot of time trying to comprehend the archaic words.
Now a lot of people will say that the Holy Spirit can fill them in on these words. He can, no doubt, He has that power. But, in rebuttal to the first sentence, I could say that I could also pick up a Greek New Testament without understanding Greek and the Holy Spirit could tell me what it says. This is unlikely to happen because; to have that kind of faith goes beyond what most of us humans are capable of in our sinful nature.
I will try to find Dr. Bob's list of words. He posted a list that he gives to his College Students that come right out of the KJV and, it is my understanding, that they get most of them wrong, most of the time. This is a clear example that the words have indeed changed. I do not have the time right at this moment to give you a list of words out of the KJV, but I will try to in the future.
For example, Paul's letters are often very difficult to understand because of his run-on sentences, and zeal for the Lord's work. In the KJV, some are very difficult to struggle through. Others are easier. An MV can clarify many of these difficult passages, leaving much more time for reading the word, than translating it.
B) In answer to "leaving out Words" or actual verses. It is well known, that most of the word comparisons used in the KJV only literature are bogus because the MV uses a different word or phrase that means exactly the same thing. Taken into context by reading all of the verses in a Chapter or passage, you will find the MVs match the KJV very closely on every single doctrinal issue.
The few verses that have been left out, are not always left out, but they appear with a notation that many of the "oldest manuscripts" simply do not contain these verses. It is entirely possible and it has been pretty well deduced that well meaning scribes may have added things to help clarify the sentence, paragraph, or book that they were copying. Even many KJVs have notations at the bottom or in the margins that "many older manuscripts lack the following "words or verses"". This can be proven by the fact that we have multitudes of manuscripts, all of them disagreeing on certain words and sometimes complete sentences. This does not mean the KJV is not complete and inerrant, it simply means that a scribe has tried to clarify an area and it was brought forward--having not been in the original manuscript. No meaning is changed. There has been no proof given of this whatsoever. Unless you would like to provide some specifics that we can discuss....?
Now, here is the point that is really important. None of these make ANY doctrinal difference in the Bible no matter WHAT people want to say. I have personally read many translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, N.T. of Holman) including the KJV through, several times and I can attest from personal experience in reading them that the doctrine of most of the well-accepted MV's are just as sound and strong as that of the KJV. Many of them, much plainer and clearer, simply because the language is not archaic. A good parallel Bible will show anybody that the Word of God is maintained very well.
The problem is, you cannot use the KJV as your standard. Who said to use it as a standard. If you do, which one the 1611, the 1769, a later one, one in between.....?
Let me give you an example. It has been well known that the translators of the KJV had thirteen different manuscripts to piece together to come up with a complete copy of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. In making their translation, they used something similar to what we call today as "textual criticism" to determine which ones to use. No different (maybe not as sophisticated, but it worked) than modern translators viewing their manuscripts. (I won't get into the "so-called" corruption of manuscripts in the MV's at this time, I can cover that later.)
The translators literally pieced sentences together from manuscripts that did not match.
Much of the King James came from the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible and even the Vulgate (Latin) was compared in making the KJV. Compare a Geneva to a 1611 Bible, you will find that even the verses and chapters are the same.
If you say that the translators were inspired. Then we have another issue to deal with. What man decided to take out the Apocrypha? It IS part of the KJV1611. I have an original printed Bible of the 1611 version and I will tell you that the apocrypha is treated just exactly like the inspired scriptures in that book. It was not explained or noted anywhere that it was different. It just has the name Apocrypha at the beginning, where the Old Testament says "Old Testament". You can download a front page from a scanned 1611 Bible from my website by typing --http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf --
This is a PDF file and you will need an Adobe Reader (which you probably already have if you are on the net a lot.)
In that file you will get the front page of the first book of the Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. The only thing that changes is the title of what is coming next. There are NO statements anywhere in the book that says or indicates that the Apocrypha is NOT considered scripture.
How do you explain the missing Apocrypha from the original KJ. If the translator's were inspired, then they got something wrong. So, if the translators weren't inspired, then the "revisors" that came later had to be inspired and the 1769 (or a possible later version) of the KJV is correct. Which one? If every single word has to be the same, then we have a major problem.
How can you explain to me the changes (additions and corrections) in the KJV since 1611? What Bible was the standard from 400 AD to 1611 AD?
C)I do not exactly understand your last question. Are you asking me of a "specific" scripture verse or chapter, or are you asking me whether He has convicted me of the KJV or NASB?
In answer to the first, I believe that all of God's Word is important and that it is maintained in MOST of the MV's. Not any particular verse or chapter.
That also answers the second question. It is my belief that God has worked in my heart just as powerfully, if not more powerfully, when I read a version that I understand much better than a KJV. I'm NOT SAYING THE KJV IS NOT AS GOOD. I JUST DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THAT PARTICULAR VERSION OF ENGLISH AS WELL.
I do NOT expect anybody to take my word that the Lord told me this. I suggest that they study the subject much further. I too, went through a KJVO phase for a long time, but when presented with the facts, I found it to be a false-hood.
Finally, I really wish you would answer the questions in one single place. There may be answers in all of these posts, but they are so scattered with personal opinion that I would like to cut to the chase and get right down to your beliefs on those questions. This is the problem I have had. Most KJVo believers will go into a long and stirring emotional-testimony that is void of any scriptural reference, let alone factual.
I have watched you post and you apparently can type and put your words on paper very quickly, so I do not think it would be too much to ask for one post with the questions all answered in one place. Simple....
Thanks
Phillip
