Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt!

Excellent point Bitsy and I think it one which we fundamentalists can certainly identify with.

Good answer

 

Originally posted by C4K:

Bibles are NON DENOMINATIONAL, no matter who does the translation. Why not call the KJV, The ANGLICAN VERSION? Why not name every bible translation according to the denomination of the people doing the translations?

 

If I as a Baptist Minister were to rewrite the KJV taking out the thee's and the thou's and replace with appropriate you, your and yours, would it be a Baptist Bible? Just because an Anglican Team of Translators translate does not make it denominational. Especially if they were translating word for word and not putting in their own interpretations of what they thought the Greek meant.

 

Because very few are done by denominations. The new HSCB is a Southern Baptist Bible. There are also Catholic Bibles, etc. The KJV is an Anglican translation, but it is a particularly excellent translation.

No more takers on my scenario?

 

Exactly, it was "appointed to be read in churches" and the only recognised churches were Anglican.

Personally I am grateful for the efforts of these men to produce the KJV, no matter what their denomination. It is the primary Bible I use everyday and have used all my Christian life.

 

No offense, but there is NO translation that is word-for-word of any Greek Text. It is impossible to translate from one language to another, especially two as diverse as English and Koine Greek "word-for-word".

 

Linda and C4K,

My point was this: Here we have claims of being separatists, and claims that some here choose not to use any bible derived from work by W&H because they feel those 2 were heretics.

Yet, those same people chose to either live in ignorance, or flat out dishonestly DENY the facts surrounding the KJV.

Linda's false claims that I have disdain for the KJV and those who use it is just another way for those who wish to remain in ignorance to avoid answering simple questions. There are MANY beliefs held by the KJV translators that Linda would CRINGE at, but instead of addressing that issue, when asked in good faith, she chooses to lie about my motivation.

My question was on topic. I was asking about why she would not want to "separate" from the false doctrines of the anglicans if she wishes to "separate" from the false doctrines of everyone else.

Its the same ole song. 5 pages, and topic closed because the KJVO wont address a simple question. Cry foul, and make up lies, do whatever you need to do, but by all means, make sure you dont have to answer any questions.

 

Actually, Linda has answered my question in a PM. I am very happy to say that I stand corrected. Thank you for answering a direct question.

Im sure we will soon share the dicussion.

 

Just a note that this would not have been a significant factor at that time since every other Bible in existence had the Apocrypha in the OT while the Coverdale and Geneva bibles had it between between the OT and NT like the KJV.

I know this has nothing to do with the issue but I thought it might be an interesting fyi.

 

So is the NAB a Catholic version? Or is the NJB a Catholic version? Or how about the NWT is it a Jehovah's Witness translation?

 

As C4K pointed out is the HCSB a SBC translation? Or is the NAB or NJB Catholic translations?

 

Likewise!! I do not use the KJV that much anymore but it is an excellent translation.

 

IT is funny. The answer to both of your questions is yes, Yet the KJV is geared toward any denomination.

If I might add, the NIV is almost identical with the NWT... are the SBC's becoming Jehovah's Witnesses? Will the next convention be held at the Kingdom Hall?

 

On what basis do you make this assertion.

On what basis are you making this assertion? The SBC didn't have anything to do with the NIV translation process. Although there were Baptist on the translation committee but I'm not sure which denomination.

 

And with these posts, which inidcate why we have a five page limit, we close this discussion.