The Church’s most important Doctrine

tradition reigns in the catholic church (and yes in baptist churches too) that is why the vulgate lasted so long, just to keep the people ignorant for no other reason. you have to admit that why else would they speak in an unknown language? I believe God does preserve His Word in other languages I do not know other languages well enough to read a bible in spanish, or french or german or whatever else, but I believe there is a bible in that language and if not missionaries should translate one for them (from the TR) I am not a KJV only guy. I think that that is a bad stance to have, why wouldn't there be a bishops or tyndale only men out there then? I do believe the KJV to be the best translation of the original languages for the english speaker though.

I hope that made sense, been up a long time today and little out of it.

 

I would most definitely agree as study notes are from men, but as a young christian and ignorant I would hear my Pastor say "Spurgeon says, ..." or "Scofield says,..." I knew nothing about these men (as most of the church doesnt either) and would say well if Pastor (whom I respect quotes him on this) then Scofield, Spurgeon, etc. must be right and then I would read a commentary note and say "ooohhh.. ok that makes sense, then only to find out it is way off base" I try never to quote a man in the pulpit, unless it is a negative fashion, while I recognize that all men have thier faults and some of everybody's doctrine is probably at least a little off I would rather point out truth from scripture than point out falsehoods from men.

 

Many have Described the NASB as "wooded" and probably the 1977 version being more. (It still included the thee's and thou's)

Well, the Gospels were inspired and the Holy Spirit is allowed to write things differently. I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. So to me, the words to matter. With that being said, we are speaking about English words. I don't believe it's ok to change the Greek/hebrew words around, even if the message is the same. The Holy Spirit chose specific words and we are not a liberty to change them. In English, the Holy Spirit hasn't given us any of the English words. We are translating and there is no verbal inspiration of a translation. If a translation is to be considered perfect and free from all error and the final authority in English, It MUST be because of the guiding of the Holy Spirit to the translators of the KJV. This is double inspiration is false.

With all that being said, the KJV is an excellent translation and those that want to continue to use it are free to do so. My church still uses the KJV.

 

Why should someone need to carry around a dictionary to understand the Bible? Especially new Christians?

Here's what I mean by archaic and clumsy language in the KJV:

---------
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

----------
John 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

---------
Luke 14:10: But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

-------------
2 Corinthians 6:11-13
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.


This sort of verbiage is a distraction and makes reading and understanding the Bible difficult. Of course, the KJV was written in the common man's language of the 16th century. Newsflash: We are now in the 21st century. Why not use Bibles written in the common language of our century?

 

You should read the preface in the KJV. the translators would not agree with you at all. Why must I grab a dictionary to read archaic words when there are many more accurate translations out today. If one doesn't like the CT, then use the NKJV.

 

Why would a person choose not to "like" the critical text, which represents our best effort at discerning the actual Word of God and strips away the "helpful" man-made additions?

In a word, pride. How dare they tell me I based my saving faith on a corrupted text that is shot through with additions. No, I was right, and my parents were right, and my Pastor was right, and all these so called "experts" have it wrong, cause I could not have been mistaken. So there!

 

Do you understand that to be true about the KJV translators?

 

Perhaps. But she still told you truth.

 

The most important doctrine for the church remains the doctrine of God. What I see going on here approaches something of bibliolatry, the worshiping of the Bible, and even worse, the worshiping of a particular version.

Let's get the doctrine of God right.

 

God will protect His word praise God for everything made my man will fade, but the word of God is eternal.

The scripture teaches us of God to worship God, to have a relationship with God. God had the Bible translated for me and gave me everything I need to get to know Him, to worship Him.

That a simple man like me don't have to depend on man to teach me, but God. We are to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God and not to reconcile it to our understanding, but trust in God through Jesus Christ.

It is a shame for anyone to worship the Bible, and not the one who provided it.