Why I believe that using the KJV is not a compromise

NO, but I live in Winston Salem and go to Calvary Baptist Church. Have we met? (I wouldn't be at all surprised -- the world is such a small place!)

 

Well, time for me to back out for a few hours. Have to go to Paltalk and co-host in a bluegrass gospel room.

be blessed.

 

Then using Chick's logic, God should have endowed man with the printing press long before its advent. Further, the fact that the KJV did not arise until 200 years after the press refutes his own false claim (one of many false claims).

 

Well, even JUDAS got one right every now-n-then. </font>[/QUOTE]Be nice RobyCop.

 

Have preached in a few Baptist churches from Reidsville to Winston Salem.

Possible in a revival in one of those churches.

 

The world vulgate means common in latin because Jerome and the church wanted a bible that the common person in the western world would understand since the greek in the Septuagint was not understood by the common person in the western world at that time.

 

Oh, good point, GD.

 

I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that the English Standard Version, let alone the NASB were influenced as much as the link would like to make us believe making them "somewhat revisions of the KJV."

The following quoted statement is certainly IN QUESTION: "Modern Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version are largely revisions of its text; it has deeply influenced Bibles such as the New International Version that do not claim to be revisions of its text."

Both were TRANSLATED from the original languages. The underlying manuscripts may have been consulted and compared, but "revisions"? I don't think so. </font>[/QUOTE]I think revision may be too strong a word in describing the influence of the KJV on the ESV and NASB. However the RV is a revision of the KJV. The ASV a revision of the RV. The RSV and NASB are revisions of the ASV. And the ESV is a revision of the RSV. So there is some validity to that statement. </font>[/QUOTE]GD,

Thx. I was going to post something on that. The AV was a fairly free revision of the KJV. I've heard them all described as being in the King James tradition.

I guess due to the popularity of the KJV for so long translators were hesitant to translate something not in the tradition of the KJV.

There have been so many informative posts here today that I can't keep up with them all.

FA

 

I agree with you there. What I disagree with you about is your contention that the pilgrims were somewhat ignorant of the KJV. They were not. They rejected it outright, as many did.

As for KJVOism, it cannot be denied the KJVOism is false doctrine, because it adds to scripture. However, individually choosing to use the KJV exclusively as one's personal bible is perfectly fine. Requiring that all others do the same is simply not scriptural in any manner whatsoever.

 

W,

Perhaps we should look at the original premise:

The question is whether or not using the KJV would be compromising the values this country was founded upon based upon the Pilgrims refusing to use the KJV.

The settement in Jamestown is not relevant to this discussion since it was not a movement motivated by the search for religious freedom. But those there who had any Bibles had the KJV - since the Church of England was the only church allowed in that province.

Now I do not see how the fact that the last revision before the war for independence was in 1769 relates to this issue. It was a minor revision - dealing mainly with errors, spelling changes, etc.. The question still remains whether it is a compromise to use the KJV based on the fact that the Pilgrims rejected it (which they did).

I just do not see the value in debating whether or not the Pilgrims rejected the KJV.
1 - They did reject it. Hence the availability of the KJV at the time is not the issue.
2 - How does this relate to KJVO people?
3 - Also, something to keep in mind is that Jamestown doesn't really relate to this question. The spiritual force behind this country did not come from there, but from Plymouth.

As a thread here describes, there are different types of KJVO. Some merely prefer it and think it is the best Bible or think that the textus receptus is the most reliable Greek source for the NT.

Now, I agree that those using the KJV, whether they be KJVO or not, are not compromising the heritage of this country by such usage. They are also not upholding it by such use. It is completely irrelevant.

As you pointed out earlier, The Great Awakening probably had a greater impact and influence on our country than anything else. I am not saying that we can ignore the significance of the fact that Plymouth was founded by those seeking religious freedom. As a result of so many who came to this country to escape religious persecution, our country maintained the separation of church and state in the Articles of Confederation and later in the Constitution as a result. And that was critical to the country we are today.

Our country established several universities whose purpose was to train people for the ministry. As a result training in the original languages as well as Latin has set a focus in this country on the Word of God.

What does it matter what particular translation was used by our founding fathers? What is important is their attitude and respect for the Word of God, since that was passed on to their children. When we lift up one translation, any translation, above God Himself that does not honor Him. The original autographs were inspired. No translation into any language is inspired. And praise God that we have the Holy Spirit to enable us to understand His Word.

If some people feel that only the KJV must be used (for English-speaking people) then I feel sorry for them. Before I succombed to such a position I would choose to read the NT in the Greek only, or even in another language, such as German or Spanish. (I hear that Luther's original translation of the Greek and Hebrew into the German Bible in 11 months was a masterpiece. But there are probably better translations available in Germans now than then.)

Are not those KJVO who say such doing much the same as King Henry VIII and King James? They did not permit any but the Bishop's Bible and later the KJV to be used. And when we call those who use the KJV compromisers of our heritage, aren't we guilty of much the same thing ourselves?

I have learned that those who insist on the KJV are really not open to the opinions of others, so to try to upset them by saying that they are compromising the principles of our founding fathers is a waste of time... they're not listening.

FA

 

Wow! Totally fruitless? Well, personally I don't think it is. I do think that the people on the KJO side will have a difficult time changing their minds -- just as I will have a hard time changing mine about good modern translations, but I've still learned a bit, I still did some more digging on my own. So at least for me, it wasn't fruitless. I didn't know that little tidbit I posted about the NIV.

AND while I don't use the KJV except as a comparison during study, I don't think it's use today is a compromise. We are in a different time and place than were the pilgrims. As I've said before, for most of us, our separation is well established.

 

You bet it is! Single-translation-onlyism is not in scripture. Neither can it be inferred from any scripture. I have asked on not less than 100 posts for scriptural proof of KJVOism. Never has a single person provided any.

KJVOism is not in scripture. Hence, it's false doctrine. Period.

No thanks, there have been many on this board, and, as I have said, no scripture has ever been provided.

However, on the topic of THIS thread, I agree. It is obviously not a compromise of any kind to use the KJV, or any other faithful translation of scripture.

 

The 1560 Geneva Bible would be overall more in agreement with Tyndale's than the 1611 KJV is.
The 1537 Matthew's Bible would be the earlier English Bible that is closest in text to Tyndale's. It is at least overstatement to claim that 90% of Tyndale's N. T. is in the KJV. It is especially inaccurate to claim that the KJV "used 95% of the Geneva Bible." The KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible.

One reason that the KJV differs more from Tyndale's than does the Geneva Bible is that the KJV took a good number of renderings from the 1582 Rheims New Testament. The influence of the 1582 Roman Catholics Rheims N. T. on the KJV may be one of the reasons that the Puritans and Pilgrims did not favor the KJV over the Geneva Bible. There are several important differences between Tyndale's and the KJV. The KJV has some renderings that William Tyndale would disagree with according to his own writings.

 

I don't mind at all if someone prefers the KJV over other translations. I don't mind if he feels it's more accurate. I do mind when he tells me that the KJV is the only one to be used - that God will not bless my study of His Word if I do not read in the KJV. (Does that mean that the studying I do in Greek won't be blessed?)

I have found some Christians to be very set-in-their-ways about certain practices and theology, but it has been my unfortunate experience (my opinion only) that none are as set-in-their-ways as the KJVO group. I've learned it's a waste of time to interact with them. When I participate on a thread related to the KJV it's usually to defend the NIV (the KJVOers have chosen that translation to vilify more than any other), though I do not particularly like the NIV, because I am concerned about those lurking who may be led astray.

I also on occasion defend the KJV from attack, as in this thread. IMO the best Bible for a person to use is one that he will actually read. There are a handful of distorted translations out there - I'm not referring to them. (Such as the New World Translation.)

Now this thread isn't really about the KJVO group. (Except that perhaps it was started IOT show some flaws in their reasoning.) It's about the KJV and how God works.

FA