Why not the King James Bible?

Dr.C,

There is a major differance between making a mistake regarding 1762 and 1769 as I did .....and posting not just inaccurate information but heretical information that only the KJV is the Word of God and all other Bible translations are commentaries. I would think that a learned man such as yourself who claims not to be a Ruckmanite would be outraged. All of us who use modern versions declare the KJV do be the Word of God and do not call it a commentary or perversion. KJV only's who make such comments do more to hurt the cause of the Textus Receptus than Westcott and Hort have ever done by making such blasphemous statements.

[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
In answering your query, Dajuid, we are not talking about different BIBLES. We are talking about different English translations and versions of the Bible. Big distinction!

Remember, it is NOT the "King James Bible" - that is a new KJVonly prejudicial rewriting of history, to make it appear to be the true "bible". It is the King James VERSION of the Bible. A "version" - correct in that it accurately reflects what the BIBLE said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. That explains why KJVOs call the KJV the King James Bible and they call the New American Standard Bible the NASV!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And the one I use (Scofield 1769 KJV) is a great REVISION of the AV1611! 50,000 changes - Dr Cassidy has ably explained the hundreds of MAJOR changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if the KJV had 50000 changes from 1611 to the 1769 version, and KJVOs still call it the KJV, why do they not consider the NKJV the KJV with about the same amount of changes from the 1769?

Maybe the NKJV publishers should have never called it "New", as every update of the KJV was "new".

 

I use the KJV because I believe it to be the most accurate.
I used to use other versions to get a new take on a passage or in the hopes that it waould help clarify something that seemed confusing, but I found that too often it didn't match up. And some concepts just aren't found in other translations. Take for instance the seven Spirits of God under general discussions. (I hope that's where it is) Out of curiosity I checked to see if the Seven could be found in the RSV or a few others, and it was worded so differently it totally took Spirit out of every verse, replacing it with an ideas that had nothing to do with the Spirits of God.
I think this could be a very dangerous thing. If you know enough about the scriptures it seems the other translations might be interesting and even useful as a study-mate, like any other religious book might be, but as far as taking your average knowledgable person and giving them another version it seems it would lead to a lot of false beliefs.
That is why I use the KJV.
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I use the KJV because I believe it to be the most accurate.
I used to use other versions to get a new take on a passage or in the hopes that it waould help clarify something that seemed confusing, but I found that too often it didn't match up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God bless you Gina that you are comfortable with the KJV. But may I ask, why do you believe it to be the most accurate? Is it because it matches up with preconceived notions, or have you checked it against the original languages?

You say that the MVs don't "match up". Match up to what - the KJV rendering? Is the KJV the standard? Perhaps the MVs are even more accurate?

 

They don't match up with other concepts within the Bible. Like the example I gave. Check it out. I suppose I am guilty of comparing with the KJV, but I have also gone back to studying the original language meanings, and also to seeing how the KJV came about as deciding factors to begin with.
Also, it seems in my personal life I am a lot more blessed in my understanding when I use the KJV. I figure that since it most definately isn't because it uses the most modern wording, perhaps it's of God?
All who are burning to express their horror over my last comment can sent it in the form of a letter to my complaint department at 222 Yemen St., Yemen, or call me at 1888IMOVEDTOYEMENTOAVOIDYOU.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I used to use other versions to get a new take on a passage or in the hopes that it waould help clarify something that seemed confusing, but I found that too often it didn't match up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To echo Chris Temple's query..."didn't match up to" what? I fear that where MVs and the KJV differ, by default you assume the KJV to be correct and the MVs incorrect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And some concepts just aren't found in other translations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question should be whether or not those "concepts" are found in scripture instead of just the KJV. We ought to judge our theology by what the original scriptures said, not visa versa.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Take for instance the seven Spirits of God under general discussions. (I hope that's where it is) Out of curiosity I checked to see if the Seven could be found in the RSV or a few others, and it was worded so differently it totally took Spirit out of every verse, replacing it with an ideas that had nothing to do with the Spirits of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina, forgive me if I am on a different page here, but do you refer to the "Seven Spirits of God" of Revelation 5:6? I will presume you do and you can correct me if I am wrong.

Every version I have at my disposal (NIV, NASB, Amplified, and KJV) do indeed have the reading "seven Spirits of God." The NIV and Amplified have footnotes that say it might read as "seven fold Spirit of God," but that doesn't take away from the meaning and may be the correct one over against the KJV. Again, just because it "ain't in the KJV" doesn't mean it is wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you know enough about the scriptures it seems the other translations might be interesting and even useful as a study-mate...but as far as taking your average knowledgable person and giving them another version it seems it would lead to a lot of false beliefs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would simply answer you with, "If you know enough about the scriptures it seems the KJV might be intersting as you could read between the archaisms."

And, I disagree totally with the last statement. It seems the KJV has proven the source for many more cults than any MV. And, like the case of the JWs, it is usually inferior translation of a passage or archaic terminology that had a different meaning in 1611 that leads to these "false beliefs."

Indeed, it seems to me that one might more easily understand the Word of God from MVs written in contemporary English rather than stumbling over archaisms that make little sense (or mean something totally different [read 'prevent' here] today) and obscure the meaning of scripture.

Sincerely,

 

Yes, in Revelations, and 1:4. The Explanation for the spirits is in the following.
Eph. 1:13, John 15:26, Heb. 10:29, Rom. 8:15, Rom. 8:9, Rom. 8:10, and Rom. 8:2.
I haven't had too much of a problem with the "archaic". Is it thee or thou that confuses you? Just kidding.
The text it was copied from, how it was copied, and personal experience is my reason for using it. Altogether, the separate teachings in all the different sections fit together and are more compatible. It doesn't change to fit the times, doesn't make He and She indistinguishable for the sake of the women's lib. movement. Another example is where God called man became a living soul. Other versions replace it with being. Mormons love that. Helps prove their souls prej-existence argument when you take soul out and replace it with being.
They may seem like subtle, more easy to understand differences, but they may make the difference between teaching false doctrine and teaching truth.
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It doesn't change to fit the times, doesn't make He and She indistinguishable for the sake of the women's lib. movement. Another example is where God called man became a living soul. Other versions replace it with being.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most mainstream translations in common use in the United States are not gender neutral in reference to God. There are some that do exist, however, and they are wrong (remember, no translation is perfect and, in cases where this occurs, it is willful mistranslation).

I did come across something you might find interesting, though. It is a list of MVs and how they deal with the translation of masculine references to God (and others). It is put out by Zondervan (the American publisher of the NIV). The NIV was burned a few years ago when their British publisher came out with a gender neutral European NIV. They are adamantly against this and have made every attempt to prevent this in the future.

Here is the site:

Contemporary Bible Translations

Another good site that pertains to the actual method of translation, average reading level, number of translators and other info. Here is that site:

Bible Translations Comparison Chart

You are correct that not every translation does a good job of translation. In fact, some even willfully mistranslate certain issues to be "politically correct." They are wrong for doing this; however, it is not difficult to find out which versions are trustworthy and which ones are guilty of this type of heresy. Indeed, a little "study to show thyself approved" guards against both intellectual laziness and becoming an unwilling participant in heresy of this sort. The answer isn't (and does not have to be) "the KJV by default."

Sincerely,

 

My head hurts.