I am not trying to open a can of nuclear particles here, but I am really curious about something. Of course with complete respect and agreement with Brother Ray, I am also a complete advocate of the KJV and only use this version for my studies, unless I am refuting the NIV, then I need to know my enemies.

Anyhow I am going to take a poll, and watch everyone discuss different versions of the bible and why people read them. I want to hear what everyone has to say.

Forgive me if I have repeated some of the versions in the poll, I do not claim to know what all of these versions are, just that they exist and seem to be popular with a lot of people.

May Christ put a guard at our mouths and a watch at our lips during this thread.

In Christ,

Jim

I use the King James for everything!

I have a few other versions sitting on a shelf at home, and once in a while (about once every 6-12 months?) I look up a verse in one of those versions... sometimes the different wording (or even a wrong wording) helps me to see something more or deeper in the KJV that I hadn't quite understood or had read over in the past, but I always check back with the KJV to make sure I got it right, and if there is any difference, it makes me want to dig in even deeper and study out whatever I was looking up... Generally, I do this if there is a wording that someone has been arguing about or a definition of a particular word that someone has been debating. I'm not IFB, and I'm not particularly KJVO... I believe that if the KJV were banned, the NIV or the RSV or any other version would still hold the plan of salvation and the basic truths of the Word of God, yet the other versions still seem watered down and some of the wordings changed in such a way that I don't care to use them except as a comparison... I use the other versions more like a Matthew Henry's Commentary Nave's Topical or some other reference than as Bibles to read and study.

Forgive me but I have not been able to figure out how to vote in this poll. However I would like to add my 3 cents worth.

I echo the statements of an earlier post in that I do have a couple of other translations on the shelf but only use them to research things when dealing with person or persons that insist on using the other translations. These other "more modern" translations are greatly lacking and quite often do not even say the same thing that is stated in the AV. I sincerely believe that the other translations are used by folks that are constantly looking for the easy way out.

I have a collection of antique Bibles. Currently the volumes number about 50. The oldest I have is a KJV that was published at Oxford in 1688. It is a beautiful Bible! It has been recovered, probably about the mid 1800's but the pages are intact and in really good condition for a book that is 316 years old. When I get in the mood to read not only the original translations but also in the original English I very carefully get that Bible out of my showcase and read some of it.

I also have a polyglott Bible that was published in 1822 that I am fond of. It does not contain any of the modern translations but is printed with four different languages. This Bible was also printed without the sense paragraphs and chapter and verse breaks that we are used to. It makes for wonderful reading.

I do not know personally why anyone would even consider using a Bible other than the AV. I have a wonderful book entitled, "The Journey From Texts to Translation." It is a wonderful bok that details the origins of the English language version of the Holy Bible. There is quite a bit of data detailing the various versions of the English Bible. It appears that each of the different teams that performed the newer translations and paraphrases had their own agenda.

Many folks say that the AV is too difficult to read. That is actually a lot of hogwash. Someone did a Flesch-Kinkade grade level test of the content of the AV. The result was that the beloved King James Version has a reading level of about 5th grade. Compare this with the reading level of the NIV, one of the more popular modern translations. The NIV was tested about a little over 7th grade. So much for the theory that the newer translations are eaasier to understand.

Another example of the newer translations misuse is Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life program. Mr. Warren uses at least 5 different versions of the Bible in his program. The primary volume he refers to is the New Century Version. The NCV was originally commissioned by the Church of Christ. It was also a translation that set out to put American Sign Language into print. American Sign Language is greatly lacking in many words and phrases that are contained in the spoken language. The purpose of using this stripped down version of the Bible appears to be so that the Bible can be seen to support Warren's agenda. Instead of setting out to expand and expound on the content of the Bible he pulls things out of greatly lacking translations to prove his points.

If anyone is interested at all in this program, a recent issue of The Sword of the Lord has an expose' of The Purpose Driven Life. This program is, at best, a perversion of scripture. it is a wonderful example of what can and does happen when people start using the more modern translations and paraphrases. It is bad enough when unsuspecting people get these things foisted off on them but when someone purposefully sets out to pervert Scripture I think it is a crime. Of course, the folks that do things like that will have their reward. I have found that educating myself on the content of this program is a wonderful tool in dealing with people that either are considering or have actually gone through the 40 days program.

These are just a few of my thoughts and beliefs on using other than the King James Version.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

Can I post a story I made up?

This is just for reference, it should not be endorsed, used for arguments or anything as it is human in it's context and I hope I do not dishonor the Lord.

I just want to point out something to people who are anti-KJV.

Once there were two men who were about to get into a swordfight. Why is irrelevant. Both persons used different swords, but were equal in combat skill on their chosen weapon in every way. One sword was straight and sharp, the other was curved and not as sharp. People who were watching seemed very interested on how this was to turn out.
Before the fight started, the one with the curved sword, who we will refer to as Curvy henceforth, decides to start explaining to the one with the straight sword, who we will refer to as Straight henceforth, why his sword was just as effective as Straight's sword. Straight was not impressed, says nothing, and lunges at Curvy, knocking him off balance. Curvy gets back up and reiterates his intellect of why he chose a curved blade over Straight's straight one. Straight, again saying nothing whirles around and blade slicing throught air, manages to knock Curvy down again with an effective blow against Curvie who barely parries it with his own sword. Curvy, getting kind of frustrated, starts really digging into his education on metallurgy, smithing, and other swordsmithing techniques.
He starts spouting of how it was based on the best and most ancient styles of swordmaking techniques and how the type of metal used couldn't be better in the world. Straight just stands there waiting for Curvy to try something. As Curvy keeps spouting a multitude of words, he surprisingly launches an attack at Straight with his sword which snaps in twain at the first contact with Straight's sword which easily deflects the inferior blade.
Curvy just stood there not knowing what to say. He couldn't understand why Straight was able to prevail against his knowledge of the sword and it's proper use.
Later that day, a man approaches Straight and asks him why he was able to prevail against Curvie's sword: "I don't understand, you were both equal in skill, both intellectual on how the sword was to be used, and in every way it should have been at least a tie, it just doesn't make sense."
Straight puts his arm around the man and gently responds, "I didn't win the fight, the sword did. I was just someone who held it. It didn't need me to defend itself. It just needed someone who was willing to carry it wherever it needed to go".

I hope you understand the story. I keep reading the debates of people who are for or against the KJV. The one thing missing in most every case is the KJV defender uses the same tactics as the person criticizing it using this manuscript and that codex and this lexicon, etc, etc., making him no better. We need to understand that God's word defends itself. He does not need our help. It is growth of our spirits that have understanding through eyes of the Holy Spirit to recognize the danger of these new translations. They are of man's will not the Lord's.

Like I said before, if we were to say that God's Word is not infallible and inerrant, refer to John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and understand that you are also calling God inerrant and infallible. I don't know about you, but MY God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and He is perfect in every way!


Love in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Jim

I now use the KJV exclusively. I used to use the NASB occasionally, but I became disenchanted with its clumsy sentence construction and word order. Try reading the NASB aloud some time, or memorizing verses. I fell for the advertising that said the NASB was the "most literal" translation. They never mentioned that it was the most literal translation of a weak source. I particularly object to the practice of some preachers using multiple versions of the bible in the same sermon, as if they are shopping around for the translation that best makes their point. If a preacher is convicted to use a version other than KJV, then so be it; but he should stick with one translation. If you have to dig through eight different versions to find one that supports your view, maybe you should reconsider your view.

That last post, "guest", was mine. Sorry, I forgot to log in.

jailpreacher, you bring up a point that is unfortunately very common in a lot of "evangelical" churches these days. Just around the corner from my condo is a big church that is called "First Christian Church." It is suppossedly non-denominational. In their attempt to not offend anyone they use multiple translations of the Bible, the NIV being primary.

Probably the biggest difficulty with this practice is that they teach, "there is this belief and there is that belief and there is this other belief." (My words and a rather poor paraphrase of what occurs there but I thought the most effective way to present it) They do NOT teach which is the correct belief and therefore Truth. There are lots of folks running around in that church that have no idea of whether or not they are really saved. Although this situation occurs somewhat in the independant, fundamantal Baptist Church the major difference is that in the IFB church these folks can be and are shown through the Bible what the truth is. In this First Christian Church that does not take place.

How sad!

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

That sounds like the kind of church I was raised in. It really isn't a Bible translation matter, but one of great import, nonetheless. The non-denominational Christian Church (at least the one I was raised in) is supposed to be close in doctrine to the Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ. However, they didn't teach anything really. I had a Baptist, a Catholic, and a Disciples of Christ Sunday School teacher, a Church of Christ pastor, a Methodist/Baptist dad, a Disciples of Christ mom... now add to that most of my friends were Nazarene and the church camp that the church sent me varied between Baptist and Charismatic, and you have one very confused young person! Asked Mom one time, "If there are so many different beliefs out there, how do you know which one is right?" Her response? "Well, you just have to pick the one that sounds right for you and hope that is right." (Hmmm... there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof... can't remember the rest right now but its death.)

They stand by two verses: ...no creed but Christ, no book but the divine... and ...one Lord, one faith, one baptism...

They do like the NIV. I'm not saying this bitter toward them, or to wander off the thread. Alot of my family is still in that denomination, but it shows that we should all "study thyself to be approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth"... and study and study and study!!

Maryks, Read my post on marriage/divorce/remarriage. It addresses some questions you raised on that thread. What a mixed up background you come from! Praise God for your commitment to the WORD. I am a pastor of an independent Bible-believing Baptist Church. We hold to the fundamentals of the faith, but we are by no means like the average Fundamental Independent Baptist Church. I do use the KJV in my sermons. I was pleased to read that you consulted with some "elders" in your church regarding your situation. That is certainly a Biblical designation for church leaders! We have elders, not many Baptists do (one of the reasons we are not typical).

All, Regarding translations, I have done all my memorization (40+ years worth or more, I am 48) from the KJV. I have always preached from the KJV exclusively.

But is there really anyone out there who does not explain that the Greek word agape(h) means LOVE, not CHARITY? (1Cor 13) Do we not make allowances for word usages that have changed? When James writes of the person who comes to church in "gay clothing" (James 2:3) do we explain that he is not referring to homosexual attire? The NASB reads, "fine clothes" and this is certainly an accurate translation of the Greek Text (which has no variants here). What about "shutteth up his bowels [of compassion" in 1John 3:17? Is it wrong to suggest that the wording of the NAS "closes his heart" may be a bit easier to grasp in our modern culture? Is it wrong to suggest that it may even better communicate the message God intended? Dare we point out that if we read it without the italics that the translators tell us THEY HAVE ADDED it makes even less sense -- "and seeth his brother have need and shutteth up his bowels from him"?!

Even the strongest KJVO preachers I know will usually hedge a bit on these -- "charity means love"; "gay clothing means fine clothes"; and "bowels of compassion really means a heart of love" -- or some other similar paraphrase.

Oh well, it is late, I may get branded as a heretic anyway. I will close and check for responses later.

(Just a few comments in closing -- I have extensivley read the writings of Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger, and others -- also the work of Carson, White, and others in the non-KJVO camp. Several years ago I spent an entire summer doing little else but studying this issue again. I have 300-400 hours in the subject and 4-5000 pages of reading. You may certainly disagree with me, but do not assume that I am ignorant of the issues on this one. There are few other issues that I have given as much time and prayer to as the "which translation" issue. I have alot to say, but it may not be appropriate to say it here, out of respect to the position of the site. Time will reveal all.)

Hi Guys...

I would have selected Amplified Bible, But it wasn't on the list!

I saw this board listed on http://www.baptistboard.com and so, I am here...

I'm a FREE-WILL Baptist, So, I'm good for a coversation or two... I don't like to argue though, why should I? I'm always right... just kidding... Anyhow.. The Lord's Blessings on everyone!

-Chuck AKA BornBaptist
Detroit, Mi.

RJP--

I will have to disaagree with you on your translations of the pharases you use...while I will agree you are free to use any translation you wish to, please don't try to correct the King James Version. The Holy Spirit used the words He chose in the KJV because He chose to; And He still uses them.

For instance, "bowels of compassion"...this is not better translated "closes his heart". Bowels speaks of the whole person, the entire person. The heart generally speaks of only the emotions.

"Splagchnon" speaks of the entire person in pity, sympathy. inward affection, tender mercy. "Closes his heart" does not carry the same meaning.

As for charity in I Cor. 13; I believe the Holy Spirit again chose the right word...

Love= Attachment, affection, devotion, piety, fidelity, worship, like, enjoy, adore, idolize...etc.

Charity=mercy, clemency, grace, lenity.

I believe charity captures exactly what Paul was saying. Agape does translate love, it also translates charity.

As far as James 2:3, I will not allow the homosexual community to dictate how I read my Bible. I never use "gay" when speaking of homosexuals. I will gladly explain what Gay means in this verse without feeling like I have to apologize for the words the Bible uses.

Of course "bowels" does indeed reflect the Greek idea that the stomach, including the entire digestive tract is the seat of emotion. In our culture we have a similar idiom, "butterflies in the stomach". Yet the KJV translators chose to translate literally rather than idiomatically.

If I were to speak to a French person through a translator and say, "(cough, cough) Excuse me, I have a frog in my throat" he would have to translate as "Excuse me, I have a cat in my throat." That is the equivalent idiom in French, a literal translation would not accurately convey the meaning of what I said. On numerous occasions the KJV translator chose to translate idiomatically to give the meaning rather than literally which would have confused the meaning.

Regarding "gay clothing", I certainly agree that we should not let the homosexual community dictate the meaning of our words, however, their influence on our society cannot be denied. If we are speaking to people who understand the meaning of a word in one way, we must define our terms to prevent confusion. In the case of James 2:13, if we are speaking to people who understand the word "gay" in the modern (albeit corrupted) sense, we are bound to explain what the text means to avoid giving an "uncertain sound".

Correct the KJV = Correcting the Holy Spirit? You are suggesting that the Holy Spirit inspired the translation of the KJV 1600 (roughly) years after He inspired the writers of the NT! (and longer for OT) This is known as secondary inspiration.

If direct inspiration applies to the KJV, as opposed to the first Greek Manuscripts, does God inspire a version for every language? If yes, which one? If not, why not? Did God inspire the copies of the original MSS?

I also have to ask which KJV is the correct one? 1611? 1768? Oxford? or Cambridge? It is a fact that they are different. Even if I were to grant that the only differences were spelling (which I don't), who has the right to change the spelling that God has inspired? What about "she's" to "he's" and words that are taken out and added in later revisions of the KJV?

Since we do not have the original manuscript produced by the KJV translators and the copies and later editions contain variants, how do we know which one we can trust?

What about when the KJV is different from ALL existing copies of Greek manuscripts? Luke 20:16; Rom 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1; 1Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 -- "God forbid". The word "theos" is not even present anywhere in the verse in all but 4 of these 15 references and in those it is not present in the phrase where the KJV translators place it. Did the Holy Spirit inspire them to add that word? (since they did not italicize it, they are not telling us they have added it!)? I do not object to the translation "God forbid", it accurately conveys the force of the Greek "me(h) geneto", but is an idiomatic translation, not a literal word for word translation. What made the KJV translators think they could change God's Word like that? And, If they can, why can't more recent translations like the NKJV or MKJV?

In Acts 19:39 we read, "...robbers of churches". ALL Greek MSS have "ierosulos" from "ieron" which appears 71 times in the Greek NT and is everywhere else translated as "temple"! And the 1611 even has a marginal notation "temples"! The word "ekkle(h)sia" does not appear anywhere in the verse. Have the KJV translators corrected all extant Greek MSS? Or was this correct word lost until 1611?

These are readily documented FACTS. How can this be reconciled with your position that God inspired a secondary translation?

In looking at the site's Statement of Faith, I do not see any indication that fundamentalpreaching.com holds to secondary inspiration.

1.We believe that the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, are inspired of God, and without error, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.

I do note that they do not add the words "in the original autographs" which is a built in defense against the KJVO position. This may be an indication of leanings toward the KJVO camp, or it may simply be leaving their position broad enough to attempt to encompass those who may be in different camps on this issue.

I preach from the KJV exclusively. I occasionally cite the NAS or the NIV if I believe their wording to be closer to the original languages (apographs, not autographs). I know that we do not have the "original MSS" in the Greek anymore than we have the "original MSS" for the "original KJV" or the "original draft" that was sent by the translators before final revision by the overseer of the project. I have read that the translating committee did object to the use of the word "church" in Act 19:32, but was overruled by the overseer of the project (sorry, I can't remember his name at the moment).

In any case, I do not in any way wish to malign or deprecate the wonderful King James Version. I only wish to call attention to the serious problems inherent in stating that the KJV is the ONLY PURE Bible in the English language. Some hold that the KJV is perfect in every way and word for word and letter for letter a perfect preservation of the inspired Word and given to and through "Holy men of old".

Why should the words of the NAS be any less significant in claiming that it is a perfect word for word and letter for letter preservation of the original autographs? "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17). "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matt 5:18) The same verses used to proclaim perfect preservation of the AV also work to make the same claims for other versions! If they both claim this, and if these means that the translations themselves are perfect, and if this lines up with the idea of "secondary inspiration", and if they are different, it is impossible for both of them to be perfect.

Yeah, I know, with God all things are possible. Then is it not possible that the NAS is the right one? The Vulgate has been around a lot longer than any of them and it's corruptions are well known. And of course we have not even considered the idea that the 1611 contained the Apocryphal books! If they were the Word of God, why have we taken them out? If they weren't, why were they included in a volume who's cover proclaimed "HOLY BIBLE"? King James, the overseers, and the translating committees were all men. To proclaim their infallability opens the door to a great many other problems. In my judgement, proclaiming inspiration of the original autographs while acknowledging something a little less for the copies and translations is the only view that is consistent with the facts. It is a fact, that NO two hand written copies of the Word of God are identical. Yet, by comparing the thousands of extant (still in existence) MSS (manuscripts), the scribal errors are evident and we can arrive at a faithful text without proclaiming that God has somehow restored His Word in the KJV. If the KJV is word for word and letter for letter the perfect Word of God, why did it take God 1600 years to get it back to the originals? Why did God let all the believers of the previous centuries have flawed translations? And how do we know which KJV is the perfect one (addressed above).

Regarding the crooked sword story, not only have metalurgical processes signficant improved in the last 390+ years, but there are thousands more MSS to be considered. Further, there are many more instances of word usage in ancient documents to give a better understanding of what the words meant in the context of their culture. Before we can accurately apply the Word to our lives today we must understand what it meant to the ones to whom it was originally addressed. We ignore the manners and customs of ancient saints and believers (OT, NT) to our own great peril. The Suzerainty treaties of ancient middle eastern cultures give us a much richer and fuller understanding of what it meant when Abram (Abraham) divided the animal sacrifices in Gen 15 and God passed between the pieces alone! To fail to understand the impact and significance of ancient writings upon our understanding of Scripture is to severly handicap our ability to "give the sense" and "cause them to understand the reading" of God's Holy Word (Neh 8:8).

Worship God and obey His Word, but do not make an idol of any one particular translation. Yes I know that God has magnified His Word above His Name (Psa 138:2) but the wording of ASV is identical. Maybe it is the right one?

Some in the KJVO camp are worshipping the Book rather than the God of the Book. Biblioatry is not that far removed from the other abuses recorded in the history of the church.

If I am badly out of line with the Doctrnal Position of the site, please let me know and I will gladly remove my posts myself. Not that I will change my position, but I will moderate my statement of my position to not conflict with the beliefs of those who operate this site.

BURN, BURN the heretic, get me my pitch and naphtha!

Just kidding
RJP, You seem a learned student of the scriptures and I respect you as authority as a pastor of a church. I just have a few questions and then my understanding, please excuse it.

Just a few questions.

1) You said:

Why would we need to make allowances for words that have changed? Most of the word changes I have seen in our "modern culture" I would say have been preverted, and I use the term quite literally. If anything, our uses of words have dumbed down our culture to the point where we no longer understand true grammar and literature and have no place in comparison to understanding the scriptures. We do not need more translations to be understood by our "modern culture". I firmly believe God's Word grows, and hidden things are revealed to persons in God's good time according to the growth of the believer.

I have also read a lot of the works of Ruckman, White, Waite, Riplinger, etc. A great contrast divides many of them, doctrinally and spiritually. I believe through great prayer about my own compassion and heart that the great "bible debate" has divided the encampments of many christians, which is exactly what Satan intends to do. It is very sad to see many of God's people who are learned biblical scholars quarreling like children over issues such as these. They have forgotten the great commandments as taught by Christ. Matthew 22:37 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets"

I believe Jesus Christ deals more with matters of the heart than anything else. This proven time and again by his talks with the Pharisees. I am not conceding on doctrinal importance, just What Jesus came for.

Now people keep talking about translation and it's interpretation. Why then, was it ever translated from the Greek at all? Can we say ANY of the scriptures are inspired, according to arguments given, other than the Greek? Why was the bible given in Greek in the first place? Let's answer these questions before we can justify any questions about the later "translations".

I also keep seeing people saying that the Bible is not perfect. Where does this erroneous claim come from? Who are we in our finite minds to say something of God is not perfect? It is clear: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." With this verse, if we believe the bible to not be perfect, aren't we also saying God is not perfect? Jesus Christ is called "The Word" God is called "The Word". Something that does not grow is not perfect. Something that does grow, in the sense of conforming to the biblical description of growth is perfect.

A person does not need to be versed in Koine Greek or Hebrew to be a student of the bible. If you believe this, then you must believe all english translations to be fallible. You must also believe that the Greek texts to be the only perfect texts. Wouldn't that cause a problem for anyone who only speaks english? I understand the way of thinking that the original Greek will help in understanding the scriptures more in depth. But I say to that:,
"Will not God also reveal in growth, in time to the person learning it in devotion, the very same things?" Is that not how God gave it to the New Testament authors in the first place? Not that I am saying we are just as inspired. I have a feeling that one of the problems is that as fruit is given to some believers, they want to tout it in argument to others' who may have not been given that jewel and even God may not have intended it to go to anyone else.

I believe the King James Version of the bible is the true authorized version. I believe today's translations are only of men and therefore in error. The KJV came at a time when the bible could only be read in Latin or Greek(except for Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc), the universal language of commerce at that time. The universal language of commerce at this time is English. Even though we look at this with worldy eyes, we see the need for a translation into english. I believe that was performed in the KJV. And by the way, there are no different versions of the KJV except for the NKJV. It was a difference in alphabet, not spelling errors and mistakes as presumed by some people doing everything in their power to disprove the KJV. It was called "speaking forsoothly" Although I do not have the characters for the "s".

Oh, and we do NOT have the "originals". We never did. Most of them were lost, detroyed, etc. I never understood where this thought came from either.

Well, ok that was my half-pence worth, flame away!

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Aug 31, 2004 02:34 PM by Jim.