Guest Butero Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Hello Butero, You statedan opinion and most Bible scholars disagree with you. Ialso disagree with you, so we canagree to disagree. There is much more wrong with the KJV, but I don't like to bash Bible translations unless theyare spurious.Again, I'll just give thanks that we have numerous excellent English translations of the Holy Bible. Use theone you likeand will read - God will use it. KJVonlyists doa great disservice by bashing other excellent translations,and the end result may be driving peopleaway from the KJV. This is especially true for those who bother to get the factsabout the KJV. I still use the 1769 version of the KJV because I grew up with it, but I use several other excellent translations every day. You would bash those other translations - wronglyand misinformed in my opinion. Had you stopped at the first couple of sentences, I wouldn't bother replying, but since you went on. Those who promote new translations do a great disservice to the innerant Word of God. They are helping the devil deceive people with numerous corrupt translationson on the market today. Support for new translations will lead people astray,as they will move from the pure Word of God found in the KJV Bible, to corrupt Bibles promoting lies. I find your view wrong and misinformed, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Theactual 1611 KJV started outasa Catholic Bible with theApocrypha,and it was revisedalmost countless times until the 1769 version of it came out. So, there is no perfection,and we must remember that the Inspired Holy Bible was not written in English. The translators of the KJV never claimed to be inspired - in fact they claimed the opposite in the Preface to the 1611 version. You mightalso be interested to checkand see if the original translation still exists The Catholic claim is nonsense, this was very clearlyanAnglican (Epicopalian venture),and whilst much of the text was incorporatedandadapted from earlier translations: Tyndale, the Geneva Bible the "great Bible". These were, with the exception of the Douay-Rheims Bible, produced by Protestants. William Tyndale whose translation was the most important source was burnt by the Catholics for having theaudacity to producea translation. Here's the translators introduction to their version.As to theApocrypha they followed Luther'sapproachas presenting them ina seperate section asa useful, interesting but unreliable curiosity Many try to claim the KJV Bible is a Catholic Bible to try to claim bias. That is interesting, given the fact that Catholics have stopped using it and moved to a more Catholic-friendly translation. That is what is happening in much of the church world. Everyone is creating a translation that is more to their doctrinal liking. As for the Apocrypha, that was always considered inferior to the rest of the Bible. That is why it is located in the middle of the Bible, and not in the logical order like the rest of the books are. I still like having a KJV apocrypha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted May 1, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,925 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted May 1, 2011 My dad passed away in 2004 at the age of 88. He had been a Christian most of his life - the exception being his "mid-life" years. He came back to the Lord for good in 1974 after the death of his 9 year old grand-daughter (my niece). Anyway, in his later years he got involved in the whole King James only controversy. There apparently is a pastor down in Florida who has (or had, I don't know if he's still with us) quite a following. My Dad used to get his newsletter. Honestly, the tone of the newsletter was not at all uplifting, in my opinion. Now, I didn't share my Dad's rather extreme views on the KJV. It is the version I grew up with, and the verses I memorized as a child were in the KJV. (Psalm 23 just doesn't sound right in any other version). But other versions contain God's Word, as well. I wouldn't usually argue with my Dad about it. My Dad being my Dad, I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?" "Yes." was his answer. "Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?" He had no answer. My Dad was a Christian who loved the Lord. I have no doubt he is in Heaven. But he was so wrapped up in the KJV controversy that the simple joy of going to church was not available to him (he would usually go to church with us, and our holiness, evangelical, conservative Wesleyan tradition church DOES NOT use the KJV). He wouldn't join our church. "I won't join a church that doesn't preach out of the King James." he would say. Anyway, that's my 0.02 on the whole KJ only controversy. Me? I believe we have - as Christians - much more serious things to tackle in these last days. Blessings! -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?" "Yes." was his answer. "Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?" He had no answer. I've asked King James hardliners the same thing and was usually met with similar silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?" "Yes." was his answer. "Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?" He had no answer. I've asked King James hardliners the same thing and was usually met with similar silence. Let us end the silence now Man. People get saved all over the globe that don't have a Bible. They simply have to know the plan of salvation to get saved. This is a question of accuracy of translation. It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted. The TR can be translated into any language. As a matter of fact, I would recommend that if there is no Chinese translation from the TR, it would be better to create one straight from the KJV Bible than to go to the corrupt manuscripts put used by modern English translations. That wasn't even a challenging question. I can't imagine why nobody answered it? To Savedbygrace1981, in my area there are several churches that are hard line KJV only, mostly Independent Baptists. I am surprised your Father couldn't find one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted May 1, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 1, 2011 It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted. Then don't you acknowledge that the original manuscripts are what is perfect (that's another 10 page thread) and ANY translation cannot be perfect? Why is the KJV translation of the TR so much better than any other? It is only and will only ever be a translation, nothing more. Not to be venerated at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I don't know about all that nonsense I use a variety of bibles in my studies but think I have brother in law that would fight to the end that its the only version God gave the world. At walmart the 400th anniversary of the 1611 bible is available for 5 dollars, I have it on esword but its nice to have a hard copy on hand, the genealogical charts are really neat. shalom, Mizz Is the 400Th Anniversary edition differen't from other copies of the Authorized version, aside from the charts? I generally use a 1611 re-print, and that does have some distinctions. I'm really not sure, never done the comparisons but its supposed to be 'the most accurate replica of the 1611 available on the market'. I don't generally get to worked up over translations I use several bibles as well as a other study aides. I picked up a copy of that 400TH Anniversary edition KJV Bible. The only thing disapointing to me is the fact the Apocrypha isn't included. Still, for the price, I decided to get it anyway. Thanks for letting me know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted. Then don't you acknowledge that the original manuscripts are what is perfect (that's another 10 page thread) and ANY translation cannot be perfect? Why is the KJV translation of the TR so much better than any other? It is only and will only ever be a translation, nothing more. Not to be venerated at all. No translation from one language to another can be 100 percent perfect because there is not always a perfect word in English to express the word in Greek or Hebrew. The only Bibles I know of that come from the TR are the 1611 KJV Bible, The Authorized King James Version Bible, and perhaps, the New King James Version Bible. I like the 1611 Version best. Any Bible not from the TR is worthless to me. I don't trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted May 1, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 1, 2011 It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted. Then don't you acknowledge that the original manuscripts are what is perfect (that's another 10 page thread) and ANY translation cannot be perfect? Why is the KJV translation of the TR so much better than any other? It is only and will only ever be a translation, nothing more. Not to be venerated at all. No translation from one language to another can be 100 percent perfect because there is not always a perfect word in English to express the word in Greek or Hebrew. The only Bibles I know of that come from the TR are the 1611 KJV Bible, The Authorized King James Version Bible, and perhaps, the New King James Version Bible. I like the 1611 Version best. Any Bible not from the TR is worthless to me. I don't trust them. So please let me clarify, when you state you are KJV only, do you really mean TR only? I do not believe the 1611 KJV is the best translation from the TR anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?" "Yes." was his answer. "Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?" He had no answer. I've asked King James hardliners the same thing and was usually met with similar silence. Let us end the silence now Man. People get saved all over the globe that don't have a Bible. That pretty much makes this King James issue moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts