A Question About "KJV-Only"

[seraph]

Can I ask for those who have

[Laura]

Wow Ser - I can't read those colors are all, especially the pink lol.

Whatever it said though, I continue to stick with the KJV - That is what I know. Others seem confusing!

All for now - ta ta !

[seraph]

LOL... ok Lala... I will change the color... but the pink was pretty *sniffle* Yeah... see that is the point... if you understand KJV and others confuse you, then for you KJV is best and that's what you should use. Others have trouble understanding the KJV... so they choose another version. I prefer the NASB, but I like the KJV too. I often use NIV and occassionaly The Message or NLT.

I just am confused as to how one version can be considered the "only" Word of God when God wants us to preach the Good News in all the world... there are different languages and there are different levels of education and different preferences within each of those languages *shrugs*

[other one]

seraph, they may be easier to understand, but they do not all say the same thing.

Example is John:3:16

John 3:16

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

KJV

John 3:16-17

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

NIV

I have many Baptist brothers and sisters that use the later translations and the changing of the words "should not" to "shall not" to teach that all one must have to do to be saved is to believe. If you believe you will be saved.

It's original wording is should not meaning that if you believe you "may not" perish, but there are things that you must do to make it a sure thing

Romans 10:9 does use the "shall" word:

Rom 10:9

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

KJV

Note that one must further confess that Jesus is Lord to change that should to shall.

This is one small place that raises a red flag that there may be differences that matter.

If you read the translations that use the "shall" it becomes ingrained in your thoughts and becomes your belief after a time.

So..... in my opinion later translations should be viewed very very carefully, or not used at all.

Sam

[Budman]

Sam,

Many people have written books claiming the KJV is without error. They say it is God

[ted]

Um, how about a simple "I use this version" and leave the "solemn warnings" at the door?

There are many "what Bible version do you use" threads. Maybe you should check them out to get a feel for the subject.

Remember, this is a board of many people and there will be many different opinions.

We have our warnings from the Bible, and warnings such as yours hold little water.

Here's a question for you, where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to translations or versions? Which ones, in your opinion are true and which are false?

Thanks,

t.

[AFaceInTheCrowd]

I use the KJV because of personal conviction.Beyond these versions of bibles mentioned are some that are nothing but blasphemy to me.Versions that are "politicaly correct "so they wont offend anyone is just plain wrong.This goes beyond just a clearer translation.

[Budman]

Hi Ted,

Here's a question for you, where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to translations or versions? Which ones, in your opinion are true and which are false?

Right off hand, I would have to say any cultic version, such as the New World Translation by the Jehovah

[other one]

Ted, that is where I personally draw the line (John 3:16). When your Mother is a Church of Christ, your brother and sister are Southern Baptists, your closest friend is an independent Baptist much like a Trinity Baptist, and his Father a devout Catholic, and a Dad that was a Methodist, that scripture becomes a very important part of the bible and the anchor of many many hours of family discussions (and sometimes serious arguments).

That is why and where I personally draw the line. I had to make up my own mind as to which was/is correct. Does it really matter..... to me yes, the rest of you.... decide for yourselves.

However it is not so simple as picking one over the other.

example:

Matt 5:22

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

KJV

Matt 5:21-22

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother (note:  some texts add without cause) will be subject to judgment.

NIV

Matt 5:21-22

22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

NASB

The NASB does not even make a footnote about the without cause, so it is not good to rely solely on the NASB either.

It seems to me that many or all of them should be looked into at one time or another.......

[Sola Scriptora]

Sadly, the post Bud obviously cut and pasted from someone else is the typical party line taught in most "Christian" colleges today. Now to those who know history and have studied this issue out, its sad to have to say that the above article is full of misleading statements and outright falsehoods. If I wanted to spend my time, I could refute all these errors.

One example. This deceitful article said of Erasmus that he was a "liberal" catholic. That statement is pure lying. Erasmus was known as a "humanist" So todays ignorant scholars don't know that in the 1500s, being a "humanist" meant you were educated in the classics, and encouraged learning. It did not mean secular humanism! By KJV critics don't care about facts, all they care about--their life-calling, is getting rid of that Book! Erasmus was an evangelical scholar who believed in justification by faith, and critiqued the Catholic church from within constantly. He died in the midst of Protestants, and Protestants did his funeral. They were his real friends. His Greek text WHICH IS BASED ON THE 5000-PLUS MANUSCRIPTS WE HAVE, is still on Rome's Index of Forbidden Books. Why? Don't ask the decievers who write articles like the one Bud posted, they don't know, nor would they reveal information damaging to their position if they did know. These are not honest men.

Stick with the KJV, you'll be fine

Edited October 31, 2004 by Sola Scriptora