Bible Versions Poll

[RCruise]

The only Bible I will use is the King James Version 1611.

[Ovedya]

The only Bible I will use is the King James Version 1611.

[RCruise]

God-man

Ah! A King James only person? Please tell us why you believe that all other translations are corrupt.  Is it the Alexandria superstition?

I know I am not shawneeda but, why do you call it a "superstition"?

God Bless.

[Ovedya]

God-man

Ah! A King James only person? Please tell us why you believe that all other translations are corrupt.

[Guest Shawneeda]

The only Bible I will use is the King James Version 1611.

[RCruise]

G-man:

had a conversation with another KJV only person.

[Ovedya]

RCruise and Shawneeda, please consider the following website and submit your comment here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html

There are separate commentaries on the issues you both present.

[RCruise]

RCruise and Shawneeda, please consider the following website and submit your comment here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html

There are separate commentaries on the issues you both present.

G-man:

I know of the site and it is a great collection of all the disputings and a gathering of a lot of historical information.  But, I kept running up against a few walls while persuing the information there and on several sites as well as books by many scholars and researchers.  In fact, one can drive oneself crazy trying to examine and make determinations based on contradictory evidences (or so they claim) alone.

I believe many men (and probably the one that built the site you posted) have earnestly tried to put the issue to rest with their analysis and conclusions based on the available information.  I applaud their efforts and zeal yet.., there is a problem that even I had for a while until I allowed the Lord to lead.  I was confirmed in my Spirit that the King James was correct yet, how do I prove it?  Where is the basis to show others and that with solid proof?  Well, my problem and many others as well is the fact there is no solid proof as we view evidence.  The evidence is self contained within His Word at the Spiritual value.  Many heard Christ speak and we know He spoke on that which was already written.  Remember how those in the synogogue marveled at His wisdom?

Yet, hardly a one of them believed Him.  The reason is "Spiritual Blindness" of which He spoke.  We could have today only one version and let's say it is the NASB and, that this version is the only Word of God.  How many interpretations of that one Word do you believe we would have before long?  How many divisions and denominations would erupt yet all using that one NASB version to justify each and every one's contrary differences?

That is another reason why I am not KJV-only fanatic.  We are to be "born again" and it is God through the Holy Spirit who enlightens us and gives us His Wisdom and understanding.  When I began to approach it this way and in much prayer, it became easier to see the authorship and devine hand of the Holy Spirit.  And, by the same Holy Spirit, I began to realize that all I could do is show the problems in the variances, give what I do know about the texts history(and that site you gave has some "revised" history) and, leave it at that.  It is then up to the individual and the Lord to deal with any issues.  So please understand that to dabble deep into debate over it is not profitable except that if the seed is planted and God will give the increase providing the "ground" is good soil.

God Bless.

[Ovedya]

Rcruise,

Excellent post....many points that I agree with wholeheartedly.  Your last paragraph almost sums it all up for me.  The KJV is an excellent Bible.  But because it is the first "official" translation does not necessarilly make it the most accurate.  To me is not so much an issue of accuracy, though.  We can get all religious about the issue and say that accuracy is the most important factor to any Bible.  And where I absolutely agree that this is the case, accuracy is not nearly as important as the gaining of Christ through the reading and prayer of God's word.

With regard to ease of understanding and study value, I prefer the more modern English versions (Recovery Version, American Standard, Revised Standard).  Simply because they are easier on the eyes and I can read them with a more steady pace.  But just because these versions are not "in the King's English" does not mean that they are corrupt. Sorry, I just can't believe that.  For goodness sake, where would Christendom be today if it were not for people like William Tyndale who had the heart to translate the Bible into English in the first place?

[RCruise]

G-man:

Whether they are corrupt or not is for God to reveal to the individual.  And, it is each one of our individual responsibility to not vainly debate nor dispute over His Word but, to "seek Him first".  I applaud many of the KJV-only crowd's efforts but, I believe they put up unnecessary walls by their insistance and veracious ways.

I don't have but two physical Bibles; a Holman KJV-Oxford 1769 (considered still "pure" by the KJV onlys) and an NIV where when it was given me totally messed me up on a sermon I was preparing.  It was then that I gave the KJV rantors some notice.  Before that, I thought as you do.  But, I also know "beating" people over the head or calling their salvation into question over a version was not of God.

I do have Lockman's "QuickBible NASB" freebie from their website (not very thrilling as software goes - really basic text oriented with sequential search), "e-sword", SwordSearcher and, QuickVerse 3.0 which has KJV (1800+), NIV and, NRSV.  What I have found is that all the non-KJV versions basically are missing the same verses and read the same.  However, as Shawneeda mentioned, there are over 5,000 changes which read differently and take on different meaning in the newer versions.

QuaesterRex posted a board on I Cor. 15:5 (which I will challenge his meaning later) but, it questions how after His resurrection, Jesus appeared to Cephas(Peter) and then the other twelve when Judas was dead already and Matthias wasn't chosen yet.  I have the answer but, it only rings true if you read it from the KJV.  The other versions either make Paul look like a liar or very ignorant to that fact about there wasn't twelve when Christ arose and appeared to them.  And that is just one of the "little" variances yet a "stumbling block" of proportion when you then consider whether you can trust Paul's writings at all after that supposed blunder.  But, Paul did not blunder.  Can you compare your versions and the KJV and see what the answer is?

God Bless.