Is the KJV easy for you to read?

[kittylover0991]

kittylover0991, it sounds like you have some education in Bibliology. I never debate the merits of one translation over another beyond what I have done so here unless the person has a pretty thorough knowledge of the original languages and know the history of the translations being debated. I'm not a translation snob or an intellectual snob, but we need a common ground on which to debate. That's why I said any argument for, say a pro KJV or pro NIV or pro RSV, that is based on anything other than the merits of it's handling of the original languages is emotional. If you read my posts, my preference in for the NIV for several reasons, not the least of which is readability. However, if you prefer the KJV, more power to you, just don't condemn those who don't care for it using spurious arguments, which are in fact opinions, not arguments. That's a general comment, not directed at you.

Hey Mike,

Thankyou, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you in the earlier post... I don't condemn those who read other versions, but I won't uphold the other versions as the pure Word of God.. I just can't do it. I think what got me is that I'm tired of people bashing down on those that believe the KJV is the pure and infalliable Word of God and that the other versions are not, and all the people are basically saying "Oh help me.. those KJV only's are so many and so ignorant using their hard to undersatnd bible". I think enough times, people put down the KJV and then turn around and say "Well, you can't bash my version of the bible, it's easier to understand".

I was just speaking to a lady on vistation this morning, and boy was she a blessing to talk to! However, we talked a little about the differences in churches and then in bibles, and you know what? There is something I've noticed, and that is that having the different versions confuses people! So many have asked me while on visitatino "Why do you guys have to have so many different versions??? How are you supposed to know which one is true".

It is like the quetion with denominations "There are SOOO many different denominations, and they ALL teach different things." Even the world knows that they are different somehow and they seem to laugh at us Christians saying "Hah, they can't even get their "spiritual text right". That's just my experience on visitation (knocking on doors)... sorry, it's on my mind because we jsut got back but....

I am not going to put someone down to who believes in other versions, or someone who says that can't read and understand the KJV.. I woudl encourage them to read GOd's Word, and depending as the Lord leads, might even show them some verses and let the Holy Spirit work in them about God's Word... but I'm tired of being put down becuae I believe in the KJV alone...

I simply believe that God preserved His pure Word for us like He said he would... and that's a huge blessing to me.. I like being able to read my bible and nkow that I don't have to compare it to other bibles to understand it.. just go to the Lord in prayer because I can trust him, and not man...

If I can ask something.. other than the "thee's" and "thous" and "ye" (you) which are pretty much easy to understand ... 'Get thee hence Satan" being an example... what makes the KJV so hard to understand?

I guess this is something I can't figure out because I started reading it when I was eight.. but... why is it hard to undersatnd, as I know for many, it truly is...

Crystal

[Floatingaxe]

If anything, it is those who support modern English versions that lack faith in God, because they don't believe he preserved for us a perfect English translation.

Butero, that is simply not true. You are judging.

You clearly believe that God cannot preserve His Word. Period.

I stated that God preserved his Word in one perfect English translation. You are not only judging, but bearing false witness. Anyone that wishes can read my post and see that what you said is a lie. I don't mind anyone dissagreeing with my position, but to make such an eroneous statement is beneath even you Floatingaxe.

To further make my point, if you accept new translations, you cannot believe that God preserved his Word perfect in all of them, because they differ. Some leave out portions of the text others leave in. The wording varies from translation to translation as well. Since you seem to be claiming you believe God preserved his Word perfectly, while rejecting my argument in favor of the KJV, in what English translation did he do so?

I do not lie.

Furthermore, I believe the God of the Universe is perfectly capable of seeing to it that His Word is preserved and His message is intact for all generations, including the 21st Century! In English, in Spanish, in Portuguese, in Hungarian, in Croatian, in Chinese, in Latvian, in Russian, in French, in Swahili, in Dutch, in Swedish, etc, etc, etc.

You limit God.

[Floatingaxe]

So, someone in Borneo who has been given a translation based on any other version of the Bible does not possess 100% truth?

God is soooooo able to reveal Himself to all who read the Bible, no matter what version or language it is in. The King James vernacular is not sanctified.

[Scarletprayers]

So, someone in Borneo who has been given a translation based on any other version of the Bible does not possess 100% truth?

God is soooooo able to reveal Himself to all who read the Bible, no matter what version or language it is in. The King James vernacular is not sanctified.

And I'm not knocking the KJ, like I said earlier, I love to read it, its so beautifully written.

[kittylover0991]

I'm sad, too, Crystal. I'm sad that people can't trust God to reveal His Word in any form He chooses. I'm sad that people can't take His gift for what it is--His love letter to us--without arguing about what translation is "true." I believe God is saying, "My Spirit is more powerful than any human mistakes. My Word will not return to me void--in any translation. I am in control." Putting one translation of the Bible above another, I believe, is saying that man is in control of God's Word, not God. And yes, Crystal, that should make us all sad.

It is not doing any such thing. It is saying that we believe that not only is God able to preserve his word to be mostly accurate in English, but that he is able to preserve it 100 percent accurate in English. Every modern English version differs in part. They cannot all be 100 percent right, and nobody claims they are. Those who support them claim all English translations have mistakes, some just more than others. My contention, as well as those who support the KJV is that God preserved his Word perfectly in the TR, and used the translators to give us one perfect English translation, the King James Version. If anything, it is those who support modern English versions that lack faith in God, because they don't believe he preserved for us a perfect English translation.

By the way, I agree with Crystal about that song. To me it is nothing more than an attack on the true Word of God, and a piece of propaganda for the devil who is trying to turn people away from the KJV. I have an internet radio station where I play southern gospel music. There is a song that was a hit for a particular group that musically I like, and it was less offensive than the one we are discussing, but I won't play it. The reason is because it claims there is truth in all Bible translations, regardless of which one it is. To me, that is a false message. This is one area I am completely convinced on, and am in complete agreement with Crystal.

Butero. If you knew the history of the English translation of the Bible, I feel that you would have a change of heart with regard to the KJV. JOhn Wycliff and William tyndale were persecuted, captured, tried, and murdered for bringing the English translation to the common people. They did not speak "the King's English" but were passionate about the Word of God. It was only during a period after England broke away from the Roman Church that there were other versions of the Bible being disputed over. King James commissioned his version of the Bible to settle the disputes, and even commissioned that all the churches of England use the same hymnals, materials, etc. It was political. The KJV is no more or less the Word of God than any other English translation that is true to the original intent and spirit of the Scriptures.

The King James Version was created to come up with a version that accurately brought the Word of God to the English speaking citizens. The former English translations were written in a way that favored a belief in OSAS. I want a translation that doesn't favor any particular denominational viewpoint, but simply is a word for word translation from Hebrew and Greek to English. That is what the KJV does.

By the way Ovedya, I have read some of your posts defending new translations, and you take the same view as others with your belief that there are errors in all of them. That would mean that God did not preserve his Word. It would mean it may be preserved 96% accurate in one translation and then 94% accurate in another, and perhaps a very reliable one might exceed 97% accuracy. In any case, you cannot make the argument that God preserved his Word 100% accurate in every new translation, because they all vary. If he did, I will ask you the same question I did of Floatingaxe. In which translation did God preserve his Word 100%? To me the answer is the King James Version.

So, someone in Borneo who has been given a translation based on any other version of the Bible does not possess 100% truth?

God is soooooo able to reveal Himself to all who read the Bible, no matter what version or language it is in. The King James vernacular is not sanctified.

Hey Butero and Floating!

We meet again on the discussion about the KJV and modern versions! (throws a party in worthy chat)

Well Butero, although I am not sure about the OSAS thing (never heard of that in the bible versions), I completely agree with you that God kept his promised about the preserved Word, and so.. it has to be out there.... and the newer versions are ALL different, so which one is right? I stick with the KJV... I know what it is based off of for hte most part, and I know what the newer versions are based off of.. even without that, I know that the newer versions are missing verses as has alreayd been said throughout this thread. God PROMISED he woudl preserve His Word, and if he didn't, then God is a liar, and most certainly, God is not a liar!! Priase the Lord for his prserved, infalliable, 100% Word!!!

Hey Floating!

To answer your first question, and crazy as it may sound, it is exactly that way. Would you rip out some pages from say, Romans, and then copy it in a new language, and give it to people half way around the world? No.. it's incomplete..s ure, they can get MANY if not MOST biblical truths from it, but there are verses missing, and therefore, not 100% complete/perfect.. considering that the word "perfect" in Greek means complete....

I completely agree with you in the area that God can use a version that isn't 100% complete, and a version that isn't 100% accurate to speak someone... He spoke through a donkey didn't he? He can use a Bible that isn't complete... It just isn't the perfect word of God if it isn't based off of the Textus Receptus and preserved Word of God...

Hope this helps

Crystal

[Ovedya]

I'm sad, too, Crystal. I'm sad that people can't trust God to reveal His Word in any form He chooses. I'm sad that people can't take His gift for what it is--His love letter to us--without arguing about what translation is "true." I believe God is saying, "My Spirit is more powerful than any human mistakes. My Word will not return to me void--in any translation. I am in control." Putting one translation of the Bible above another, I believe, is saying that man is in control of God's Word, not God. And yes, Crystal, that should make us all sad.

It is not doing any such thing. It is saying that we believe that not only is God able to preserve his word to be mostly accurate in English, but that he is able to preserve it 100 percent accurate in English. Every modern English version differs in part. They cannot all be 100 percent right, and nobody claims they are. Those who support them claim all English translations have mistakes, some just more than others. My contention, as well as those who support the KJV is that God preserved his Word perfectly in the TR, and used the translators to give us one perfect English translation, the King James Version. If anything, it is those who support modern English versions that lack faith in God, because they don't believe he preserved for us a perfect English translation.

By the way, I agree with Crystal about that song. To me it is nothing more than an attack on the true Word of God, and a piece of propaganda for the devil who is trying to turn people away from the KJV. I have an internet radio station where I play southern gospel music. There is a song that was a hit for a particular group that musically I like, and it was less offensive than the one we are discussing, but I won't play it. The reason is because it claims there is truth in all Bible translations, regardless of which one it is. To me, that is a false message. This is one area I am completely convinced on, and am in complete agreement with Crystal.

Butero. If you knew the history of the English translation of the Bible, I feel that you would have a change of heart with regard to the KJV. JOhn Wycliff and William tyndale were persecuted, captured, tried, and murdered for bringing the English translation to the common people. They did not speak "the King's English" but were passionate about the Word of God. It was only during a period after England broke away from the Roman Church that there were other versions of the Bible being disputed over. King James commissioned his version of the Bible to settle the disputes, and even commissioned that all the churches of England use the same hymnals, materials, etc. It was political. The KJV is no more or less the Word of God than any other English translation that is true to the original intent and spirit of the Scriptures.

The King James Version was created to come up with a version that accurately brought the Word of God to the English speaking citizens. The former English translations were written in a way that favored a belief in OSAS. I want a translation that doesn't favor any particular denominational viewpoint, but simply is a word for word translation from Hebrew and Greek to English. That is what the KJV does.

By the way Ovedya, I have read some of your posts defending new translations, and you take the same view as others with your belief that there are errors in all of them. That would mean that God did not preserve his Word. It would mean it may be preserved 96% accurate in one translation and then 94% accurate in another, and perhaps a very reliable one might exceed 97% accuracy. In any case, you cannot make the argument that God preserved his Word 100% accurate in every new translation, because they all vary. If he did, I will ask you the same question I did of Floatingaxe. In which translation did God preserve his Word 100%? To me the answer is the King James Version.

This is really arguing in a vacuum, brother, because it cannot be proven conclusively that the KJV is true to the original letters. There are no original letters.

King James commissioned his version to settle a dispute between the Puritans, who used the Geneva Bible and the English clergy. The proclamation for its commission was put forth, "...for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original."

Even still, the translation process produced several revisions, and the KJV that is in common print now is yet another revision. So how could it possibly be argued that God has "preserved His word" in the form of the KJV only? Furthermore, there is also the argument that the God's Word is more properly introduced in "the king's English." However, this spirit is not far diverse from that of the Roman Church's insistence that the Scriptures be read in Latin. In fact, Protestants were regularly arrested, placed on trial, and burned to death for interrupting the Latin Mass by reading English versions of the Scriptures aloud.

Did you know that versions of Wycliffe's translation still exist today because they were carefully hidden by protestants during the Reformation period? in fact, because of this, there are more Wycliffe Bibles in existence today than any other translation from the 16th century. Talk about God preserving His Word! Yet the Wycliffe translation is most certainly different than the KJV.

God has preserved His Word. There is no doubt about that. But that He has done so through a particular translation simply cannot be. History disputes such a notion.

[Floatingaxe]

So, someone in Borneo who has been given a translation based on any other version of the Bible does not possess 100% truth?

God is soooooo able to reveal Himself to all who read the Bible, no matter what version or language it is in. The King James vernacular is not sanctified.

I believe God has preserved his Word perfect in one translation to every language where they have a Bible. In this case, the perfect English version is the King James Bible. Let me ask you this again Floatingaxe. There are likely more than 50 translations of the Bible in English today. They are all differen't. How can 50 plus translations all be 100 percent perfect? I don't see any way you can make such a claim, and if you can, please explain?

Actually, I don't concern myself with it. God is able to supersede any minor language faux pas, and zero in on the heart by the Holy Spirit with the message. It's His job.

[Floatingaxe]

So if I'm understanding you correctly Floatingaxe, you admit there has to be some flaws in the English translations, but you don't believe they are significant enough to harm you? That is your business if you feel that way, but surely you can see the danger that would occur if someone with a hidden agenda put out a translation that intentionally went away from the truth to allow for a particular sinful lifestyle, and it was believed to be God's Word by it's readers? I'm not claiming your translations or paraphrase do that, but it does open the door for heresies.

To Ovedya, you are correct in what you say about my beliefs not being able to be proven. It is a matter of faith that God preserved his Word with 100 percent accuracy to the English speaking world. That is not possible in mulitple translations, but can only be achieved in one, because they all differ. The versions you site I believe were tainted, and that God used King James to bring about one correct and infallible translation. It is a matter of belief, but then again, so is the idea that all English translations have some errors, including the KJV. We just dissagree.

Ultimately, we are all adults and have to decide on our own what is true and what is not in this regard. For me, I only use the KJV Bible, and will continue to write off the rest as not being trustworthy. If you and Floatingaxe, and others here at Worthy are ok with the idea that there are going to be some errors, but that they won't cause any real problems for you, so be it.

I don't see how the KJV is the be-all and end all. How do you know it is 100% accurate? Give me a break. The english-speaking world is not the only people on God's mind, Butero.

[Vickilynn]

Shalom Y'all,

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm SURE y'all will~ ) but isn't the best way to get complete accuracy in the Scriptures to go back to the ORIGINAL languages?

To my understanding, all this arguing about the English versions is groundless when any translation from the original language is not the same as the original.

If that is the reason for sticking with the KJV only.

However, because I believe the Bible is G-d-breathed, I believe the SPIRIT of the Word will come out to those who have an open heart and open spiritual eyes. It's not so much the written words on the page, but what the Holy Spirit teaches us spiritually through the Word itself.

For hermeneutic study though, I suggest comparing several translations to the original languages by using Interlinear versions or better yet, learn to read Biblical Hebrew and Greek!

[Ovedya]

To Ovedya, you are correct in what you say about my beliefs not being able to be proven. It is a matter of faith that God preserved his Word with 100 percent accuracy to the English speaking world. That is not possible in mulitple translations, but can only be achieved in one, because they all differ. The versions you site I believe were tainted, and that God used King James to bring about one correct and infallible translation. It is a matter of belief, but then again, so is the idea that all English translations have some errors, including the KJV. We just dissagree.

I'm okay with that.