SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Why KJV Only?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Krispy, please do not bow out yet. Here is an example of what I wrote about earlier:

Luke 24:53

English Standard Version (ESV)
"and were continually in the temple blessing God."

King James Version (KJV)
"And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen."

New International Version (NIV)
"And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God."

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"and were continually in the temple praising God.

What were they doing? Were they praising God? Were they blessing God? Were they praising and blessing God?

The truth is that one set of manuscripts says that they were blessing God and another set of manuscripts says they were praising God. Another set of manuscripts says they were praising and blessing God.

Which is right? We don't know. Does this inconsistency mean that God did not preserve His word? Of course not! Whether they were praising, blessing or both the truth behind the words in still intact...preserved by God throughout the many ages.

Praise His glorious name. I hope this is as insightful to you and it was to me when I first heard it.

 2007/4/13 13:51Profile









 Re:

[b]Act 8:37[/b] [i]And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[/i]

One of my favorite verses in the Bible. It's completely gone from the NIV, and other versions that are more direct translations of the Alexandrian Text. Why? Because it's completely gone from the Alexandrian Text. In those versions that dont remove it, there is footnote saying that it isnt in the most "older and more reliable" texts (which are neither).

But it's right there in the TR, and every English Bible translated from it.

This isnt a different reading... or perspective. It's in one, and not in the other. And it is a doctrinal difference. It shows a confession of Christ as Son of God for salvation. It shows that this confession of Christ needs to happen before Baptism. It confirms that the Ethiopian was saved, and understood what Philip explained to him... and shows that Baptism happened after his confession.

Remove that verse, and it's all gone.

I dont remember off the top of my head which early church father it was who wrote about Philips and the Ethiopian, but this verse showed up in writings very very early. Earlier than KJV critics say it was added by some scribe.

This is a strong doctrinal verse for salvation and baptism... and isnt it odd that it's removed in the Alexandrian Text? They didnt remove "Jesus wept", or something insignifigant... it was [i]And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[/i]

And thats just one example out of [b]hundreds[/b] like it. And almost all the differences have to do with major doctrines. Thats no coincidence.

If your want an iron clad, doctrinal Bible... the KJV is the strongest one available.

Now... I'm done. I simply dont have time right now to go tit-for-tat on this. :-)

Please dont take that personally, Jay. You know I like ya just fine, brutha.

Krispy

 2007/4/13 14:05
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi Krispy...

Quote:
So you're saying God didnt preserve His Word... He either preserved it in tact, or He didnt perserve it at all. But He promised He would, so He did. Thats the God I serve.

Herewith lies the problem (as I see it). Neither the [i]King James Version[/i] (nor any of its five revisions) NOR the [i]Textus Receptus[/i] is the "preserved Word of God." The fact that there were at least five revisions shows that either God didn't have the power to perfectly preserve the manuscript -- or it is not the supposed "promised preserved Word."

It is my opinion that the "preservation" of the Word of God deals more with the [i]RHEMA[/i] rather than a translated manuscript of the [i]LOGOS[/i]. The Word of God (which is Christ) has been preserved for us forever -- even if the translations of flawed men sometimes disagree or are found to contain flaws.

This is the "Word" that I serve! (wow -- it rhymes!)

:-)

p.s. - Gotta run! I am defending a portion of my doctoral discertation in about two hours. I need to prepare my powerpoint slides! Please remember me in your prayers!


_________________
Christopher

 2007/4/13 14:06Profile









 Re:

Hmmm... seems I remember something about jots and tittles not passing from what is written until heaven and earth pass away. (Thats forever, for those who were wondering)

Sounds like preservation to me. There are also other passages of scripture that talk about God's Word lasting forever.

Sooo... basically, I dont agree.

Hey... may God be with you as you defend a portion of your doctoral discertation! Let me know how it goes! (You're making this ol' mountain boy feel inadequate!)

Krispy

 2007/4/13 14:37
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
One of my favorite verses in the Bible. It's completely gone from the NIV, and other versions that are more direct translations of the Alexandrian Text. Why? Because it's completely gone from the Alexandrian Text. In those versions that dont remove it, there is footnote saying that it isnt in the most "older and more reliable" texts (which are neither).
But it's right there in the TR, and every English Bible translated from it.
This isnt a different reading... or perspective. It's in one, and not in the other. And it is a doctrinal difference. It shows a confession of Christ as Son of God for salvation. It shows that this confession of Christ needs to happen before Baptism. It confirms that the Ethiopian was saved, and understood what Philip explained to him... and shows that Baptism happened after his confession.
Remove that verse, and it's all gone.



If I may sound like Yogi Berra for a moment, “What you are saying is true if it is true.”
Krispy, what you are saying is that if we remove Acts 8:37, then we have no biblical basis for:
1. Confession of Christ as Son of God for salvation
2. This confession of Christ needs to happen before Baptism
3. That for one to be saved, they must understand what Philip explained to them
4. Baptism happening after confession.

Do you honestly believe that these doctrines would disappear if that one verse is not in scripture? No doctrine is based upon one verse. I hope you believe and understand that. If there was a conspiracy, why did they forget to remove Romans 10:6-10, “But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”

I will be honest with you I wish that the above verse was included in all translations because I like that verse as well, I also like the story of the woman caught in adultery, but I appreciate the truthfulness of the translators when they say this these verses are not found in the earlier manuscripts.

My prayer is that you would understand that it is ok for a person to read and study a non-KJV bible. I personally like the KJV and have no problem telling others to read it, but I dare not tell someone to only read that version.

 2007/4/13 14:39Profile









 Re:

No... but it seriously weakens it... and that has been our contention.

And what version a believer reads is not a salvation issue, so I dont reject people who read an NIV. It doesnt hamper our fellowship. Interesting to me tho that most Christians who are truly seeking a deeper walk with the Lord... the more serious believers, do come to at least an appreciation for the KJV... as you say you have as well.

My observation has been that those who are openly critical and hostile (and mocking) of the KJV, and those who prefer it, are generally not what I would consider to be serious Christians.

(I know you appreciate the KJV... that wasnt a shot at anyone...)

Done, brutha. Getting bored. If you want to know more of my beliefs there are hundreds of posts I've done on the topic.

:-)

Krispy

 2007/4/13 14:54
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Krispy, we disagree on this issue, but I can always rest assured that I will have a productive conversation with you.

I am moving on as well unless someone asks a question directed at me. God bless.

 2007/4/13 15:07Profile
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

...As a relative newcomer to the SI site I've been "listening in" on this interesting debate. Seems some of you are saying goodbye to the thread (it being something that has apparently been discussed at great length). But anyway, just thought I'd weigh in with a thought or two.
First, I've searched this matter out thoroughly enough to convince me that the Received Text is the authoritative text. I've read John Burgon's writings, and if you can get Which Bible by David Otis Fuller, and True or False by the same author, they give you a pretty good insight into the reasons why the Westcott and Hort Greek text (from which come the NAS and the NIV and most of the modern translations) is suspect.
And so... while the King James did not spring directly from the Received Text, but from one Erasmus brought forth (which is so similar to the Textus Receptus as to be almost identical) ...I therefore lean heavily on the King James Version as being the authoritative English translation of the scriptures. I shy away from the NIV, although I do use it, refer to it, check it out at times.
When I am asked my counsel by someone who wants to know the scriptures I advise them to make the King James their "home base," and then use some of the others just to compare and help along.
I always advise that without the help of the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures in the first place-- without giving Him His lordship in your reading, and in your whole life for that matter-- you might as well spend your time reading the phone book.
I do encourage people to STAY away from the proliferation of modern translations that have pretty much obliterated the word of God and made it more or less unrecognizable as the word of God.
Another thing I want to bring out, though, is that (at least for me personally) I have felt the Holy Spirit caution me not to "major" on this matter of Bible translations. Yes, it is important to have a sense of confidence about the version one is using. But it's possible to drown in this debate. And... you get so into it that you have lost touch with the Living Word Himself.
We are told in The Acts that "the word (logos)of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12.24). He wasn't talking about the abundance of translations that were available. He was talking about the living Word that had been planted in the hearts and lives of the disciples, and was GROWING, not only in numbers, but in FRUIT. It's THIS word that impacted their world.
And so I have felt the Lord caution me not to give myself to the study of this debate and in doing so neglect to "eat His flesh and drink His blood" ...to feed on the Living Word Himself, I mean.
Jeremiah mourned, "The priests said not, Where is the LORD? And they that handle the law knew Me not" (Jer. 2.8). How many, I wonder, over the centuries, have felt the scriptures to be their home territory... but have lost touch with, didn't know, the Living Word Himself?
I ask, why is it that in our land (I'm in Canada) there is such an abundance of Bibles and various Bible translations... till it is more or less coming out our ears... yet so so little of the Revelation of the living Jesus Christ HIMSELF in His people in a way that actually impacts OUR sin-sick world, I mean. Back there in The Acts when the Word of God was GROWING they turned their world upside down because of it! Help us Lord, become THAT KIND OF TRANSLATION! We can have Bibles by the TON... even the precious King James... and still the world around us not SEE YOUR WORD!
AD


_________________
Allan Halton

 2007/4/13 17:11Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Quote:

I believe the KJV is the superior translation of the preserved Word of God.



What do you base that on? What makes it superior to other translations. Is it because it was taken from the TR? What makes the TR the best text anyways?

I truly want to know the answer to this issue, thanks again for all the response.

Jordan


_________________
Jordan

 2007/4/13 21:27Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:KJV

Quote:
Another thing I want to bring out, though, is that (at least for me personally) I have felt the Holy Spirit caution me not to "major" on this matter of Bible translations. Yes, it is important to have a sense of confidence about the version one is using. But it's possible to drown in this debate. And... you get so into it that you have lost touch with the Living Word Himself.

Quote:
"The priests said not, Where is the LORD? And they that handle the law knew Me not" (Jer. 2.8).



Well said brother and much appreciated. It is something that has been discussed here in depth and will admit that when does arise again as a new topic there is a certain cringing due to the hostilities that often come about.

This has been pretty well handled by all from what I can tell perusing through it, and that is appreciated as well Brethren.

Jordan, have you tried a search here on this? There are some pretty in depth break downs regarding the source material that the translations are drawn from.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/4/13 21:59Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy