King James Only

[Helen]

Yes, I don't understand all those arguments. My only objection to the KJV is that it is extremely difficult for the younger generations to understand. Literacy in this country has taken a nose-dive in the last thirty years. (You can see it right here all over this forum) And to expect people who can't even master the modern language they live with every day, to figure out the contorted jargon used in the KJV is kind of cruel.... IMHO.

Why?
In our generation we did not speak 1600's either. That makes this generation so special?? Laziness .

The bottom line is , the bible however it is written , in whatever translation or language it is written in, is a spiritual Book , spiritually understood .

A true God chaser , who seeks His face with their whole heart and not with the intellect ...will be safely lead day by day....as those before us have been , with bible or without...Home to Himself.

Once we get focussed on how correct or incorrect the bible translations are ...we lose sight of the Spirit realm and His promises.

Whatever version, right or wrong in some eyes...is good enough for God to use, to mature His true sons.
If God could speak out of a donkeys mouth , He can speak to us out of anything.
Dotting the i's and crossing the t's only brings deadness ...it's
'His Spirit giveth life. '

 

[Willie T]

Sorry, Taken, that was a little too scattered for me to follow.

 

[Helen]

But, why should a person of any age or level of competency in their language not be able to read a book and know what it says

You are losing the plot...just reading with understanding does not bring LIFE!!

Philip was sent to the eunuch ...he was reading it all quite well....it was the spiritual understanding which was missing.....

Whatever 'perfect' bible you can come up with...will never bring spiritual LIFE!!

 

[Ezra]

i know a preacher of over 50 years preaching had a 4th grade education that uses kjv .kj can be understood.it takes study .once again in some one else prefers nlt or niv nkjv or nasb . then so be it

 

[Willie T]

You are losing the plot...just reading with understanding does not bring LIFE!!

Philip was sent to the eunuch ...he was reading it all quite well....it was the spiritual understanding which was missing.....

Whatever 'perfect' bible you can come up with...will never bring spiritual LIFE!!

That example isn't too good. The man was not an Israelite. He didn't even use the language he was trying to read (much the way we don't use Elizabethan English) What he was trying to study was in Hebrew, not even the Aramaic the Jews around him spoke. He came from a distant country and spoke a different language altogether. The way he and Philip communicated was probably in Greek, which was a universal, inter-country third language many well-traveled people learned. So, the poor Ethiopian is trying to study something that is not only in a foreign language, but which also has totally unfamiliar cultural influences and inferences.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

your so right i could care less what version any uses except for the nwt j.w bible and mormons .i use kj i have couple other versions that was give to me.

FYI: the "Mormon Bible" is the KJV.

 

[Enoch111]

FYI: the "Mormon Bible" is the KJV.

This is true. But then again, the Mormon Church felt that this Bible was deficient, therefore a few other writings had to supplement it. Also you will note that when Mormon writers are discussing religious matters, they tend to quote more from the book of Mormon than from the KJV. Which gives it more authority.

In all fairness, the book of Mormon is not necessarily opposed to Gospel Truth. Many passages reflect what is in the Bible. But Mormon teachings and practices have deviated considerably from Bible Christianity. Nonetheless, the LDS Church believes that it is the true Church of Christ. There are many things which are admirable about Mormons. But when the true Gospel is compromised, that takes away from all the positive aspects of Mormonism.

 

[Ezra]

FYI: the "Mormon Bible" is the KJV.

parts is
i have a mormon bible around here someplace so whats your point ?

 

[Copperhead]

Do you honestly believe not one single word of all those hundreds and hundreds (more like, thousands) of tellings and retellings, and repeating, and retelling, etc. in the multiple centuries before any written languages existed at all, changed a bit? Really?

Yes. I believe the entire scripture to be Spirit inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16. And the high view that the Messiah and the Apostles gave the scripture supports that. Therefore the scripture is accurate as it was written down by each of the writers. Obviously Moshe was not in the Garden, nor was he along side Noach during the flood. But I am comfortable in thinking that what Moshe gave us in the Torah regarding these events is 100% accurate. Yeshua (Jesus), the Prophets, King David, the Apostles, et al thought so also.

Luke was a master historian, considered by many historians today as one of the greatest historians of his day. And Luke wrote of the events surrounding Yeshua in his first letter to Theopholus, and his second letter to Theopholus regarding Peter and Paul in Acts, and it was most likely Luke who wrote Paul's letters to the various groups. Thusly, the NT can be trusted as accurate also. No one has ever been able to find fault in the historical accounts laid out by Luke.

"not one single word" is just an obfuscation. What is presented in the scripture is accurate. There are words in the original languages that have equivalent meanings as there are in our modern languages. And context needs to be looked at to assertion the meaning of a word in a passage.

If I say, "go throw some hay over the fence to the cows" in English, a literal translation to, say, German would be "go throw the cows over the fence some hay". The wording is different but the intent is equivalent.

But what you are trying to do with the "not one single word of all those hundreds and hundreds" is to make any position regarding the authenticity of scripture meet such extremes that it dies the death of a thousand cuts. And it exhibits a low view of scripture.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

parts is
i have a mormon bible around here someplace so whats your point ?

I was simply trying to provide better information. The "Mormon Bible" is the KJV. The Book of Mormon is not Bible, even in the eyes of 'Mormons'.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

This is true. But then again, the Mormon Church felt that this Bible was deficient, therefore a few other writings had to supplement it. Also you will note that when Mormon writers are discussing religious matters, they tend to quote more from the book of Mormon than from the KJV. Which gives it more authority.

In all fairness, the book of Mormon is not necessarily opposed to Gospel Truth. Many passages reflect what is in the Bible. But Mormon teachings and practices have deviated considerably from Bible Christianity. Nonetheless, the LDS Church believes that it is the true Church of Christ. There are many things which are admirable about Mormons. But when the true Gospel is compromised, that takes away from all the positive aspects of Mormonism.

LDS Christians aren't Protestant Christians, that's a fact.

 

[Helen]

That example isn't too good. The man was not an Israelite. He didn't even use the language he was trying to read (much the way we don't use Elizabethan English) What he was trying to study was in Hebrew, not even the Aramaic the Jews around him spoke. He came from a distant country and spoke a different language altogether. The way he and Philip communicated was probably in Greek, which was a universal, inter-country third language many well-traveled people learned. So, the poor Ethiopian is trying to study something that is not only in a foreign language, but which also has totally unfamiliar cultural influences and inferences.

I cannot agree with you about what is important and what is not.
The question should be what is important to God!!
The word without the Spirit is dead...

I just read @amadeus 's post on a different thread to some one, and it will fit here perfectly ( think)
:-

QUOTE Amadeus

Saul/Paul the apostle was a thinker and a well educated man in the scriptures. He apparently knew the scriptures very well when he was deeply involved in the persecuting the believers in and followers of Jesus, having them thrown into prison and killed. With all his scriptural knowledge he was really working against God until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. His repentance did not come from studying the Bible and knowing it well. It came after he met the Master. Was that meeting not a spiritual experience rather than a studied conclusion?

 

[Willie T]

Yes. I believe the entire scripture to be Spirit inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16. And the high view that the Messiah and the Apostles gave the scripture supports that. Therefore the scripture is accurate as it was written down by each of the writers. Obviously Moshe was not in the Garden, nor was he along side Noach during the flood. But I am comfortable in thinking that what Moshe gave us in the Torah regarding these events is 100% accurate. Yeshua (Jesus), the Prophets, King David, the Apostles, et al thought so also.

Luke was a master historian, considered by many historians today as one of the greatest historians of his day. And Luke wrote of the events surrounding Yeshua in his first letter to Theopholus, and his second letter to Theopholus regarding Peter and Paul in Acts, and it was most likely Luke who wrote Paul's letters to the various groups. Thusly, the NT can be trusted as accurate also. No one has ever been able to find fault in the historical accounts laid out by Luke.
"not one single word" is just an obfuscation. What is presented in the scripture is accurate. There are words in the original languages that have equivalent meanings as there are in our modern languages. And context needs to be looked at to assertion the meaning of a word in a passage.

If I say, "go throw some hay over the fence to the cows" in English, a literal translation to, say, German would be "go throw the cows over the fence some hay". The wording is different but the intent is equivalent.

But what you are trying to do with the "not one single word of all those hundreds and hundreds" is to make any position regarding the authenticity of scripture meet such extremes that it dies the death of a thousand cuts. And it exhibits a low view of scripture.

We have a problem, right off the bat, in claiming we only see what is written...… when Jesus makes a statement like "You have read" (or, "It is written") "but, I tell you...…….." And I have already mentioned a few of the many places every single one of us will agree that the Bible made statements that were never meant to be taken at face value. (The "eye of a needle" being just one)

 

[amadeus]

The merits of the KJV and any other translation version is that they are not infallible. They all contain errors embedded within them. The issue becomes whether we accept them as they are, or accept them for being the best available source for coming to know God at this time. The errors will be fix over time when they become so obvious that it is embarrassing not to fix them. The majority of the errors have come through man's theological understandings not God's.

Shalom

Or they were allowed to be in there to accomplish part God's purpose, God who has always known all of his plan and included things perhaps which we would never have expected... until He shared them with us.

 

[amadeus]

King James DID NOT WRITE the Bible.
King James Commissioned that THAT Bible be written.

And God was certainly aware of and likely even instigated that commissioning. Would King James, if he were indeed an evil man at the time be the only heathen or sinner that God ever used to accomplish His purposes?

 

[Helen]

And God was certainly aware of and likely even instigated that commissioning. Would King James, if he were indeed an evil man at the time be the only heathen or sinner that God ever used to accomplish His purposes?

Oh nice point.

Ruben, ( Joseph into pit)..
Potiphar's wife ...
Pharaoh, ( at Moses time)
and Nebuchanezza spring to mind. ...

 

[amadeus]

Yep, sort of like the Model "A". It was a great car..... when it first came out. Today, it is rightfully considered a museum relic. Yes, it can still transport a person from point "A" to point "B", but in most illogical and unnecessarily complicated manner.

Not really a good comparison, Bible versions and automobiles, is it?

Some people today make the same kind of statements with regard to Christianity being obsolete with old fashioned rules which do not address modern issues. That is certainly not the case.

People have always been and remain the primary problem for people. A better translation of the Bible, if there is such a thing, will NOT solve the problem of people. God has always had the solution, but not many people have been interested in hearing His solution... often because they think they have a better one... even if they may not express it that way.

Is man's logic the best way to draw conclusions from what we read in the Bible... any version or language?

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23 [KJV]


Apparently the Passion Translation, which you favor, has not made Jeremiah available yet online as of this date. I did try to access it.

 

[amadeus]

If something has already been translated, it should be unnecessary to have to have someone translate to you what is written on its pages. No one here can claim they have not had to go to someone else to explain parts of the KJV to them. There is something wrong with that kind of situation.

And, now, are we to automatically assume that the person (or book) we had to go to in order to explain the confusion of the KJV to us is somehow "inspired?"

Remember, my friend, also in your line of thinking why it was that Jesus spoke in parables. Do we all understand everything God wants us to understand at that first reading, or even the 2nd or the 3rd? I have read all of the scriptures, [and not only in the KJV] many times and yet still God has been giving me new understandings from the very same verses. Why is that?

Why was it that Jesus after the his first speaking of a parable would then provide an interpretation of it for his closest disciples?

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
"For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
"And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
"But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; Matt 13:10-16

 

[amadeus]

Hey, don't knock those "Thee's" and "Thou's." That's the language Jesus, Peter & Paul spoke...… and if the King James Bible was good enough for them to preach from, it is good enough for me.

LOL Good enough for sure!

What would we do if we had no translators at all? What if we had no written Bibles? People involved all through the process. Only through the help of God may any of us understand anything that He says to us... written or not!

 

[Willie T]

Remember, my friend, also in your line of thinking why it was that Jesus spoke in parables. Do we all understand everything God wants us to understand at that first reading, or even the 2nd or the 3rd? I have read all of the scriptures, [and not only in the KJV] many times and yet still God has giving me new understandings from the very same verses. Why is that?

Why was it that Jesus after the his first speaking of a parable would then provide an interpretation of it for his closest disciples?

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
"For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
"And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
"But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; Matt 13:10-16

So, you are saying the KJV was deliberately written not to be understood? (Are you a Calvinist? LOL)