Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | Makarios | 11785 | ||
Hello all, I happened upon a website http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html that states that a Christian should use the KJV as their 'primary' Bible and use other translations as a good follow up to the KJV. What do you make of this? |
||||||
2 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | kalos | 11847 | ||
STATEMENT DK115 IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White Summary "King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) "The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. "Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. "Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer." To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) ((DK115) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) (For further reading see STATEMENT DB015 A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions, G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House found at (www.equip.org/search/) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | retxar | 11982 | ||
Please know the difference between “KJV only” and those that believe the UNDERLINING TEXT of the KJV (also NKJV, MKJV, and LITV) is closer to the original than some other modern translations. God only wrote one Bible and there are places that are different where we must chose which text is correct (examples: John 7:8, John 8:1-11, Romans 8:1, Acts 8:37, etc.). I would certainly take offense at being called “KJV only” if I chose to go with the KJV on these verses instead of the NASB or NIV. I went to the biblestudy.org web site. I was only there a few minutes and admit I don’t know a lot about them. However, it does not take long for one to know they are far, far, far from being KJV only. They even spoke of those that have the usual KJV only attitude as having a “bigoted fundamentalist” character. The link Nolan supplied is even called “KJV errors”. This would never meet AV1611 standards as “KJV only” by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not saying what you said is wrong, I am only saying it paints a picture of biblestudy.org that is simply not true. Nolan originally asked about biblestudy.org’s statement about one using the KJV as their 'primary' Bible and the use of other translations as a good follow up. I personally believe that biblestudy.org is not giving bad advice here (tho I prefer the NKJV). I have given reasons elsewhere of why I would say this. Almost everyone here would have an answer if someone asked them to recommend a Bible version as their ‘primary’ Bible. Many would say “NASB” because they believe it to be an accurate translation that sticks close to the original underling text, with the emphasis on accurate translation, not interpretation. They might also recommend the use of other translations as a good follow up to the NASB. Would that make them “NASB only”? No way! If someone makes the same recommendation for the KJV, based on the same reasoning, that should not make them “KJV only” either, should it? I have spoke out against KJV only-ism many, many times. I have had KJV only folks slam their Bibles shut in disgust, as a sign of protest against me when they realized I was not reading from the KJV. In response to a KJV question, I once said, “We are to worship the King, I’m glad my King’s name is Jesus, not James!” I understand the difference between what I believe and what the KJV only folks teach. I don’t like it when people confuse the two. I have read the book “The King James Only Controversy” by James White several times, so I also understand and respect that side of the coin. I, as others (maybe even biblestudy.org?), do not like being caught in the cross fire, as we are so many times. Please believe me, I have no problem with anyone speaking out against KJV only-ism. Just make sure the toes being stepped on are the ones that need to be stomped. In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
4 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | Makarios | 12020 | ||
Dear retxar, I sincerely appreciate your input and response! I pray that we have not offended you in any way, since you have previously stated a long time ago why you prefer the Majority Text tradition over the Critical Text tradition (one was blessed and one wasn't). I respect this point of view and agree with you that KJV Onlyists are coming from the wrong perspective. I agree with you, the NKJV is an excellent choice for a Bible and one that is used by many in my church. I would say that about 30 percent of the people in my church use the NKJV, 40 percent the KJV, 20 percent the NIV, and the remaining 10 percent is made up of readers of the NASB, NLT, etc.. I certainly would never stomp on your toes for using the NKJV, which is based on the Majority Text. But I am in full agreement with you regarding the errors of KJV Onlyism. Thank you for your response! In Christ, Nolan |
||||||
5 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | retxar | 12120 | ||
No offense taken at all. I was just concerned that your original Bible preference question, somehow, got turned into an attack on KJV only-ism, with biblestudy.org being the offender. I just hated to see them being thrown into the KJV-only pile when, from what I saw anyway, was not true. Thanks bro, retxar |
||||||