Bible Question:
Are we back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles? Many people, such as the KJV-Only advocates, are scared to death that someone might get hold of a so-called corrupt Bible translation that will somehow deceive them into committing apostasy or heresy. The inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, God's plan of salvation, the Second Coming of Christ, etc. can be proven using the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, RSV, NASB, or any number of other translations. The idea that the same passage in one version will be translated to have an opposite meaning in another verison is pure nonsense. I see no need for people to become hysterical in their fierce opposition to this translation or their fanatical defense of that translation. Moreover, the differences in the wording of various translations is due more to the aim of the translators (to produce a word-for-word or thought-for thought translation) than to differences in the underlying Greek texts, which are minor. |
Bible Answer: Radioman2: The verses in 2Timothy that came to mind are 3:16 and 16. Though anyone could use these verses to prove their point. I can't help but think of Romans 14. From my perspective, Paul says we are to be accepting of each others ways in the way we belive the Lord has instructed us. Paul simplifies the text down to a "meat and vegtables" type of accepting one another. I have really struggled with the same issue you bring up. For some there is no leway and no way to accept anyone who does not use the KJV. I personally see these type of Christians as the "weaker" that Paul refers to. I have less frustration when I see it that way. Perhaps tradition is what holds some Christians faith tightly bound together. Perhaps the biggest mountian to overcome is no version that is not written in Greek or Hebrew is exact, in translating word for word and thought for thought. There is no perfect English translation. Every English translation has a biasis. The translators come from a pointof common understand. One example is the NRSV. The agenda was a gender inclusive translation. In order to get the result of such a translation there has to be a changing of the orignal language of the Greek and Hebrew. This in my opinion is distorting the meaning. The TNIV which, some of us on the Forum were asked to review, is flawed so badly that the translators have what I believe to be an agenda beyond inclusivity. Romans 1 is so badly flawed that it uses "practicing homosexuals" which in no way can be gotten from the greek no matter how badly you translate it just is not there. I agree that there is a movement to discredit and translation that is not KJV. I grew up on the KJV, and if it was the only Bible I could and would use it. However, it would take some real effort to adapt. I use the updated NASB and I have challenged several verses that I went back and did a word by word search. I have yet to find a verse to fail that personal test by me. I admit I am not profishent in Biblical languafes but I do have the tools to help me take on the task. This is a debate that will not be settled this side of heaven. I pray that we who are blessed by some very good translations will be tollerant to those who come from a sincere place of concern that they remain pure to the KJV. I don't agree withe that view, but I can espress kindness and tolerate their mistrust of newer better translations. The problem is often those who are KJV loyalists are often so demanding there is no room for dialogue. Your thoughts are welcome. Blessings. justme |