no more kjv

I'm not a regular poster on these forums. However, I do lurk and read a lot. I've been around and seen these issues come around so many times.

All I can say is that these sorts of discussions have so much potential to be divisive. I love theology, and let's go deep in discussion about it, but lets remember there are different types of theological discussions: Dogmas (the non-negotiable), Doctrines (the stuff you can have different views about, but still be saved), and Adiophora (the stuff that is generally irrelevant to life and sound doctrine, if we never resolve it, it will never make any difference).

I believe the "KJV only" discussion fits firmly into this category. Let's not bring up more stuff to argue about, and walk away with no application to our lives or ministry besides the translation we read.

And I havent posted for so long I hit the stupid "Post New Topic" button instead of appending my reply to that KJV thread! How embarrassing! :-P

KrispyKrittr wrote::

Adiophora (the stuff that is generally irrelevant to life and sound doctrine, if we never resolve it, it will never make any difference).

I believe the "KJV only" discussion fits firmly into this category.

I disagree with this assertion. I believe the version one reads is extremely relevant to life and sound doctrine, and it makes a great difference.

I do not think that it has got much to do with versions, but everything to do with the people who are our 'teachers'. If someone who reads the niv teaches spirit filled correct doctrine, then it is spirit filled correct doctrine. It is not dependent on the version you read but on the teaching that you receive from the word.

Fire in the hole...I'll get my helmet. :-P

KrispyKrittr wrote:
But in the church today there is an over reliance on teachers, and I think thats why we're in so much trouble.

If you are going to give your life for something at least have the common sense to find our why, but alas the majority of folk are not like that.

I think the believer has an obligation to study to show themselves approved... on their own. The Bereans utilized teachers, but at the same time they studied scripture on their own to see if what they were being taught was true.

I have wondered about the implications of this verse. The fact that he went into a synagogue at least gives us a little clue that they would have known what the word was. My point is that they at least could look and see and test what was being said. Many believers, and I think you would agree, have no clue what even John 3:16 says. Whether they have a KJV, NIV, ASV, Good news etc is not the issue, they just plain don't know the bible. In saying that though, the most dangerous people by a country mile (to borrow an Americanism) are those who think that they know the bible or at least think they know what it says.

See... I threw you a soft ball.

Quit whimpering in the corner of your foxhole!

Anyway, all the best..

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Jesus was [b]very[/b] divisive... and even said that He intended to be divisive. Are you suggesting that we avoid discussing Jesus too?

If you've lurked here for a long time, then how in the world did you miss all the great, civil, friendly discussions we've had over the KJV in the past 12 months?

Just because something might be divisive doesnt mean we must avoid it.

Krispy

It's interesting to note that rock music isn't mentioned in the Bible and neither are Bible translations.

Jordan

These debates often end in tears. Sometimes, some people who say KJV ONLY! Seem to take on a 'I'm holier than you' persona.

I use NIV because it is easier to read. The bible no matter what version including KJV will most likely have small translation errors. If you can bring someone to Christ with it, does it really matter if I used a recent translation or an old one? Stop bickering over such minor things. If one can tell me why KJV is so much better... Go for it. I'm listening.

God bless
Michael

My dear brother Michael, until this past year I said similarly to you. However, I ask you to please carefully consider what this means:

Imagine if you found out that the NIV is not just [i]another translation[/i] of the same ancient texts, but is a translation of a TOTALLY DIFFERENT text?

The so-called "KJV people" are typically concerned about which of the TWO texts was used for translation, Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian text.

It is the thorough conclusion of myself and others that the [b]underlying text[/b] of the NIV, NASB, etc. is of a [i]different sort[/i] than that of the TR versions, and is permeated with subtle doctrinal differences that, with time and without the Spirit, lead false converts into most grievous and damnable heresies.

When I speak about this subject, it is with a great and sincere burden of spiritual affection. I desire no one to be drawn out by erroneous omissions and alterations of our sacred word. For this reason we persuade others to hunger after the purest sources possible.

Here is a verse-for-verse comparism of major doctrines in the NIV, NASB, and KJV:

[url=http://www.watch.pair.com/scriptures.html]Verse Comparison Chart[/url]

It is not exhaustive, but helpful.

Openlife,

Who said that the TR is the best text?

Check out this website and tell me what you think: http://www.kjvonly.org/

Jordan

if TR is not a good text, that means there was no Word of God before westcott and hort was it 1881? so to assume God did not have his word before that would be absurd i think.

and the only "proof" of that alexandrian text is older is becuse catholic church says it is.... anyone want to take their word for it.

i checked hom many manuscripts that say the same thing, we have 4730 manuscripts from the bysantinska text , TR

and then we have from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus text witch they claim is from around 350 if i remember correct and the total amount of manuscripts are 31, if i remember right..... 31!

TR = 4000 manuscripts
Alexandrian = 31 manuscripts

witch one do we trust?

and as i said, the only "proof" that alexandrian text is older then TR is becuse The catholic church says it is, and was it not them who tried and kill so many that tried to give the Word to the common people?

i go for TR....

It's still not the original texts.

, i just read a swedish book that claims the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts differ in about 3000 places just in the four Gospels.... do you really trust those texts? aren't the TR to be preferred?

Two source texts? What on earth...

That verse comparison chart is excellent!

Compliments wrote:
If anyone has a copy of the Geneva Bible, I sure would like to buy it from you.

God Bless

I have a copy of the Geneva Bible, but I just got it and I ain't gonna give it up! ;-)

It's a great read. Hard to understand in some places, but a great read, nonetheless.

Hello hmmmhmmm

I think the Latin Vulgate is based on the Textus Receptus, and I don't know what claims that the Catholic Church has made about the Alexandrian texts...it seems odd though, since the Vulgate is the approved Bible (which dates back to 400 A.D. or so) I know the KJV only crowd likes to claim a catholic conspiracy (hehehe) in Anglican scholars and other Protestants endorsing modern translations, but it makes no sense.

just my .02 cents,
Karsten (ESV)