I'm getting the impression that there is a spiritual elitism developing in SI among those who use the King James Version. It is almost as when I read their posts that there is a disdain among the KJVO folks of those of us who use other translations.
This is simply my observation.
-bbs-
Bro Blaine,
please be specific by whom and what has been said to cause you to come to this conclusion. As far as I am aware, I am one of the Few, if not the only one on SI that holds to a strong position on this subject.
I am not aware of anything that I have written in recent times, that any should be offended by.
edit : spell, punctuation
I can't speak for anyone here, but for me, I'm not a KJVO user, although it's one of the few I read.There are some versions I'm not sure about, since the Word is too chopped up or important words or phrases have been removed. Not sure how true this is, but was told the NASV is probably the "closest" translation to being most accurate. Comparing it to the interlinear, it does closely line up, but that's just me.
I wouldn't call it elitism; I just think it is a misguided battle. I think PP has explained why he feels this issue is so important without sounding elitist. I just think the battle should be to get people to read the scriptures, period, and for that any major and respected translation will do.
Dear Bro. Bear,
I agree with Proud Papa,..
I have posted this artical before,...Hope it is OK to post it again.
This was stated in a news paper here, 5-5-01.
" Until the 1950's, the King James Bible was the only Bible in wide use
among Protestants,who tend to dominate the market.Since then the New Versions have proceeded to meet the demand for modernized Scriptures.
In the Gallup Poll, 54% owned King James followed by 15% New International,.."
I know everyone has a chose, I just love the KJV.
... And too, my thoughts,....
I fear that men rewriting The Scriptures now,...they may not fear God,as men once did,and eire.
We know that every Word of God is very Pure.
I feel that even, every Word, in the order that it are put forth, is very
important.
And what I feel is VERY important,is The Holy Spirit, (The Anointed Word)
allowed to work in me.
We know, that only what we allow Him to work in us,through His Spirit,is of any good, because we are nothing.
Lovingly,
------------------
elizabeth
The scriptures are vitally important, but...Lifeless textualism” is a term used by A.W. Tozer to describe those in his denomination, the Christian Missionary Alliance, who would never compromise on the infallibility of Scripture, but for whom the Scriptures never seemed to penetrate into the reality of their lives.....
Beware of falling into the above.
Blessings,
I am not commenting about those on SI because I have not observed any elitism here but in general my thoughts about the KJV are as follows.
It is merely a translation of the original manuscripts of the bible and it is obviously one of the best out there in terms of accuracy. But for us to suggest that it is in itself sacred on its own merits as a translation of an original...is possibly bordering on idolatry. This is where KJVO people stumble...they become idolators, not of the scriptures but of a translation of the scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are sacred of course, as they are Gods inspired Word given to holy men of old to record. KJV was a wonderful translation of Gods word at the time but here we are in modern english speaking times and there are better ways to communicate Gods Word to the younger generation. In times of fellowship when brothers have insisted on reading from the KJV only I have had to also read the same passages in a more modern version so that the children can understand the intent of the scripture passage.
Having said all that, it doesn't matter to God which version you read if you fail to live out what you are reading. Those who fail to walk in love with their brethren, yet insist on their lives being better for reading the KJV or any translation for that matter are modern day pharisees who strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Awakened, I appreciate your words. There are good translations, yet there are questionable translations. For example, the new NIV, which is known as the TNIV, has interfered with gender.
https://gotquestions.org/New-International-Version-NIV.html
Each one has to go by their own convictions, and trust the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Something to consider--our brothers and sisters facing persecution around the world have different versions of the bible--they take what they can get, because they are hungry for the Word. It would be difficult to think they would check to make sure it's KJV only. They receive the Word by faith.
Corrie Ten Boom read the Phillips bible, Brother Yun read the KJV, NKJV, and the old NIV. Look at the spiritual growth in their lives, the good fruit that was produced.
Something Jim Elliot said is worth repeating:
"Lord, give me firmness without hardness, steadfastness without dogmatism, love without weakness".
Praise the Lord--He is good
God bless you,
sister Sherri I agree we must be careful to steer clear of obvious error. Those who have the Spirit of Christ dwelling within them and are walking in the light will be "taught" by the indwelling Word. What I mean is that He will lead them into all Truth. They will know what is truth and what is error, whether it be a sermon, a book, a post on SI or something they read in a bible translation. There some things that I do not agree with that the translators got wrong in some small areas, but I do not throw away the entire bible translation over it. For example I disagree with some translations over the use of the words, "old nature" and "flesh" but thats ok, I understand it is a complicated subject. There are other situations like this where translations disagree. I think if we study the whole counsel of Gods word we can be led by the Spirit to understand what God is saying to us, even when a word here or there is different.
There is a sense in which the KJV is impossible to improve upon because the English language was at the height of its power and expressiveness in the 17th century. Modern American English is baby-talk by comparison. It does not produce Miltons and Shakespeares. Its Bible translations cannot approach the majesty of the KJV.
So I am sympathetic toward KJV loyalists and I myself get cantankerous about The Message, NLT, NIV and any other version that translates "sarx" as "sinful nature" or otherwise edits the text to bring it up to speed with modern pop theology.
KJV loyalty is not a bad thing in itself but it is sometimes accompanied by a toxic sectarian attitude. The sectarian psychology loves to latch onto one little distinctive (usually one that doesn't cost them anything) that sets them apart from "the apostate church." This is what Jesus called "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" and Paul called "putting confidence in the flesh."
The Calvary Chapel movement that I am a part of switched from KJV to NKJV about 15 years ago and the change has brought about no doctrinal modifications whatsoever, so the facts do not support the claim that King Jimmy is the only divinely inspired version and all others will lead to doctrinal error.
I'm glad that this thread has started with a thoughtful, friendly tone and hope nobody starts up the old copy-and-paste merry-go-round.
This discussion is locked.
