The Town Hall Archives

Arwen · Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:09 pm Post subject:

I agree with what you said about TNIV. I think that the best thing to do is read and be cautious. Of course it's possible to be misled, but pray about it and watch to see if there are problems with the version you're reading.

Gandalf · Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject:

For whatever it's worth, I don't believe any English translation is perfect. This includes the KJV. As a result, I don't think there is anything wrong with using another version. I generally use the NKJV myself but I also enjoy reading and hearing from the KJV. A more important issue is that you actually study Scripture, not the translation, whichever it is, that you have. Get a Greek-Hebrew concordance and look up the real meanings of words. As I said, not translation is perfect and there are various mistranlations and words that have changed meanings in the KJV.

Personally, I have a major problem with the NIV and other Bibles that are based on a 'thought-by-thought' basis vs. a word for word basis. This tends to narrow the meaning of Scripture to what the translators thought a particular verse meant. It can also cause some theological problems as human translators are imperfect and thus sometimes translate verses with a translation that doesn't mean anything like what the real Scriptures say.

However, something is to be said for the beauty and poetry of the KJV. If that's what you've been raised on and you understand it pretty well, I wouldn't be so quick to thow it completely out. One is always considered a more developed thinker and more rounded Christian when one can read and understand the KJV translation. This doesn't imply that you should stick only with that translation, but don't be so hasty to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ultimately it comes down to whether one is seeking God. If you're honestly seeking out God's Word, you'll be able to learn from just about any translation. Again, it will require some study, something that, if you're seeking God, will be a real delight instead of a trial. Those that think they can simply pick up an English (or French, or Spanish, or German, or Latin, etc.) translation of the Bible and understand every aspect of God are fooling themselves.

GusDeHaan · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject:

Arem852003 · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject:

thank you all for your advice. i guess im just wanting someting i can study along with. the only thing i want is God's will, and i do believe the KJV is the preserved word of God, or at least thats what ive been told for all these years, but i guess i just wanted to know if i was wrong to get another Bible to help me study more throughly.

Jared · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:31 pm Post subject:

The KJV is not the preserved Word of God, or at least, more accurately, not the perfectly preserved Word.

I can make the case for the KJV; it's a great translation, and I am strongly of the opinion that it is the most true to the originals of any translation you will find in English today. I have little patience for dynamic equivalence and despise paraphrase and even among the literal and formalistic translations, I think the KJV is superior in that the translators just put what the manuscripts said into English (to the best of their ability, not perfectly), not what they think it must have meant.

Even a relatively word-for-word translation will adjust a few words here and there to make "hard passages" make more sense. Now, there's a time and a place for that, and many of us use commentaries to help us understand confusing passages. However, I prefer to keep the two entirely separate; I don't want what the translator is fairly sure it means actually becoming a part of the text.

Now, this is certainly less prevalent in literal translations, and you'll find others that are fairly accurate (The American Standard Version of 1901, for example, although I would submit that the RSV and NASV are degradations of the original translation in the same way that the NKJV is, in my opinion, less accurate than the KJV.) Still, I believe that a convincing case can be made for the primacy of the King James among English versions.

Nonetheless, the KJV I carry is not the 1611 work, but rather the 1769 edition, as I am sure yours is as well. That would be edition seven. Sort of odd that a perfect Bible kept getting revised, is it not? Sure, they were all minor revisions, but still, perfect is perfect, right? And perfect never needs changed.

The original manuscripts -- which we do not have -- were divinely inspired. The Word has since been preserved, yes, but we do not have any copy of scripture that is completely devoid of error. This is something, incidentally, that the fifty-five translators of the King James Version recognized. If you ever do happen to see a copy of the 1611 edition -- or if you just want to look it up online -- read the translator's prologue. They certainly recognized that their work was fallible and encouraged comparing it to other translations in study.

Tianlet · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject:

No, the KJV is the preserved word of God. If you want arguments for it, I don't have time to give the subject its due, but I can refer you to David Cloud's website. He knows more about this than I do anyway.

Rachael Blackgaard · Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:01 am Post subject:

Having just gotten out of a cult-like church myself, I can relate extremely well to your situation. It's hard, isn't it? You know that some things, like the doctrine that grace alone won't save you, were wrong and other things, like the fact the Jesus died for you, were right. The problem isn't letting go of the bad doctrine, it's trying to figure out what NOT to let go of.

I can tell you from my own experience that the KJV is one of the most accurate translations commonly used today. If you want the most accurate Bible, you need a Hebrew Old Testament and a Greek New Testament, but even then you won't have it exactly as it was when it was written. Keep in mind that there are other reasons for choosing a Bible besides accuracy. Readibility is a major one. I have no trouble reading KJV, but for my every day Bible study I'd rather use NKJV, RSV, or NASV. The only one I would advise against you getting is NIV, because a lot of liberal-type people use the mis-translations in that version to get their point across. Beyond that, I NIV is an okay Bible to read, although I've never liked the way the words flowed.

The best advice I can give you is to ask God which version is best for you. He knows which one will help you the most.

Tianlet · Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:55 pm Post subject:

Whoah whoah whoah!!! "Cult-like church?" That's a strong term. Just what do you mean by "cult-like"? If you mean that they had standards and that those people who believed in them followed them, then it isn't cult-like. I'm sure people would consider my church and college cult-like, but that's their misunderstanding. Something was said about people "judging" you if you didn't hold to those standards. I'm guessing that if you (as a girl, if you are one) wore blue jeans to church one Sunday morning, people might take second looks, but did anyone come up to you and forbid you to wear them? Probably not. The Bible says "Judge not that ye be not judged," but usually people take that the wrong way. Of course we are supposed to determine what people are like by the way they dress, act, who their friends are, etc.; and it's going to happen, like it or not. Unless you were involved in an anti-Biblical, Christ-denying organization, you weren't in a cult, and I seriously doubt that people there would hate you for using a different Bible than they did. I personally use the KJV because it is the preserved Word of God, and it is no more difficult to read than any other version. However, do I "judge" you for not using it? Well, basically when I hear that you use another translation I think, "Oh, here's someone else that doesn't use the same translation." My best friend--who also happens to be my cousin--uses the NIV. I don't hate her, I love her. Do I judge her? Sort of. I think you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

Jeremy · Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:51 pm Post subject:

Exclusivism is cult-like.

Denying salvation by grace alone through faith alone is cult-like. (Which Rachael said her former church did.)

Saying that you have to do/can't do certain things that the Bible does not even remotely address, is cult-like.

Jeremy

Tianlet · Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject:

Such as what? Smoking? There are many things that the Bible does not "remotely address" that are still wrong. And I'm wondering just how Rachel's church denied salvation by grace alone. Did they expect their members to show the Fruits of the Spirit in their daily lives? That isn't cult-like, nor is it denying salvation by grace.