Answers To Kjv Exclusive Theology
- Thread starter Brewdaddy
- Start date
Well, we use the KJV in our church primarily because it seems to be the most accurate English translation...that being said....
Our Pastor-and most of our congregation agree that the original language supersedes the English translation; BUT since no one in our church speaks Greek or Hebrew as a first language that would be extremely difficult to TEACH anyone the Bible without first becoming fluent in Greek & Hebrew and then teaching the people Greek & Hebrew.
Now, does that mean we reject others that use 'other' bibles? NO. We do however teach from, supply and distribute the KJV as a standard and acceptable translation into Englich. Are there certain words that are better translated in other versions? Perhaps, but going back to the original text brings us closer to the true meaning of the word, verse or context. I have found that many other translations often use variations possible from the original text anyway; therefore the process is KJV while referencing the original text accompanied by commentary. Strong's numbers comes in handy.
We would not push someone out the door that brought in 'different bible' treating them as heretics-which I hear does happen. In my short experience, we have had people both switch from and to the KJV version due to better understanding. I personally have a parallel Bible with 4 different version and I find the NKJV and ASV most useful sometimes without having to dig into the Greek or Hebrew-sometimes the other translations help bring clarity to the original text as well. BUT-I always take it back to the KJV and the text has yet to fail me or be contrary or disproved compared to the original language.
Now there are certain translation that I would not recommend using like the NIV or NCV. Also, if you consider that some versions of other translations are literally 'changed' every year-that seems contrary to God's Word-since He is the same today as He was yesterday and will be. If the KJV was good enough for the revolutionary Church giants for 300 some years-it's good enough for me.
I spent much time 'wrangling over words' in the Bible version debate some nearly 8 years ago. One thing I did based on Biblical counsel was to 'settle it in my heart' long ago. I would happily stand by the KJV as the standard knowing what I know now. Does that mean people who use other versions are 'less saved' than I? Oh god be merciful to me a sinner....
I still recommend the KJV as a foundation standard-in English...
Our Pastor-and most of our congregation agree that the original language supersedes the English translation; BUT since no one in our church speaks Greek or Hebrew as a first language that would be extremely difficult to TEACH anyone the Bible without first becoming fluent in Greek & Hebrew and then teaching the people Greek & Hebrew.
Now, does that mean we reject others that use 'other' bibles? NO. We do however teach from, supply and distribute the KJV as a standard and acceptable translation into Englich. Are there certain words that are better translated in other versions? Perhaps, but going back to the original text brings us closer to the true meaning of the word, verse or context. I have found that many other translations often use variations possible from the original text anyway; therefore the process is KJV while referencing the original text accompanied by commentary. Strong's numbers comes in handy.
We would not push someone out the door that brought in 'different bible' treating them as heretics-which I hear does happen. In my short experience, we have had people both switch from and to the KJV version due to better understanding. I personally have a parallel Bible with 4 different version and I find the NKJV and ASV most useful sometimes without having to dig into the Greek or Hebrew-sometimes the other translations help bring clarity to the original text as well. BUT-I always take it back to the KJV and the text has yet to fail me or be contrary or disproved compared to the original language.
Now there are certain translation that I would not recommend using like the NIV or NCV. Also, if you consider that some versions of other translations are literally 'changed' every year-that seems contrary to God's Word-since He is the same today as He was yesterday and will be. If the KJV was good enough for the revolutionary Church giants for 300 some years-it's good enough for me.
I spent much time 'wrangling over words' in the Bible version debate some nearly 8 years ago. One thing I did based on Biblical counsel was to 'settle it in my heart' long ago. I would happily stand by the KJV as the standard knowing what I know now. Does that mean people who use other versions are 'less saved' than I? Oh god be merciful to me a sinner....
I still recommend the KJV as a foundation standard-in English...
Hey Brew,
On another thread, I posted this article from Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/april/knowing-what-bible-really-means.html
It's a very interesting article written by a translator who explains why it's important to have multiple translations, and even why it's important to consider and understand ways that certain concepts are translated into languages other than our own.
Interesting subpoint: A while back, I knew a youth worker who was working with teenagers from the goth subculture in his city. He found that they identified strongly with the KJV, because early modern English is the type of writing that's popular in that subculture. So if he gave them KJV Bibles, they read them! Pretty awesome.
On another thread, I posted this article from Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/april/knowing-what-bible-really-means.html
It's a very interesting article written by a translator who explains why it's important to have multiple translations, and even why it's important to consider and understand ways that certain concepts are translated into languages other than our own.
Interesting subpoint: A while back, I knew a youth worker who was working with teenagers from the goth subculture in his city. He found that they identified strongly with the KJV, because early modern English is the type of writing that's popular in that subculture. So if he gave them KJV Bibles, they read them! Pretty awesome.
Glomung
Account Closed
I prefer the KJV style, but use parallel and literal transalations when I need to see the nitpicky details of what scripture says.
"KJV only" is s good example of man-made dogma that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
Who cares what version it is as long as it is accurate.
"KJV only" is s good example of man-made dogma that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
Who cares what version it is as long as it is accurate.
Are you trying to figure out if you want to go or how to tell them that you aren't interested?
I can understand that.
Just an off-the-cuff answer, maybe you could word it this way; "I appreciate the invite, though I'd prefer to remain open to translations other than KJV. We're all still learning, and I'd hate to box myself into the KJV when there might be validity in other versions."
You won't change their mind. If you are interested in joining them, then do so, if not, then don't fight with them, just tell them you already have found another church family or direction. If they don't respect that, then trust me, you are far, far better off without them. In all likelyhood, they have larger issues in their doctrines if they are holding that tightly and basing their beliefs on a single translation. The first problem is that the KJV is NOT perfect. It is good. In fact, it's great. To call it perfect grants some weight to an English translation of something that cannot possibly be done perfectly, and that implies that the original texts are actually flawed, but were "fixed" by the KJV in some way.
That being said, I've seen very few translations out there that would be insufficient to provide you with the tools to find Salvation. There are some that are seriously broken, but they are heavily associated with "denominations" that are generally viewed as cults by most Christians.
That being said, I've seen very few translations out there that would be insufficient to provide you with the tools to find Salvation. There are some that are seriously broken, but they are heavily associated with "denominations" that are generally viewed as cults by most Christians.
Like Barnarenth said, if it's about telling them they're wrong, then expect them to tell you why you're wrong.
Yes there is. You can say........"I love you but I think that you are wrong in this instance. Thank you for visiting with me and can we pray together for both of us as we try to seek the will of God in our lives"
Reply: "Why dost thou believe this? Nay, I say unto you, but other translations reveal the blessed work of the Lord also. Methinks thou art narrow-minded in thy views".
I think you are stressing for nothing. My church is KJV only. The elders tolerate other translations but encourage what is proven by them to be the best / safest one. That is part of their duty surely? You have to have some kind of precedent on what translation is preferred to avoid confusion and simply make it easier to follow the preachers in open ministry.
I think the loving answer would be just to tell them that you use translation "x" and you are happy with that because the Holy Spirit is guiding you through its use, so you believe it would be rejecting His ministry if you were to switch to another version at this time in your walk.
If your salvation is dependent on a version of Scripture you read, then your Salvation is based on the wrong thing and is in vain. There is just too much fear about the most minuscule details.
Yes, the KJV has been around for a long time. It is not copyrighted. It has managed to bring the Gospel to billions of people for generations upon generations. It has proven to be at least "good enough" for Salvation. It can be trusted. I don't have a problem with anyone using that to study or teach.
My only concern comes from when it is used to create elitism or create division, as well as the occasional really, really false doctrine that becomes created by relying too heavily on specific wording. That could happen with ANY translation, but because of the age of the KJV, it seems to happen a lot with that one. I've yet to see a church that denies the Deity of Christ or challenges the Trinity Doctrine that doesn't do so by relying heavily on the KJV. By controlling the exact text that people are reading, it becomes very easy to manipulate that text. The same technique has been used with the JW translation, and was used prior to the creation of the KJV when the Church was politically corrupted.
I don't know that KingJ's church does that, and from what I've seen of his postings, I would think he attends a doctrinally sound church. But, how quickly do you mention being KJV only in your teaching? Is it the cornerstone of your doctrines, or is it just a means to create unity within your congregation? I suspect, it is just done for unity, knowing that you have a stable source. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
Yes, the KJV has been around for a long time. It is not copyrighted. It has managed to bring the Gospel to billions of people for generations upon generations. It has proven to be at least "good enough" for Salvation. It can be trusted. I don't have a problem with anyone using that to study or teach.
My only concern comes from when it is used to create elitism or create division, as well as the occasional really, really false doctrine that becomes created by relying too heavily on specific wording. That could happen with ANY translation, but because of the age of the KJV, it seems to happen a lot with that one. I've yet to see a church that denies the Deity of Christ or challenges the Trinity Doctrine that doesn't do so by relying heavily on the KJV. By controlling the exact text that people are reading, it becomes very easy to manipulate that text. The same technique has been used with the JW translation, and was used prior to the creation of the KJV when the Church was politically corrupted.
I don't know that KingJ's church does that, and from what I've seen of his postings, I would think he attends a doctrinally sound church. But, how quickly do you mention being KJV only in your teaching? Is it the cornerstone of your doctrines, or is it just a means to create unity within your congregation? I suspect, it is just done for unity, knowing that you have a stable source. There is nothing wrong with that at all.