Skip to main content

Conversation About The KJV

I removed his name to protect his privacy. As one of my responses says, more could be said about the manuscript issue. The KJV is one of the best translations out there. But is not a perfect translation, and it is not the [only] translation that preserves the word of God. Questions and comments welcome.....Bret


Bret

...OK to keep sending the verses, just please quote mine from the KJV. If you want some interesting reading and study, take a look at a book by Gail Riplinger called "New Age Bible Versions".

Dear { }: Good to 'hear' from you brother. I'm thankful to the Lord that things are better for you. Indeed we need to keep our eyes on Christ, and look forward to that day when we will be with Him for all eternity and see Him face to face.
I don't know that I'll have time to send out the Scriptures in KJV as well, but you are the second person that requested them in the KJV, so I'll keep that in mind. I appreciate the recommendation of Gail Riplinger's book. I have looked into the Manuscript/Translation issue aas well as having been in numerous discussions with KJV Only advocates, and have generally found the discussions unfruitful. Perhaps it would be different for you and I. I also recommend the book the KJV Only Controversy by Dr. James White. I would be glad to order you a copy and mail it to you if you are interested. Lord bless you my brother.....Bret


I know the problems with these arguments - but I look at from a lawyers point of
view. For God to judge everyone righteously and justly (so that no one will have
excuse or charge against God) there must and can only be one final authority. There must be an absolute final authority; otherwise I could have an argument against God (wait, you said this differenlty in the New Century Version and in the Modern Language and in the Revised Standard - which is it?). Satan is the author of confusion, not God! Its not that some truth gets through in all the versions, as God had anticipated in eternity past hostile jamming of his word (Genesis Chapter 3). That is why he spreads all the major concepts and doctrines over the entire book. There is no one chapter on salvation or sanctification. The book is like a hologram. Cut it in half and you still have the whole picture. Another issue has to do with the warnings in God's word not to change his word - remove the landmarks and you can lose your way. But God is Sovreign - why should he have even allowed Satan to continue to exist, let alone have him mess with his word and his people. Lets keep the main thing the main thing - if you know that you know that you know you are saved then we know why God left us on the planet - to tell the lost the good news. We plant and water, but God gives the increase. Keep up your good work - its tough being a pastor who preaches the word these days.
Thank you again for your prayers.

Sincerely,


Thanks again for your reply { }. Even though KJV Onlies would still consider me wrong or liberal for not holding to the KJV Version only, I do still reject and recommend against the non word for word translations. The translations I recommend are KJV, MKJV, NKJV, 21st Century KJV, NASB, and ESV. The rest I do not recommend including the NIV. As a pastor, I am careful who I talk to about the KJV and Texus Receptus issue, because certain things said could cause problems and doubt. I don't think I have to worry about that with you, praise God. The KJV is a translation. It was made up of aproximately 97% Tyndale translation. It has been modified seven times although most of them were very small. If we follow the idealogy of the KJV being the only perfect word of God and translations, then hymns should be sung unless it was literally the Scriptures. Pastors should never expound on the KJV but only read Scriptures. If one does an honest study of the KJV against the Greek, and yes even the Texus Receptus, they will find it is not a perfect translation. I would not have a problem if Christian Scholars would get together and do a modern translation of the Texus Receptus. Actually, that is what the KJV21 and Modern KJV is about. Yet many KJV Onlies in their fanaticism reject them as well. Jesus spoke to the people in the common language of the day, Even the Latin Vulgate at first was in the common language of the day (The Roman Catholic Church formed out of forced Christianity in the 4th century, but was not corrupt in the beginning, it was a gradual process arriving at where they are today); The Wycliff and Tyndale translations were in the language of the day; The KJV was in the language of the day as well, yet it took aproximately 50 years before it was widely accepted. It is a translation, a 'version' (hence the King James 'Version') of the word of God. Only the original manuscripts are totally perfect. Yet what makes it so amazing and awesome is the witness of over 5000 Greek and 7000 Latin manuscripts that prove that we have the infallible word of God translated. There is more I could say about the manucripts/texts issue, but that will have to wait for another time. I am confident in my use of the NASB and ESV in my studies and preaching. And yet I also compare them to the NKJV and KJV as well. Soli Deo Gloria, my brother.....Bret

Dear Bret:

Thank you for your observations and the dialogue. Greater minds than ours have weighed in on these issues. Let us always trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to guide us for He is both and always the written word and the living word. Praise the Lord for our salvation.


Amen my brother.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Issues I Have Been Associated With Recently

The King James Only Controversy : I have been in 3 churches since the Lord was pleased to save me, the last 2 of them as a pastor. The first church was when I was not a pastor, but did teach Sunday School, and preached occasionally. It was a church that used the KJV of the bible, but neither I or the pastor was hardcore KJV Only. The second church was the first church I pastored. For the sake of some long time members in that small church, I used the King James version for sermons, but after I was there a year or two, I began using the NKJV for Scripture Readings. My third church, which is the one I'm pastoring now in Idaho, does not use the KJV. We offically use the NASB for our sermons, and the ESV many times when quoting other scriptures. I know some of my long time Christian friends from Maryland are KJV Only. I am not. I think it is an issue that we can agree to disagree on, but it seems there may be some that cannot. In the not so distant future, I'll post on the Blog why

Christian Discussions and Chem-Trails

What a title, huh? I just didn't want to post these separately :-). This morning as we were sending off our daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren, there was a Chem-Trail right over us in the sky. Have you heard of Chem-Trails? They are chemicals being put in the sky to supposedly help with so called global warming  :-). Sadly, too many people still think this is a conspiracy theory. For those that do, I recommend you just put that in a search engine and see what comes up and just start reading. They come from the exhaust of commercial airliners, but they are not the same as "contrails." Contrails dissipate and follow the plane. Chem-trails stick around. They have certain chemicals in them (Aluminum and Barium are two of them if I recall correctly) and they just add to the list of toxins that our bodies absorb and endanger our health. If more people would pay attention and communicate with our elected officials at all levels perhaps, we could put a stop to this Lord will

Are Arminian Baptists Legitimate Biblical Churches?

With all the discussion going on about whether Presbyterians are biblical churches because of infant baptism, I would like to ask if we believe that Arminian Baptist churches are legitimate churches? If a Baptist Church, regardless of their affiliation if any, believes in a universal, insufficient atonement by Christ, issuch Baptist Church really a biblical church? And if so, how can we say that it is when it involves the very heart of the gospel in the atonement. Further, how can we say that those Presbyterian churches that believe in a particular, sufficient atonement yet infant baptism are not biblical, yet those that believe in a universal, insufficient atonement yet believers baptism by immersion are biblical churches. Inquiring mind wants to know ;- ). Thanks..... P.S. Still Baptist and thank the Lord for it!