Re: The True Spirit of KJV Onlyism
This started out as a comment to Walking the Walk by Faith: The True Spirit of KJV Onlyism. But it has gotten a bit long. :-)
It is very unfortunate that there are so many who rant about "KJV only". The point of the KJV and earlier English translations was to make the Bible accessible to the "common" man. It's really ironic how this cycle seems to continue. Jerome translated the Greek Bible into Latin, the common language of his day. It was named the Vulgate, from the root word vulgar, which meant common. After Latin was no longer commonly spoken, the RCC outlawed translations into common, or native languages. Now there are those who try their best to keep the Bible out of the understanding of the modern English speaking population. (Or at least the people who go to their churches.) Fortunately, those who fight against the spread of the Bible are doomed to failure. (No other book has been translated more times, nor has been printed more times. Even downloaded... the top download on "Project Gutenberg" used to be the KJV Bible, until they made changes to it's availability!)
On the other side of the issue, hidden behind the vitriol of the ranters, there really are issues with some of the manuscripts that have been included in many newer translations. Should that be left to the hands of experts? Who gets to choose the experts? Personally, having weighed the evidence available to me, I find the KJV to be the most accurate of the "English" translations. So, I use it to balance what I read in more modern, less accurate translations such as the NLT, NIV, and even the ESV and NKJV. I'm not saying that these translations are bad. God used the NIV (what I consider to be the least accurate of the "accepted" modern English translations) to open my understanding of His salvation. But, though I'm currently reading through the NIV, I find that I use it the least of all for my posts, or even in conversation with other Christians.
I believe we, God's people, should have a healthy debate concerning the translations available in our native tongues. We should not divide over them unnecessarily. However, everyone who doesn't teach out of the Wycliffe New Testament is wrong! ;-)
Tag(s): Bible
It is very unfortunate that there are so many who rant about "KJV only". The point of the KJV and earlier English translations was to make the Bible accessible to the "common" man. It's really ironic how this cycle seems to continue. Jerome translated the Greek Bible into Latin, the common language of his day. It was named the Vulgate, from the root word vulgar, which meant common. After Latin was no longer commonly spoken, the RCC outlawed translations into common, or native languages. Now there are those who try their best to keep the Bible out of the understanding of the modern English speaking population. (Or at least the people who go to their churches.) Fortunately, those who fight against the spread of the Bible are doomed to failure. (No other book has been translated more times, nor has been printed more times. Even downloaded... the top download on "Project Gutenberg" used to be the KJV Bible, until they made changes to it's availability!)
On the other side of the issue, hidden behind the vitriol of the ranters, there really are issues with some of the manuscripts that have been included in many newer translations. Should that be left to the hands of experts? Who gets to choose the experts? Personally, having weighed the evidence available to me, I find the KJV to be the most accurate of the "English" translations. So, I use it to balance what I read in more modern, less accurate translations such as the NLT, NIV, and even the ESV and NKJV. I'm not saying that these translations are bad. God used the NIV (what I consider to be the least accurate of the "accepted" modern English translations) to open my understanding of His salvation. But, though I'm currently reading through the NIV, I find that I use it the least of all for my posts, or even in conversation with other Christians.
I believe we, God's people, should have a healthy debate concerning the translations available in our native tongues. We should not divide over them unnecessarily. However, everyone who doesn't teach out of the Wycliffe New Testament is wrong! ;-)
But what seith the scripture? The word is nyy in thi mouth, and in thin herte; this is the word of bileue, which we prechen. That if thou knoulechist in thi mouth the Lord Jhesu Crist, and bileuest in thin herte, that God reiside hym fro deth, thou schalt be saaf.(I love e-Sword!)
(Romans 10:8-9 Wycliffe New Testament, 1385)
Tag(s): Bible
posted by Bryan at 8:28 AM
9 Comments:
I am not anti-KJV at all. In fact, I prefer it when reading the Psalms. I have used it in all of my books. What I have a problem with is the almost cultic behavior the KJV-only crowd exhibit when their "pet passage" don't read the same in the ESV or whatever as it does in the KJV.
The history of the KJV's development should erase any of this sort of foolishness, but there are some who love to play the fear card and get people who have no Biblical training all upset because of "supposed" scripture manipulation of passages.
In fact, Erasmus,an enemy of the Reformation, is responsibile for the Greek manuscripts called the Textus Receptus. He was missing some key passages from the Greek manuscripts he had available so he transalated back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate certain passages such as 1 John 5.
Again, I am not an enemy of the KJV. I love it for certain passage. You correctly stated that the NIV is not very literal. It is one of the least literal, but not as bad as The Message or the NLT. I prefer the ESV and the NKJV. The NKJV is based on the same manuscripts as the AV. The ESV is based on the same manuscripts as the NASB. THE NASB is the most literal translation there is, but it lacks warmth.
In any case, lets not divide over these things. I use e-Sword as well and I use every translation I can. I really like the Geneva Bible over the KJV, but it's English is still the in the 16th Century form while our KJV has been updated somewhat.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Sorry, I wasn't trying to paint you as "anti-KJV". I guess the initial issue I was trying to address is that while there are many irrational, un-Christ-like people claiming to be "Christians" that go ballistic when anyone questions the KJV, there are still some valid pro and con issues that can and should be discussed.
Even "The Message" has a purpose in God's plan. Whether I ever understand it or not. :-)
Oh Bryan, I wasn't taking offense. Sorry if you got that impression. I agree with you about the different Bible versions. I used The Message in writing portions of my second book.
In my class there are some students whose eyes glaze over when anyone reads from the KJV or NASB or even the NIV. However, when someone reads from The Message they seem to "get it." So yes, God has a purpose in all of that.
Did you read the post I had linked to on Alpah and Omega? The virulency of Mr. Dries attack really surprised me. The KJV-only people seem to take a stance that scholarship is not important. The more I study the more I see the need to study.
The Puritans started schools wherever they went because they knew that Biblical scholarship was vital to develop our knowledge of God and His ways.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Oh yes, I read the post. I've seen it before. I started researching the different translations for myself not to long after I became a Christian, only a couple of years ago. I saw the same kind of unreasoning hatred from many (but not all) of the "KJV only" crowd.
My pastor likes to call the South the "post-Bible Belt" because the level of Bible knowledge and education is so low. There may well be more Bibles than television sets in the average Southern home, but the majority of them are dusty things that sit on a shelf most of their lives.
And that is the fault of the Church, the failure of the Church, as much as anything else. Since the preacher prints the one verse his sermon(ette) is based on in the bulliten, why should anyone bother to bring a Bible to church? As a matter of fact, the surrounding verses will probably just confuse you once you realize the context doesn't support the sermon after all.
Hence, the desperate need for renewal of our churches. Great to meet you face to face this morning Bryan! Have a safe trip!
Thanks Mike, it was great. Although, I was a bit disappointed in that, while your pastor taught on Acts 28, there was no actual handling of snakes involved in the service. ;-)
:-))))
I THINK THAT THE FURTHER YOU ARE AWAY FROM THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, THE WORSE OFF YOU ARE; MEANING ALOT OF KEY WORDS OF GOD'S TRUTH ARE NOT THERE. I READ THE (NASB), MY HUSBAND READS THE (KJV) WE COMPARE OUR TRANSLATIONS, AND HAVE FOUND SOME TRUTHS MISSING IN MY BIBLE. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH VERSE AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD; BUT THE VERSE LEFT OUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT! THAT TRUELY DISTURBED ME. I THEN MARKED IN MY BIBLE THE REST OF THE VERSE! VISIT MY BLOG IF YOU LIKE;ITS CALLED "The King's daughter".http://kingsdaughter.eponym.com THANK YOU, I WILL VISIT YOUR SITE AGAIN! SABRINA C.
You think the NASB leaves out some verses, you ought to check out the NIV. :-) If you really want to see altered truths then check out the Douay-Rheims (the Catholic Bible) or the one published by the Mormons! Anyway, it's best to remember that the Bible was written mostly in Hebrew and Greek. (Absolutely none of it was in English!) The King James Verson is not without error!
If you are really interested in studying in depth, it's best to look at several translations and it helps to have a real good concordance. Even better, try to learn a little Hebrew and Greek. I see on your blog that you have linked e-Sword. I find that to be an excellent resource.
Post a Comment
<< Home