What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Refuting KJV Only Mythology

I am one of those Ole king James only guys. To much truth is lost when denominations translate their books so as to follow their doctrines.
 
Interesting comment, IwreckNsow. Would you mind expanding a little more?
 
WIP said:
You still haven't answered any questions. Please be more specific.
Click to expand...
Catholics have their own, niv is used more by those who make void Gods law and the Ole King James is used by the legalist. These observations come from being on boards for 20 yrs or so
 
IwreckNsow said:
Most all recommend one or another
Click to expand...
Ok, then I take that as a correction of your previous statement that "...denominations translate their books so as to follow their doctrines" since what you are saying now is quite different than your previous statement?

And I would still like to know exactly how many denominations out of the total actually "recommend" one version over another other than those who recommend the KJV? I've been in many denominations over the years and have never heard of one actually recomending any particular version over another, with the exception of those that are KJV only oriented. And those who are KJV only oriented tend not to only "recommend" but to actually demand that you use only the KJV, and will belittle you and demonize you if you even suggest that you don't agree. Outside of churches such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (which I personally don't include in my list of "Christian" churches) it seems to me that the KJV only crowd are pretty much the only ones pushing one particular translation, aren't they?

Edit: Our messages crossed. Ok, the Catholics, as I understand, use the same scriptures as the protestants except that they also include some scripture that protestants have rejected. As for the NIV, which seems to be the version that KJV onlyists like to fight against the most, I've been in many denominations over the years who use the NIV, but not one of them ever recommended it over any other version nor have I ever talked to anyone else who has been in a church that did this.

Oh, and as for your mention of observing this over 20 years, my observations are based on over twice that amount of time, also serving on boards as well as staff.
 
Last edited:
Obadiah said:
Ok, then I take that as a correction of your previous statement that "...denominations translate their books so as to follow their doctrines" since what you are saying now is quite different than your previous statement?
Click to expand...

Kinda, but not really. But yeah, I see what your saying. But....you can bet that no translator of the niv was a legalist.
 
IwreckNsow said:
Why the need to change the name of Jesus to Joshua in Hebrews 4?
Click to expand...
Possibly because the word in the original language came from a Hebrew word for the proper noun that can also be translated to "Joshua". Not saying they are right, just that I can see the logic behind their decision.
 
Obadiah said:
I've been in many denominations over the years and have never heard of one actually recomending any particular version over another, with the exception of those that are KJV only oriented.
Click to expand...

What version was being read from the pulpit. A sutle recommending but a recommending indeed.
 
IwreckNsow said:
Kinda, but not really. But yeah, I see what your saying. But....you can bet that no translator of the niv was a legalist.
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea of the views of the NIV translators. I do know of a local church near me that uses the NIV a lot and know their pastor personally. He certainly doesn't reject God's law, although it's true he isn't a legalist either.

But what of other translations. You seem to be focusing only on the NIV, which seems limited.
 
Obadiah said:
Possibly because the word in the original language came from a Hebrew word for the proper noun that can also be translated to "Joshua". Not saying they are right, just that I can see the logic behind their decision.
Click to expand...

And what about changing "wax old" to "obsolete" in Hebrews" 8(I think)? Two completely different meanings from those 2 words. Changes everything

I myself am waxing old but do that make me obsolete? Don't ask my wife for help on this question
 
Last edited:
Obadiah said:
I honestly have no idea of the views of the NIV translators. I do know of a local church near me that uses the NIV a lot and know their pastor personally. He certainly doesn't reject God's law, although it's true he isn't a legalist either.
Click to expand...

Reject Gods law? I may have used a different....Not that they reject Gods law but they think gentiles are not obligated to keep Gods law.
 
IwreckNsow said:
What version was being read from the pulpit. A sutle recommending but a recommending indeed.
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree at all. No church is going to read all scripture from all versions so as not to appear to be recommending one over the other. Every church I have spent any time in other than KJV only churches have never had a problem with comparing different translations when that comparison helps to point out errors and find the truth of what the original scripture was trying to say. As an example, the church I attend now has NIV Bibles in the pews, but they certainly don't recommend only the NIV, and the pastor many times will compare the NIV to other versions (including the KJV) and point out where he feels one version or another may have translated more correctly or more understandably. This has been the norm in all churches I have ever attended other than KJV only churches. KJV only churches have been the ONLY ones I've been in that absolutely refuse to look at any other alternatives other than what the KJV translation says, and the ONLY churches that I've been in that have ever demanded the use of only their preferred version. It really does seem to me that it is primarily the KJV only churches who are openly and obviously "recommending" one particular version over another.
 
Last edited:
IwreckNsow said:
Reject Gods law? I may have used a different....Not that they reject Gods law but they think gentiles are not obligated to keep Gods law.
Click to expand...
Once again, this not an accurate description of the beliefs of the particular pastor I am referring too as an example. He is not a legalist but also does not reject God's law. Now if when you refer to "God's law", you are referring to things such as eating kosher, dressing a certain way, cutting your hair a certain way, and things like this, then yes, he does reject that within reason, this is true. But his view on Old Testament ceremonial law or dietary law has nothing to do with what Bible translation he uses and I don't think has anything to do with whether or not any of the various versions of the KJV is superior to any other translation.

As for discussing why various particular words might be translated differently in different translations, well I only offered a suggestion as to why one word which you brought up may have been translated differently, but comparing individual words throughout the whole Bible and why they are different can go on forever and not accomplish much. I'm not really interested in doing that, nor do I have enough knowledge on that.

I'm still curious as to what denominations other than KJV onlyists have made up their own translations and tell their people to only use those translations? You really haven't answered this, since simply reading from one particular version during a sermon or Bible study certainly doesn't mean that church is recommending only that version unless they specifically say so, as the KJV only churches very clearly do say so. Unless you can give me specifics, well, it seems to me that it's really the KJV churches who are the only ones demanding the exclusive use of only their preferred version of scripture. Even Catholic churches I have attended didn't demand only the use of the Catholic Bible, although I admit I don't know that much about Catholics compared to protestant denominations.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a way to do word searches from different bibles? Search "moreover also" in the ole king James. Youll find a truth. Search any other version and it will not be there
 
IwreckNsow said:
Do you have a way to do word searches from different bibles? Search "moreover also" in the ole king James. Youll find a truth. Search any other version and it will not be there
Click to expand...
Alright, I'll take your bait this once since you have my curiosity up, but as I said I'm not an expert on that kind of thing and doubt it will be very productive. Give me a few mins...
 
Last edited:
Obadiah said:
I'm still curious as to what denominations other than KJV onlyists have made up their own translations and tell their people to only use those translations?
Click to expand...

Ill ask you the same you ask of me. Is there any "denominations" that say their people can only use the KJV. What are those denominations?
 
IwreckNsow said:
Do you have a way to do word searches from different bibles? Search "moreover also" in the ole king James. Youll find a truth. Search any other version and it will not be there
Click to expand...
Ok, as I suspected that was rather unproductive for me. Maybe I just totally missed your point.

I found two references for the phrase “moreover also”, Eze. 20:12 and Acts 2:26. I compared these two verses in 12 different versions and just don’t see any significant change to the meaning in any of them. If there is any difference, to me it is so subtle that it is completely irrelevant.

Once again, what does this have to do with your claim that denominations wrote their own versions of the Bible to fit their particular doctrines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top