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!

translation idolatry vs worshiping Christ

N

needtotalk

Member
We all know there's a big division among those who hold that one version, particularly the KJV, is the only valid biblical source. Then there are others who personally have a better understanding of God's Word reading some of the different versions available.

The KJV stands for King James Version, implying it too, is a version of the eternal word of God. It explains about a Savior in God who longs to see His creation reconciled to Himself.

That message is what is important, and that God of the bible is who we worship. But that message and the revelation of God can be written in many "versions". In fact, to hold on to one translation, and preach that is the only valid version is missing a huge intention of God's voice speaking to us. God has an eternal life outside of the written Word; before time existed, God was; there was no written Word yet. The Word existed in: Jesus Christ, God's only Son, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

It could almost be considered idolatry in the sense that the version we force others on is more important than the Word or message of salvation itself, and more important than the God we worship. Further, to discourage those who use different versions is discouraging a version or understanding of the Holy Word of God.

The Holy Spirit has enlightened many a believer using different versions. I personally find ease in understanding the entirety of the Word in the NASB. We have freedom in Christ to read what ever version of the Holy Bible we choose. If it's not pure or tainted, the Holy Spirit would have convinced me by now. What other versions do you read and how do you feel about this?
 
i mainly use the kjv, but i am not dogmatic about it. i can and have read other versions. but i prefer the kjv out of habit.
 
needtotalk said:
That message is what is important, and that God of the bible is who we worship. But that message and the revelation of God can be written in many "versions". In fact, to hold on to one translation, and preach that is the only valid version is missing a huge intention of God's voice speaking to us. God has an eternal life outside of the written Word; before time existed, God was; there was no written Word yet. The Word existed in: Jesus Christ, God's only Son, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

I don't think you were implying that the Bible can be reworded as an editor decides and change text. I don't see different versions as a big deal. I haven't read a lot of them. I've read KJV, but I use the NIV. There's a version that paraphrases scripture (forget the name). I suppose this would keep the general meaning of it, but IMO this should be used to compliment the Bible, not in place of it. Since the Bible is inspired, we should try to read something as close to the original text as possible in translation. I've heard arguments that different versions achieve this better than others.

But, yes, the "KJV only" people are difficult to understand.
 
I think he may be talking about the Message, which is a paraphrase rather than a literal translation. I used to be a KJV only, because that was how I was raised. I'm not anymore, and now I prefer the ESV or NASB over KJV because of a few things that have been added to the KJV that aren't in most manuscripts. I will always love the KJV for the way it reads, and since its the only Bible I ever read until my 20's I understand it quite well. But I'm no longer a staunch advocate of it, and now if I recommend a Bible to someone it is the two mentioned above.
 
I've always had an issue with other translations. My issues with other translations began several years before I'd ever heard of any Bible but the King James. I didn't know that any of these other bibles existed. I simply knew that I couldn't trust any book other than the one that I was reading. How could I, the Bible plainly instructed me not to.


I was very young and impressionable.


Do you think that Jesus was scarring me by giving me the idea that changing and adding to His Words was a serious affair?

Further,,do you believe that my refusal to shed this conviction will earn me a place in hell?
 
ronniechoate34 said:
Do you think that Jesus was scarring me by giving me the idea that changing and adding to His Words was a serious affair?

Further,,do you believe that my refusal to shed this conviction will earn me a place in hell?
Click to expand...

If this was intended as I took it, both questions and their intended points are rather extreme. This is consistent with the extreme view that the KJV is the only allowable version. :shame
 
I've always had an issue with other translations. My issues with other translations began several years before I'd ever heard of any Bible but the King James. I didn't know that any of these other bibles existed. I simply knew that I couldn't trust any book other than the one that I was reading. How could I, the Bible plainly instructed me not to.


I was very young and impressionable.


Do you think that Jesus was scarring me by giving me the idea that changing and adding to His Words was a serious affair?

Further,,do you believe that my refusal to shed this conviction will earn me a place in hell?
Click to expand...

I would say absolutely not to the last line. I think it takes a measure of Spiritual Discernment to notice the big differences in the KJV, and the modermized (er-umm) Bibles ???.
 
.
Needtotalk

Let us look at this matter from the perspective of the KJV only people. Their main concern is for the Bible as our only source of supernatural information. They see the differences in the different translations that in some cases are rather substantial. Take into account that this is a recent group who started over the obvious differences between the Byzantine compilation used by the KJV and the Alexandrian compilation used by most of the modern translations.

Consider that this began as a Protestant phenomenon. The common thread of conservative Protestantism is that the Bible alone is the only authority for all faith and practice. That makes the Bible very important indeed just in itself. And conservative Protestants, really conservative Protestants, tend to base their whole faith on what they believe the Bible teaches them about reality. Touch the Bible and you touch their faith.

Consider how long the KJV had been the “Authorized Version†for the Protestants. The first non-KJV Bible to attain any kind of notoriety came out as the Revised Version in 1881 in England and came out as the American Standard Version in America in 1901. The KJV had been THE Bible for 270 years and 290 years respectively. But that is not when the KJV began to wane in popularity. It was not until the RSV came out in full in 1952 that the KJV began to wane in popularity. Twenty years later, the KJV only Movement was becoming the full fledged movement that we see today. From 1611 to 1970 is 359 years before the KJV began to wane substantially as THE Bible of choice for the vast majority of Protestants.

And even the Catholics didn’t leave their Bible of choice for almost as long as the KJV for the Protestants, the Douay-Rheims Version, until 1970 when the NAB was published after Vatican II. The NAB is their Bible translated from the Alexandrian compilation. It is interesting that the Catholics were influenced by a practice of textual criticism that initially began in Protestantism.

From 1970 to 2010 is only 40 years. And between the beginning of the Protestant Movement and the KJV is 92 years, less than a century. The KJV was THE Bible for almost 400 years. Catholics are not the only ones that tend to hold to their Tradition.

Now consider that many conservative Protestants have seen a waning of Protestant Spirituality for some time, at least in America. And they see a synergistic relationship between the waning of Protestant Spirituality and the rise in popularity of the modern versions of the Bible.

Personally, I am like Jasoncran. I generally use the KJV, but sometimes I also use other translations. But I can do so with clarity because I know the differences between them and why those differences are there. And I can compensate for the differences in most cases. At least for the New Testament because I have a working knowledge of the Greek. But what about those who don’t have the experience that we have? Do we give them a copy of the Good News Bible or The Living Bible or The Message and tell them to read and learn the truth? These versions are far from literal. In fact they are commentaries more than they are translations of the Bible. The common term is paraphrase. Do we give them the NIV or the HCSB or the NCV? These are not literal versions either. They are called phrase to phrase translations. Do we give them a literal translation such as the KJV or the NASB or the NKJB? They too have their problems.

It is good to invoke the relationship between the Bible and the Spirit of God. But take into consideration the differences in doctrinal opinion between those who realize this relationship. Should we compound those differences by also reading different versions of the Bible or a non-literal version?

You personally prefer the NASB, a literal translation. That is good. But what do you say to those who don’t agree with you about the differences in the underlying compilations used to translate the NASB or the Alexandrian compilation and the KJV or the Byzantine compilation, who claim that the Alexandrian compilation is not representative of the true New Testament? Who claim that the Byzantine compilation is representative of the true New Testament? I happen to be one who makes the latter claim. But it is not an issue to me because I believe that translations such as the NASB and even the NIV are sufficient to lead one to Christ.

I understand why the KJV is an issue to the KJV only people even though it is not an issue to me. What I don’t understand is why it is an issue to you to the point that you call it idolatry. Are you perhaps starting to think that they might be right and you are looking for reasons to disagree with them?

JamesG
 
the original kjv had the apochrypha. i wonder why that was removed and i also think the rc still uses the apochrypha.
 
.
Jasoncran

The original Protestants did not consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture, but they did think that it was good for reading. It was eventually removed from the KJV to avoid confusion between Scripture and non-Scripture.

JamesG
 
.
Jasoncran

Apparently the Nicean Council did not claim that the Apocrypha was Scripture either. At least off the top of my head, I do not remember these writings being among those enumerated as Scripture.

The Eastern Orthodox use the Septuagint, in which the Apocrypha is included. But they believe as the original Protestants, that the Apocrypha is valuable for reading, but not a part of Scripture. Some Catholics are confused about what the Eastern Orthodox believe. Or there is a difference of opinion on the matter among the Eastern Orthodox. The ones that I have associated with, and the books that I have read do not agree with the Roman Catholics on the subject.

JamesG
 
After reading the replies, I take back the heavy language of idolatry. I'm sorry, I'm wrong about that. There are just situations and certain experiences I've had that I see people building their spiritual house, and the house is founded on tradition and fear rather than on Jesus Christ. I see a lot of fearful people who claim "this is the only way" when they're talking about KJV rather than faith in Christ.

I have to fess up, I'm dealing with anger. When I grew up I was in a KJV church, very legalistic and almost phony like. But I trusted like a little child when they told me, for instance, "I've seen people fall away from the faith for not using 'thou' and 'thee' in their prayers.." So that meant that the published Word of God (the Bible, the book of books) had to be KJV, in their opinion. Their tradition was also including a reversal of order of sanctification and justification. According to Christ's love and redemptive plan, justification and baptism can come immediately at the moment a person believes with his heart that Christ died for him, and that God raised Jesus from the dead. However, this church wouldn't baptize me because I had a struggle putting a habit out of my life. So to them, you have to become a complete conquerer over sin as a babe in Christ before you get baptized and then you make a promise never to sin again. So their order was sanctification (give you time to repent and be able to turn from all sin, usually 6 mo's or so) then baptism and justification.

So I found a modern translation fresh and free from the memories of the wrongs they did me. And over the years, I've been dealing with anger toward the whole institution of adding to the gospel and works/performance based salvation as Paul describes in Galations.

Therefore, let me agree with those who are used to the KJV, don't change unless you want to, and I completely support that version. I just get frustrated and angry at those who force it down someone's throat, since it happened to me.

Pray for me that my anger be subsided and I forgive those who have done this to me. God bless
 
needtotalk,

I know from your new member post, you have been going through a lot through much of your life. There's no need to beat yourself up further to the point of compounding your guilt. If someone objects to your thought, maybe give pause and go to the Lord in prayer about it. The Holy Spirit will uplift you, not give you guilt. Conviction that He gives is not the same as guilt. That suppressing feeling is from the forces that oppose Him.

Take heart :)

I've been very active on these boards since joining, because it has forced me to think through some things I've taken for granted. Opposing POV's have sometimes strengthened my resolve on what I believe to be True. But I've learned a lot here too. In 20 years of my life as a fervent Christian, I've never been part of a forum like this. As much as I love to discuss my First Love, I can't imagine why it took me so long to seek out such a place to do what I love to do most. This site has opened my eyes to doctrines I actually didn't even know those in the Body of Christ held. This board has forced me into the Word even more than I was to weigh other POV's, and that is one of the best outcomes of engaging here, for me anyway. In my introduction, I said I wanted to be challenged in my faith in order to strengthen it. And challenged I have been.

Take what you read here, and try not to take it personally. What we know of you is only a limited insight into who you are. Your contribution is no less or more important than that of anyone else. JamesG has a lot of knowledge of the history of versions of the Bible. Take what he said, pray on it and give it thought. I don't believe he meant to further the guilt you have. We're all on a journey. No one here has arrived.

Since you made your introduction, you've been on my prayer list and will continue to be.

Be blessed,
Mike
 
Personally I've never met or heard of anyone who worships any translation of the Received and the Masoretic manuscripts. No one that I have ever heard of worships those texts or any translation of them. Whether it be into Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, etc. I've certainly heard many people that are ignorant and that fancy themselves to be judges make these claims. This thing has been said against me many times, and every time it's been said I feel ill. It's such ignorance that it's absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could say such a blind thing. To make judgments that are that far out there I'd have to be blind and dead myself. But that's just me.
 
needtotalk said:
We all know there's a big division among those who hold that one version, particularly the KJV, is the only valid biblical source. Then there are others who personally have a better understanding of God's Word reading some of the different versions available.

The KJV stands for King James Version, implying it too, is a version of the eternal word of God. It explains about a Savior in God who longs to see His creation reconciled to Himself.

That message is what is important, and that God of the bible is who we worship. But that message and the revelation of God can be written in many "versions". In fact, to hold on to one translation, and preach that is the only valid version is missing a huge intention of God's voice speaking to us. God has an eternal life outside of the written Word; before time existed, God was; there was no written Word yet. The Word existed in: Jesus Christ, God's only Son, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

It could almost be considered idolatry in the sense that the version we force others on is more important than the Word or message of salvation itself, and more important than the God we worship. Further, to discourage those who use different versions is discouraging a version or understanding of the Holy Word of God.

The Holy Spirit has enlightened many a believer using different versions. I personally find ease in understanding the entirety of the Word in the NASB. We have freedom in Christ to read what ever version of the Holy Bible we choose. If it's not pure or tainted, the Holy Spirit would have convinced me by now. What other versions do you read and how do you feel about this?
Click to expand...

Hi

I like the NASB, as well as my KJV, but I abhore the NIV because of the blantant changes they make to make a verse say what they want it to say. They actually move words within a comment. Thats right, I said that they move words , in order that a statement or phrase reads differently. I despise the NIV for their practice of deceit.

Check out against the NASB and the KJV , and the NIV version - Romans 9:5

Life is a challenge, and we have an adversary of God, and he will try by any means to deceive. Translations can be deceiving if you believe the exact way in which a translation translates.

Here is one other example, and this time, it is against the KJV , even though it is my bible translation of choice, along with the NASB. The Word tells us, that God does not "tempt" anyone, but he does try us. When God tries us, he is putting us to a test. Not to tempt us into a false way of thinking. But to see if we past the test of faith. Of course , God has foreknowledge, so the test has already been predeterminded, before God tries/tests you.

Here in Genesis 22:1 - "And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham"

The Hebrew word is "nasah" , which means to try or prove. So you can see how easily it would be for the average reader, to read into something that is not true, because of their bible translation.
 
ronniechoate34 said:
Personally I've never met or heard of anyone who worships any translation of the Received and the Masoretic manuscripts. No one that I have ever heard of worships those texts or any translation of them. Whether it be into Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, etc. I've certainly heard many people that are ignorant and that fancy themselves to be judges make these claims. This thing has been said against me many times, and every time it's been said I feel ill. It's such ignorance that it's absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could say such a blind thing. To make judgments that are that far out there I'd have to be blind and dead myself. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen people prouder of their church building than their salvation thru Christ? I have, I'm pretty sure. I guess I'm just trying to explain how when a group of people rant and rave how one translation is the only way, instead of ranting and raving about Jesus Christ.

The verse that came to mind is John 5:39,40.

Also, I'm not judging anybody. I have found many people judging me, though by pushing ideas similar to the scripture just mentioned.

Sorry if I offended you, I'm just trying to get a grasp on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top