Kids bringing various Bible versions

[John81]

My Pastor has a saying. He says he knows the KJV is God's word because man wouldn't write a book that can cut us the way it does. That cuttin is what they are trying to do away with.

Great point! The KJB truly does cut sharper than any two-edged sword while so many of the MVs are more like striking with a butter knife.

[dantheman2]

I have a question. Not to start an argument, but what did man do prior to the KJV?

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

I have a question. Not to start an argument, but what did man do prior to the KJV?

Depends on their language. For English there was the Geneva Bible that is based off the same manuscripts as the KJV. Most new translations (NIV, ESV, NASB and etc) use a different family of manuscripts. These manuscripts state the woman caught in adultery shouldn't be in the Bible. Most leave it in because of the uproar it would cause to take it out. They often will put in a footnote though to discredit the story. Also other important passages are changed or removed all together.

[John81]

The Geneva Bible was not widely available or accepted. The Geneva Bible was viewed as a "Calvinist Bible" because the notes contained in the Geneva Bible were written by Calvinists.

When reading of the many early preachers, they mostly read and studied from the Greek and Hebrew, preparing their sermons from such. The KJB was the first widely available and accepted Bible in English. Previous versions were generally not available to many people, and most especially not to the common, or average people.

[JerryNumbers]

I have a question. Not to start an argument, but what did man do prior to the KJV?

That is actually not for you nor I to worry about, our job is laid out very clear.

[dantheman2]

That is actually not for you nor I to worry about, our job is laid out very clear.

Why is it not for me or you to worry about? If I say that the KJV is the only Bible and I say that I don't need the Greek or Hebrew then I must wander what of those who did not have the KJV.

Anyway, as I said, I am not trying to start any arguments. I personally use the KJV and have no issue over anyone using it.

[JerryNumbers]

That time has been and is now past, the job that God has for todays Christians is forward of us, not behind us. We do well to live our life for the glory of the Lord one day at a time, while using the Bible that He has seen fit to provided us with.

[dantheman2]

That time has been and is now past, the job that God has for todays Christians is forward of us, not behind us. We do well to live our life for the glory of the Lord one day at a time, while using the Bible that He has seen fit to provided us with.

Thanks for your thoughts Jerry. I will refrain from contniuing the discussion.

[John81]

I can see the point Jerry is trying to make. Prior to the KJB, preachers and such learned Greek, Hebrew, and often other languages, and they studied from what was available to them. Once the KJB became widely available such practices were no longer needed. Today we no longer have to concern ourselves about such matters because we are blessed with the KJB.

There is nothing wrong with knowing what was done in the past, but we don't need to worry about such. Now is the time to press on to the high calling of Christ.

[BlessedChristianlady8]

The Bibles prior to the King James Bible was rolled into one because before the King James Bible the Bibles were scattered.
Not to open a can of worms here but our language is evolving yearly and that is why there are modern translations some are worse then others. However,its best that you use the Bible that your church uses and majority of the churches we got too uses the King James.

[John81]

The Bibles prior to the King James Bible was rolled into one because before the King James Bible the Bibles were scattered.
Not to open a can of worms here but our language is evolving yearly and that is why there are modern translations some are worse then others. However,its best that you use the Bible that your church uses and majority of the churches we got too uses the King James.

"Rolled into one" What does that mean?

Actually, if you check the history regarding modern translations you will find their main purpose was not to update the language, but to change the Bible itself. Most specifically choose to use corrupt manuscripts (some of which were found in the garbage!) rather than the proven manuscripts used to bring about the KJB. If one takes the time to research who brought about the modern versions it's quickly apparent that many on the translation teams were either not true Christians or were very worldly in their Christianity and this is reflected in their choice of wording and interpretation.

If a "true to the Word" translation in modern English were really what those modern "translators" were interested in, they could simply take the KJB, update the words they think need updating, and make no other changes. They don't do that because they are more interested in changing the Word, promoting their liberal views, and in many cases, making money.

[anime4christ]

"Rolled into one" What does that mean?

Actually, if you check the history regarding modern translations you will find their main purpose was not to update the language, but to change the Bible itself. Most specifically choose to use corrupt manuscripts (some of which were found in the garbage!) rather than the proven manuscripts used to bring about the KJB. If one takes the time to research who brought about the modern versions it's quickly apparent that many on the translation teams were either not true Christians or were very worldly in their Christianity and this is reflected in their choice of wording and interpretation.

If a "true to the Word" translation in modern English were really what those modern "translators" were interested in, they could simply take the KJB, update the words they think need updating, and make no other changes. They don't do that because they are more interested in changing the Word, promoting their liberal views, and in many cases, making money.

Ray Comfort has done this with the "Comfortable" King James Evidence Bible. I have seen some IFB reviews that didn't like the commentaries in his Evidence Bible, but nobody complained about any meaning changed in it except for one verse, and the claim about the meaning being changed in that verse was rather ridiculous. So, why do IFBs often claim that they would gladly embrace a new version that was faithful, and yet turn around and find something to nitpick about when this does come true? Of course, IFBs will say that it didn't come true and that updating the King James means changing something that is perfect. But if it's true that updating the King James is changing something perfect, that means that no update will be perfect and therefore IFBs will not accept a new version even if it were faithful to the King James Bible in meaning. So, my point is that this is double talk.

[John81]

Ray Comfort has done this with the "Comfortable" King James Evidence Bible. I have seen some IFB reviews that didn't like the commentaries in his Evidence Bible, but nobody complained about any meaning changed in it except for one verse, and the claim about the meaning being changed in that verse was rather ridiculous. So, why do IFBs often claim that they would gladly embrace a new version that was faithful, and yet turn around and find something to nitpick about when this does come true? Of course, IFBs will say that it didn't come true and that updating the King James means changing something that is perfect. But if it's true that updating the King James is changing something perfect, that means that no update will be perfect and therefore IFBs will not accept a new version even if it were faithful to the King James Bible in meaning. So, my point is that this is double talk.

First of all, you are lumping all IFBs into one agreeing group, which isn't the case.

I've read some of the Comfortable KJB and found no changes, only an updating of some of the words. I've not read the entire Comfortable KJB and have not yet read a review of anyone who has. As I said, in what I did read, I found no problems with what was put forth. That said, I pesonally don't care for the way it reads, but that's a personal preference.

With regards to the notes, that's a valid argument. Even a KJB filled with questionable notes isn't as good as a regular KJB and not something most would recommend or pass on to others. This was one of the big arguments against the Geneva Bible, the fact it was filled with notes many disagreed with.

If the Comfortable KJB is a solid updating of the KJB (or if another were to come about), that doesn't mean that all IFBs (or anyone else) would automatically drop their KJB for them. Some, like myself, may yet prefer the KJB as is; while others may really like the updated version. Just because many IFBs say they would not be against an updated KJB doesn't mean they would want to switch which Bible they personally use or that they would endorse an updated KJB that has notes they disagree with.

[anime4christ]

OK, makes sense.

[dantheman2]

There are many versions available (ASV 1901, NASV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, LIving, which is not a translation but a paraphrase, etc.). I am curious, which non-KJV bibles would you consider worse and which would you consider better?

Edited June 3, 2011 by dantheman2