by 
There are two different errors Scott Buchanan highlights in his article Indifferentism vs. Everythingism: Stay in the Middle of the Road, but that’s not what makes his article interesting.
First, let’s get some definitions out of the way:
- Indifferentism is the error of accepting the gospel but refusing to acknowledge the doctrines of the gospel as “unbreachable boundaries for Christian faith and fellowship.”
- Everythingism is the error of holding all doctrines on the same level as the gospel, making every belief a boundary for faith and fellowship.
The problem here is that both are wrong Scripturally. The one is wrong because there are doctrines that go along with salvation that must be maintained. The other is wrong because not every doctrine is of the same weight as salvation or necessary for salvation.
Fundamentalists have the problem of allowing for the second, Evangelicals have the problem with being permissive about the first. But both are wrong, as illustrated by the end of his article:
One time when discussing separation with a friend, I mentioned that I considered strong KJV-only-ism as serious an error as new-evangelicalism. The friend, who came from conservative circles, looked at me with a shocked expression: surely I was crazy to imply that somebody with an ostensibly “higher standard” of practice was as wrong as a “compromising” new-evangelical.
Interesting stuff, is it not? How often do we allow someone to slide by because of a higher standard that they’ve linked to salvation (there’s nothing wrong with a high standard when you are not judging another, especially with an extra biblical issue) and take to task the evangelical?
Very interesting stuff. I guess with the one you’re not concerned about their salvation, so you let it slide. Wonder if the “emergent church Christian” would fall under the umbrella of a “compromising” evangelical?
Except that if you look at passages like Romans 14, the man of faith (in that passage at least) is not the one with all the restrictions. The man of faith is actually the one who recognizes that he has more freedom in Christ.
The weaker brother is the one who keeps to a bunch of rules and regulations and so the stronger brother is to pursue peace by not making the weaker brother stumble. Thus, recognizing this, how do we treat someone who is KJV only? By using the KJV just so they won’t stumble? By using the KJV to show freedom in Christ?
The first passage dealing with this wraps up with this, which basically is the “middle of the road” I imagine the article you reference is trying to get at: “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God … each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
So all that to say, I haven’t brought any profound answer to the table except to show, somewhat hilariously, that the one who has the stricter guidelines may actually be the weaker brother. Vewy Intewesting. 🙂
Jess
Here’s my problem– if a person comes up to me and says “In order to be saved you have to believe that the King James Version is the only inspired English translation!” what should my response be?
The “clever” guy in me might ask “which version? 1611? The adulterous version?”
The serious believer in me would respond that I’m not to add to or take away from salvation. It would me like me saying that everyone must send me $5 and believe on Jesus and go to Heaven. Hopefully you’d tell everyone that I was speaking lies and that I was preaching apostasy.
I totally agree with you, Jess, if a person believes that KJV is the best translation, or is the one that a person should read, or believes that it’s the least flawed. I read KJV myself. But once they cross the line into saying it’s necessary for salvation then I have to say they’re in sin.
Otherwise, your comment about weaker/stronger brother comes into play. And you’re right. The one with the stricter guidelines can often be the one that’s the weaker brother– look at the passage and see how the weaker brothers were refraining from eating meat and still respecting holy days. And yet, at the same time, a stronger brother might refrain from doing something that he has liberty to do because it (a) might cause a brother to sin or (b) might be a cause for temptation for him to sin.
It all goes back to what edifies the body and what is sin and what is liberty.
What a great God we serve!
You know, you just helped me put a label on what it is that I’ve been trying to shed.
Everythingism.
I still don’t know how to get rid of 20 years of everythingism, but putting a label on it helps.
They say that being able to identify the problem is the first step. Glad I could help.
I have had many discussions regarding the KJV and I truly believe that it is the only bible, however, a bible cannot bring you salvation. If that were so, Satan would be saved, since he knows the bible better than anyone on this planet.
I have done a lot and I mean a lot of research on the KJV and the “other” versions and there is no comparison.
I have no problem with you saying that you believe the KJV is the best English translation around. I would have a problem if you said that it was inspired or that it “is the only inspired modern translation” because I believe that inspiration was only for the autographs– the originals. English cannot begin to contain the nuances and beauty of Hebrew poetry nor can it do justice to the gender references on words in Hebrew and Greek.
The KJV cannot be the only Bible, because what about the people in foreign lands that have the Bible translated into their language? Must we teach them older English in order for them to have the truth?
And a belief that the KJV is the only Bible cannot be necessary for salvation– because it’s not in the text, which is the point. Salvation cannot come by any other means than what the Bible says it to be. Once you start adding to it (you need to wear red shirts on Friday remembering His blood shed on the cross in order to be saved) you’re in sin.
Ooops! Let me clarify.
On July 22, 1604, King James of England announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version. These men were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford, and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language.
I just meant that the new “modern day” English versions have too many deletions and have perverted and twisted the KJV. The NIV, and I will get the exact verse, left out the Blood of Jesus, when speaking about salvation.
If other countries stick with the original text and translate as it should be, then there is not a problem.
Also, did you know that KJV is the only bible that is not copyrighted?
I’m not really going to wade into the argument as to which translation is the best. I know that there are things that are missing from some, and really, without the true background to be able to read Greek or Hebrew I’m stuck relying on other people’s research. One archaeologist that came to a church seminar that I went to said that the best Bible to read is the one that you own, and I think there’s a lot of truth there.
For example, how do I know that a “deletion” between KJV and NIV is really a deletion from the originals or is it something that was never there and added into the KJV? I am pretty upset with the “one and only son” in the NIV for John 3:16 because I think “only begotten is more accurate” since we are all sons and daughters after salvation.
I did know that about the KJV, thanks!
Unfortunately, MIn, I do tend to argue that KJV is the best bible, because it was the first one to be translated. The NIV was not written until the Mid, 1880’s and of course the newer books, that seem to add more and more dialogue.
What I don’t comprehend is why everyone feels it’s okay to rewrite and reword the KVJ? We don’t see NIV Macbeth, or Ampliefied Moby Dick, yet the bible seems to be a free for all.
Anyhoo, sorry I responded so late on this.
Unfortunately, Leticia, the KJV from 1611 and the KJV now are two totally different books. I know that there are some churches that say 1611 only, but even then they must be translating it, since the 1611 version (that one that was first written) reads more like Chaucer (which is you’ve seen the original like I did in high school, it’s not impossible to read but very difficult). The other problem with the English in the current KJV (middle English) is that we don’t use words the same way as they did when they updated to the current version. For example, in the KJV conversation is your daily life and in today’s English it’s communication. IT’s one thing to have people growing up taught how to read KJV, it’s another thing to ask someone who’s never read it to get something out of a book where the words have different meanings. I’ve briefly looked over this site about the history of the KJV and it seems to be pretty fair.
NIV, totally different subject. It has different source texts– younger ones, but more of them so it is a new translation from the original texts. It was designed to be accessible for those for which English was a second language. The Amplified is a paraphrase– trying to give some clarity by adding more words, since English and Hebrew/Greek have such a gap between then.
Why do people change the Bible and not famous plays (if it hasn’t been done)? Because people aren’t expected to follow the commands of famous plays. We aren’t expected to learn about God from them, and one of the most empowering moments for the people in the Middle Ages was getting a Bible in their hands that they could understand– instead of it always being in Latin and only the priest knowing what it said. Once they could get the Bible in English, in German, and all the other languages and it was accessible to them, they could read and study about God themselves. In essence, bringing the Bible up to date in words empowers our current and next generations to do the same thing.
I personally use KJV, but my wife uses NKJV and that is what our pastor uses preaching from the pulpit. We do have an NIV and CEV around, but they’re not used regularly.
I am not sure what happened to your response that you gave to me on my e-mail.
The thing is why do we need to “update” the KJV? It is in simplest terms. It is rather sad then when we are asked to recite the “Lord’s Prayer” everyone has a different version of it. Not to mention Psalm 23! The changes are way too drastic and it has caused confusion.
The Greek and Hebrew scholars that were appointed to translate the bible into English, prayed day and night over their work. It is the closest translation to the original text, so why change it?
I don’t mean to be argumentative, but it just seems so wrong to make these other “versions” in such simple and erroneous terms.
The comments on this blog are paged– so the odds are you were on the first page of comments and the one that I replied to you with (your e-mail) was probably on the second.
We need to update the KJV for a number of reasons:
1. English spellings change over time. Check out this illustration of changes from the KJV of 1611 to today. In 2 Samuel 12:20-31 there have been 41 changes between the 1611 and today. Words aren’t spelled the same way, punctuation changed, etc.
2. English meanings change over time. I mentioned previously the difference between “conversation” now and then. What’s a winefat? How often do we use the word “beseech”? How about Ague? How accessible is the Word of God if someone can’t pick it up and know what’s being said? I understand that they can get a concordance, a commentary, or a Bible dictionary (I actually have a Life Application KJV that defines some of the harder words) in order to actually be able to understand things?
It’s not the simplest terms if I have to explain what passages mean to adults because of poor word choice.
How do you know it’s the closest to the original? According to people that I’ve talked with and listened to, the version to check against if you want a true readable literal translation is the NASB. However, there is also the literal Bible out there (since the KJV also includes italicized or bracketed words added by the translator to help you understand what it says).
The question comes back to the question of this post– if I add the qualifying factor that you have to believe the KJV 1611 or otherwise to salvation or to being a good Christian, then I’m adding to the Scripture and I’m in violation of it. It clearly says, add nothing to and take away nothing from. If I think it’s a better version, than follow it. I’m certainly aware of the NIV’s flaws, and I tend to shy away from using it. But what is the problem– from the perspective of the originals– of the NKJV?
Good debate– interesting topic, I don’t feel you’re being argumentative– just that you strongly believe what you believe, and that’s not wrong!
Why don’t people reword Shakespeare? Well, actually they do… goto a bookstore. But more seriously, the reason the Bible is so often re-worded is because it’s more imortant for someone to understand the Bible than Shakespeare. And it’s more important for EVERYONE to understand the Bible than Shakespeare. Therefore, Christians have taken it upon themselves to see to it that an understandable version of the Bible be available to the public.
I think the KJV is a very good translation. However, I can’t agree that it’s the ‘best’, as arbirtary and subjective as that title may be. For one thing, I defy you to have a solid understanding of the language it is written in. The subtlties and symantic range of Elizabethan English are nearly as foreign to modern English as ancient Greek.
Funny thing about the French language, the French people would have you believe it is the language of love! It is not. Neither is the KJV the only English translation in the public domain. http://www.christnotes.org/help.php?topic=BibleVersions
While the NIV has some questionable transtions, the KJV does as well. I can think of two examples that are classically misused to justify laws, rules and regulations that God never intended for His people. “Be angry, but do not sin.” and “Avoid all appearance of evil.” Depending on which KJV you’re reading, these might not be accurate quotes. The first verse I quoted, if read in a modern English context, commands us to be angry. The second, if read in a modern English context, commands us to avoid allowing others to see us doing anything they might misconstrew (sp?) as evil or sinful.
The first one is obvious, but for the second, let me just remind everyone that Jesus Himself engaged in activities that the religious leaders of the day saw as ‘evil’ therefore, if the passage to avoid all appearance of evil meant what I suggested above, Jesus would have failed the test.
Actually, the passage means that one should avoid, or dis-engage from, any evil, should it appear or show itself. It’s simply a reiteration of the commands to be set apart from the world, and the commands to refrain from acts of wickedness.
As for accuracy, the NASB isn’t too bad. It nearly reads like the KJV except that it’s modern English. Again, it’s not my intention to say that the KJV should not be read. It’s fine if the KJV is what one is comfortable with. I hold the KJV in high regard as translations go, but is it the best? I doubt that God sees things in those terms at all. Is it the ONLY version? Absolutely not! Is it the only ‘inspired’ English translation? No, and if you think it is, it just goes to show that you haven’t read nor understood it to begin with, because to think so is contrary to the content of the text.
But there’s something more important, I think, that was touched on in the original post.
MInTheGap Writes:
How often do we allow someone to slide by because of a higher standard that they’ve linked to salvation (there’s nothing wrong with a high standard when you are not judging another, especially with an extra biblical issue) and take to task the evangelical?
What is the highest standard? Who defines that standard? How is that standard conveyed to us?
Is it not God who defines the highest standard? And doesn’t He reveal it to us through the scripture? And isn’t that scripture clear that the standard of Christ is actually higher than the standards of tradition? In fact, the standard of Christ is above the standard of even the Law. Moses never wrote that one must never harbor feelings of anger or resentment toward one’s brother. But Jesus did. Moses allowed for divorce. But Jesus did not. Remember, however, that with Christ comes Grace and with Grace comes liberty.
God’s standard is that we never harbor anger against another. His perfect will for us is that we never lust after a woman who is not our wife. His standard is that we Love Him with all our hearts! If anyone can claim they live up to these standards, it is Christ alone! But it is because of Christ that we do not have to live up to these standards. Not that we should look upon this freedom as a reason to go on sinning, but when we do sin we are covered by the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore, remember that the highest standard is not in the length of your skirt, or that length would have been written. Neither is the highest standard in the version of your Bible, or that version would be named. Neither does it lie in what position you take when you speak to God, afterall, we are called to pray without ceasing. But the standard of Christ is that each of us deny ourselves, lay down our lives, take up our cross and follow Christ in Agape’ Love.
If someone believes that the KJV is the ONLY version, I would seek to correct them, but if they failed to take that correction I would not press the issue. However if I saw a brother preaching a KJV-only gospel, I would certainly press the issue. Doctrinal differences are one thing, but preaching a false gospel to the unsaved is high treason. I have some experience with this (all too much). Perhaps one day I’ll write a post on my blog about it.
Leticia,
Arguing that the KJV is best because it was “first” is a rather poor argument.
Were the first hypodermic needles best because they were first? (Of course not)
Was George Washington the best President because he was first? (Not necessarily- it’s subjective)
Was your first draft of your first research paper in college the best one you wrote? (Probably not)
The fact that is was done first makes no difference. There are many languages all over the world that have multiple translations, and rightly so. Language in certain parts of China, for example, have a completely different dialect and different word meanings than in other parts. And the same is true in the English world. Word meanings change over time, and English is certainly a living language that has changed drastically even in the last century, much less in the last 4 centuries.
The fact is, vocabulary has changed since the KJV was in use. In some instances, someone could get an entirely wrong understanding of a passage or verse because of how drastically the language has changed. In other instances, the true meaning is obscure and difficult to ascertain, even among mature Christians, because you are literally TRANSLATING a translation.
If you look at Christ’s method of teaching the masses and crowds that He taught during His earthly ministry, He used everyday words and everyday examples so that His message would be understood. It would be foolish to limit Him to an easily-misunderstood translation in His Kingdom-building on earth now. God is not held captive by something 400 years old. He is able to use His Word, because it is alive, powerful, active and sharper than a two-edged sword. And He is able to use and DOES use other English translations (which is what the KJV is– merely one among MANY translations) in other people’s hearts everyday.
If you want to use KJV for your personal study and reading, that is fine, but it is foolish and legalistic and, yes, even sinful to force a personal conviction such as this on others, particularly when it could drive them from the very word of God altogether.
Jess
Oh gosh! I did not mean to stir up such a heated argument, that was not my intention.
Arthur and Jess, Shakespeare’s books have the original text on the left-side and the translation on the right. I have not found a book that has it all in modern English. I wanted to clarify that. If I am mistaken, please let me know. So, why not do the same with the KJV? Why make up an entirely new bible? And why are we seeing so many of them popping up? Joyce Meyer actually has her own bible out in amplified form with her notations etc.
As you recall I mentioned that King James appointed Hebrew and Greek scholars (who were belivers) to write the authorized version. And this bible to this day is the only bible in circulation that is not copywrited. That says a lot to me. I agree that there are some changes but not errors that KJV should have, that is vast difference.
Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, “In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:”
The NIV reads, “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words “THROUGH HIS BLOOD” out.
One more.
In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!…”
The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, “How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn…” The new versions change “Lucifer” to “morning star.” According to Revelation 22:16, the “morning star” is the Lord Jesus Christ.
THE MESSAGE: 12What a comedown this, O Babylon!
Daystar! Son of Dawn!
Flat on your face in the underworld mud,
you, famous for flattening nations!
I have many more examples, and this is why I have chosen the KJV as my favorite and I consider the best.
Well Leticia, why not have an interlinear translation? They exist. I have a Greek interlinear and my friend has a Hebrew interlinear. Why not a KJV interlinear? Goodness, will you just get off the KJV already? It’s no more the word of God than the NIV or the NASB! If you want to split hairs about original versions, then study Greek and Hebrew. Your questions seem to suggest that the KJV is somehow more sanctified by God than the NIV or (and this is a stretch) the GNT or NLT
Leticia Writes:
As you recall I mentioned that King James appointed Hebrew and Greek scholars (who were belivers) to write the authorized version. And this bible to this day is the only bible in circulation that is not copywrited.
Please Leticia, visit this link and see what it says about what versions are copywrited.
http://www.christnotes.org/help.php?topic=BibleVersions
And for the record, the KJV is not copywrited simply because it is older than copywrite law, not because it’s writers, having the option to copywrite their work, chose to make it public domain to uphold an ethical standard.
Leticia Writes:
In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!…”
The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, “How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn…” The new versions change “Lucifer” to “morning star.” According to Revelation 22:16, the “morning star” is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Please, I invite you to look to the roots of the name, ‘lucifer’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Also, it’s 1966 in the Strong’s Concordance. Check it in the Hebrew… morning star is actually a more accurate translation than ‘lucifer’.
Furthermore, you suggest that the new verisons change ‘lucifer’ to ‘morning star’ they do not change ‘lucifer’ at all, in fact, they take the original Hebrew word, which I will transliterate to “haylale” and they translate it to mean ‘morning star’ which is accurate according to Strong’s, though I admit I haven’t done a great deal of study into that word. Now, the greek word translated ‘morning star’ in Revelation 22:16, which I emphasize is Greek and not Hebrew (two languages which are VASTLY different from each other,) is 3720 in Strong’s, and has more reference to Venus, and being bright in the morning sky, than it does specifically to the ‘morning star’. But the important thing to understand here is that ‘morning star’ is not specifically a holy title, but is more of a descriptive name.
And I’m sorry, is it just me or did you just imply that Satan himself spawned/authored the ‘new verisons?’ You sound too much like the catholic church, clinging to the latin volgate. How dare you? Do you even know what you are saying? I myself found Christ, in part by the testimony of the NIV. Jesus Himself said, “Any house divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or houseld divided against itself will not stand. If satan drives out satan, he is divided against himself. How can this kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Holy Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Therefore, if the NIV is the work of satan, it is not the work of God and no good can come of it. So was I saved by the testimony of satan or by the testimony of God? Many come to Christ by the NIV because it is not the translation itself but the Word of God it translates that bears witness to His power.
Bring your numerous examples, it will be a trifle that Truth be revealed. If anyone has a leg to stand on, speaking of translations, it is the autographs, not the KJV.
What Isaiah is referring to by calling satan the morning star or the son of the morning, or lucifer, is not a proper name as we understand in modern English, but he is referring to lucifer’s former glory as the chief angel in the Kingdom of God before his fall from grace. Lucifer was the angel of light and he was the most high angel… this is, of course, foundational to our understanding of sin at large. Lucifer was so magnificent that he thought he could be the Most High. But only God is the Most High. Therefore, lucifer made himself an enemy of God and took as many angels with him as he could. Now he spends his days roaming the earth seeking humans he may devour, or convince that his own ways are better than those of he Most High God.
As for your reference in Colossians? Let’s goto the original text. I can’t write Greek characters, as far as I know, within this text editor. But my interlinear, translating word for word, reads “in whom (we have) the redemption the forgiveness (of the) sins” The parenthesis are mine, they connotate that two English words are used to translate one Greek word. There is nothing that remotely speaks of “through His blood” in the original Greek transcripts. So… maybe you should examine your prescious KJV a little more closely. You are obviously starting with the prejudice that the KJV is the best and most accurate translation available. Your arguments always assume that the KJV is right and that the newer translations are adulterating it. However, in the two examples you cited, it is clear that the KJV is less accurate than the NIV!
Look, I don’t know who is teaching you this slop, but you better stop listening to what they say and start listening to the Holy Spirit. It’s obvious to anyone who uses their mind that to believe that the KJV is the only version is not an idea that comes from God, but an idea that comes from man. So I suggest that you seriously consider where your ideas about the KJV actually come from. Isn’t it true that you attend a KJV only church? Isn’t it true that all your understanding of why the KJV is better than the new translations is founded on what people have told you and not on what you have actually researched?
I don’t want to berate you so much, but you leave me with no choice. There is no way to tell you the objective Truth and still maintain a polite front. To maintain such a polite aire I would have to compromise intellectual and spiritual Truth.
ohh wow.. I wrote a reply for the last hour an a half and lost the whole thing….
No, Arthur, your post is still there (did the “this comment is in moderation” box not appear?). It just so happens that the current settings on this blog throw any comment that has a certain number of links into moderation so that I can judge whether it’s spam. I need to update this number, and will do so write after I finish writing this comment.
Thats ok MIn, I just got a little nervous… I was just checking in this morning to re-write some of the things I thought had been lost.
Arthur, you know what? I am tired of this argument and I did not come at you with “berating” words.
I will say this thing and I am done. I am a Christian and I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. And I do have the Holy Ghost as my constant companion and guide.
I may have come on too strong in my convictions over the KJV, but I am entitled to my opinion. And if I see or read any discrepancies or errors in the other versions, I will speak up. Only through the blood can our sins be forgiven, if a new believer reads a bible that leaves out the Blood of Jesus, how are they supposed to know?
Furthermore, my church is not just a KJV church, my pastor reads from the Amplified and NKJV and other versions.
I grew up with this version, I trust this version and I do not have any problems understanding it.
Regardless what I say about what I have found in comparison to other versions. You have already concluded that I am not following the Holy Ghost etc. And I am not going to defend my faith or my relationship with my Savior.
Leticia, I owe you an apology. I am sincerely sorry for the tone in my previous post. I certainly came at you out of the flesh. I hope you can forgive me. It is not my place to judge another man’s servant. Sometimes I get over-zealous about my convictions.
I’m glad to hear that you are breaking my stereotype of KJV only churches. I guess it was foolish of me to assume your ideas about the KJV came from someone else.
I think the reason I was so upset is because you wrote:
“I have had many discussions regarding the KJV and I truly believe that it is the only bible,”
This suggests that the version I grew up on and am most comfortable, and ‘love’ is less than the KJV. I think we can relate on that because obviously you feel like your beloved version which you were raised on is under attack. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to attack you or the version you choose. The KJV is an awesome version, and considering it’s age, it’s pretty amazing how accurate it is.
However, Leticia, I think I objectively disprooved your arguments for the KJV’s accuracy. I’m not trying to say that it’s totally inaccurate, but I really think you should consider whether a more moderate stance is appropriate here. Is the KJV the ‘only bible?’ or is it only one of the numerous valid translations, in contrast to some which are largely questionable?
Also, you wrote:
“I may have come on too strong in my convictions over the KJV, but I am entitled to my opinion.”
Leticia, if I were to challenge the validity of this precept, would I be too harsh? Please, look past my poor attitude and seek the Truth if it may be found. And I don’t say this to say that you in particular do not have the Truth. You profess the Lord Jesus Christ, so I take you at your word. But look at the statement quoted, are we really entitled to our opinions? Perhaps to an extent we must allow for differing convictions and trust in the Holy Ghost to correct any misconceptions, but think about this moral, ponder it deeply, see if it is a virtue from God or not. I don’t challenge you on this issue because it is pertinent to the validity of the KJV or the supremacy of the KJV, but I challenge you on this issue because I see these phrases, this one especially, passed around in the Church very often, as though we never think about the implications of our beliefs.
Arthur, apology accepted.
I guess I need to clarify when I said I was “entitled to my own opinion.” I basically meant that my “opinion” is to choose the KJV. I should not have worded as such. As I read that, it did sound a bit harsh. My apologies.
And I need to share something with you. I called my and this subject came up and she basically told me that I was wrong in putting down other version and it was not place to judge them. “OUCH!”
So, how about, the KJV is the only bible for me. Believe it or not the Holy Ghost was nudging me on that. hee. I am receptive to my Father’s wishes, but being only human, I do fall short, as do we all.
I do tend too come on strong when it comes to the KJV, but so many people attack it and it bothers me. However, wasn’t I doing the same thing? Yep.
God bless you friend and thank you for your kind words.
Leticia, I appreciate your concession but I would still highly recommend that you give other versions a chance.
I used to be majorly anti-NLT because it’s so paraphrased. But sometimes when I’m discussing a finer point of scripture with someone the NLT parahrases a verse the way the Spirit had been leading me to understand it. Sometimes there are subtleties in language that if we’re not very careful and discerning can lead us to misinterpret the Word of God. Sometimes looking at what more than one translation has to say can help that. That’s not to suggest that ‘all translations are equal’ or anything like that… I would NOT use NLT as my final authoritative version, but there are probably more than just one version that is useful.
Anyway, that’s just for you to consider personally, I don’t want to shove it down your throat. God bless.
I think you make some good points here, Arthur. We should use every means available to make sure we understand exactly what is being said in Scripture.