Adama wrote:
As for the Christians before 1611, as you know, before the Protestant Reformation and the rest, Bibles were not always allowed to be possessed by commoners. The religious leaders of that time didn't want people teaching their children the Bible. They wanted them learning what they wanted them to learn, and to be deceived.
So in English, they came up with different translations of the Bible. And in King James' time, they had a pretty decent translation called the Geneva Bible, but it came with notes that King James did not like because it had an anti-monarchial spin in the notes. The Bishop's Bible had some problems, but the less 'Reformed' component in the Anglican church used that. So King James wanted to come up with another translation that could be the official translation that both sides could agree on, and he put together a team of scholars.
I actually like the KJV. I've done most of my memorization out of it. I was a Bible quizzer, and we memorized books of the Bible out of the KJV when I was teen. I do like the rhythm. And overall, I think it is a pretty good translation, though it misses it in points. Calling Passover 'Easter' in as an example. Or taking a word that would elsewhere be translated 'reproach' and translating it as 'cast the same in his teeth'--maybe not a bad translation, but using an idiom that did not endure the test of time. The KJV also uses 'armholes' for 'elbows' in places. That may have been fine in 1611, but it is archaic, along with a lot of the grammar, and difficult for the uninitiated to understand.
I don't know how much of the KJV is lifted word for word from the Geneva Bible translation, but I did get a chance to spend a bit of time with the Geneva Bible in a college library once, and I remember that at least the first part of Matthew 10 is taken word for word from the Geneva Bible. Since it wasn't a legal copyright issue, that is nothing wrong with that. One of the problems we have nowadays with Bible translation is copyright, where new translators may stay away from the best translation of a verse because the best translations have been used. So they use bad grammar or less-than-ideal translation to make their translation copyrightable and non-actionable in court.
The thing that unites Christians of today is their faith in Christ and their belief in the Word of God and that His Word is true. Many "Christians" do not believe the Bible which means they don't really believe (or know) much of what God has said.
The Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew, and a little Aramaic. The idea that the KJV is an inspired was not taught by Jesus or the apostles. There are some Christians that believe that way, bless their hearts. If one of these people on this forum are led to Christ by someone using the NKJV or ESV, for example, and they read that, would you be in favor of their being discipled using the NKJV or ESV?
Also, it's quite interesting that, while this atheist has tried to slander Christianity you remained silent. But praise the Word of God in English, the KJV, and that's when you reply.
I don't join in every conversation here, but I have joined in plenty of them and shared my faith. I am not sure about what conversation you are talking about because I don't read all the threads. You could probably go back in whatever thread your reading and find a post or posts from me. After I've said what I want to say, I often just don't read atheist rants anymore, if the conversation isn't going anywhere. I am very much pro-Word-of-God. Are you in favor of someone hearing the word of God if they are listening to the NKJV? I am not against the KJV. Are you against the word of God when people come into contact with it in other translations?
I live in a country where most people don't speak English. They have their own translations in their own languages. Can they hear and believe the word of God without learning 17th century English?
By the way, I didn't say faith in the KJV saves. Faith in Christ saves. The KJV is what unites many American Christians. Most saved people who've read the different Bibles eventually come to the realization of the superiority of the KJV.
I don't have any statistics, but I would definitely disagree with that. A lot of Christians have moved away from the KVJ to translations written in their own language. If you are sharing your faith out the KJV, you basically have to translation your translation after you've given it. Most people who weren't familiar with the KJV were really confused reading Shakespere in high school and don't understand what the 'eth's mean. You can tell when they try to sound Shakesperean, the put the endings in the wrong place. The ads that use it get it wrong.
Every other Bible is a poor imitation. This is the part that bothers you about it.
That's silly. The KJV lifts portions right out of the Geneva Bible. Is the KJV an immitation, then? Open up to Genesis 1 and see how many verses they copied on the first page and what kind of changes they made.
Some of the early Christians like Greek-speaking Jews at that time believed the LXX translation was inspired. But at least they had a reason for it. There was a tradition than 70 elders working independantly had translated it the same way, the first five books, at least. Is there any reason to think the KJV is an inspired translation? If you take the whole KJV as inspired, you should look at the dedication to the king which indicates that other translations are valuable as well.
KJV onlyism can lead to some weird doctrine, like basing doctrines on the turn of phrase the KJV translators used, or saying Timothy was a bishop rather than an evangelist or apostle type figure, because the tanslators put 'bishop' in the title even though it wasn't in the letter.
I am glad you are zealous for defending the faith and spreading the Gospel. But KJV-onlyism isn't a part of it.
If you want to do PM's, I'd rather have these types of discussions through PMs.
od. That doesn't sound good to me at all. That sounds like a real crime to me.
And MrMan, as much as ConEx has been my adversary according to Christ, have you not also opposed me when I open my mouth for God? Whose side are you on? If you work as an adversary, or if you make accusation and give hassle, whose team are you on? What exactly are you doing if you do these against me for what I say?
And does it occur to you that my understanding might be far deeper than yours, and yet you oppose me while not recognizing the depth of the matter?
And MrMan, as much as ConEx has been my adversary according to Christ, have you not also opposed me when I open my mouth for God? Whose side are you on? If you work as an adversary, or if you make accusation and give hassle, whose team are you on? What exactly are you doing if you do these against me for what I say?
I don't consider you my adversary or opponent. I think you have a lot of really good things to say, and I appreciate your zeal. But you also have a few weird ideas and a tendency at times toward the melodramatic, like here. The KJV-onlyism, for example, can detract from the Gospel. It's okay if some of these people get saved outside of a Independant Baptist church, too, and don't go the KJV-only route.
