Hey all. I have several questions and comments on the KJV Bible and your positions on it. Please don't take these combatively as they are not meant that way. My wifes father is a Bible Missionary preacher and holds to the KJV is the only inspired word of God. My wife does the same. I however do not, and thought this may be a good place to ask some questions and pose some comments. Dad and my wife both do not have answers and merely say "I don't know, this is just what we believe."

So...

1) William Tyndale produced the copy that the KJV of the Bible was created from. And King James basically prosecuted him as a heretic and then "authorized" this version. I have a Tyndale Old and New Testament. What is wrong with these? Also my KJV (I have several) mostly have WT on the pages between the Old and New Testament in "remembrance" of Tyndale.

2) If the KJV of the Bible is the ONLY authorized (what does authorized mean anyway? Didn't God authorize hundreds of men to write his Word?) version of the Bible, how can anyone outside English speaking countries be saved? A German translation will read differently than an English one due to language differences. wouldn't that make it an non-authorized translation?

3) Just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write in different styles and tell the same stories, they are not identicle in content or literary content. They have different perspectives and ways of putting them into words. (Maybe God knows not all people understand the same way?) Why then should we throw out a translation, that is done in good faith, and does not take away from the message of salvation. That is the purpose of Gods Word after all. Right? Personally I have gathered much more insight using several versions of the Bible to get a deeper meaning for what God was actually saying. Should I not use a concordenence, or Josephus, or any of the apologetics to help my understanding? What about commentaries? They aren't scripture.

4) In saying that everyone else's versions are wrong, and only the KJV is the "true inspired Word of God" aren't you just like the saducees and pharisees (sorry I know I spelled them wrong) of old? More caught up in the words, and practice rather than the true spirt of God? (ie.. splitting symantic hairs?)

5) In saying not to change, or add to, or delete from "this book" you do realize that there was no Bible when John wrote Revelations? He was saying not to change the words of his prophecy, not the Bible. The Bible was put together by men, who selected what letters by the apostles should or shouldn't be added along with Old testament scriptures. Indeed they didn't include all of the Old Testament either. The Jewish scriptures contain more books. Why not include those? There are other letters that were written by the apostles that are not included that are just as valid. They just weren't included becasue they didn't add anything to the "message".

6) Didn't Paul (I think it was him) say all scripture is good for reproach and teaching? The NIV, the NASB and KJV all share the same message. Language changes. Look at our society today and tell me the language usage is the same as it was 50 years ago. BUT if you read the NIV do you get the message of salvation? Yes. So why so against saving souls arguing over whse Bible is the best?

Anyway, those are my thoughts and questions. I love the KJV Bible. It is beautifully written. Again, I am not trying to put anyone down, or start any fights, I am merely interested in answers and opinions. I collect Bibles (one could have worse hobbys) and find that there are a lot of good translations, but there are some that are out right wrong. These my friends seem obvious to me. (gender neutral, "gay" bibles etc...)

Thanks, and I look forward to your answers, comments.

[bibleprotector]

The Scripture says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15).

I also believe that we should be wise. That includes answering in the appropriate way.

I have a Tyndale Old and New Testament.

“Thou sayest it”.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The Scripture says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15).

I also believe that we should be wise. That includes answering in the appropriate way.



“Thou sayest it”.

I seem to be studying (the KJV no less) and I have lots of questions. It seems that I either offended you (in which case I sincerely apologize) or make you uneasy in your authority to defend your position as "bibleprotector". In which case I ask why? I am searching for the truth of the matter, and the only way for me to do that is to ask the questions that are really bothering me on this issue. Your post on my other thread would lead me to believe that you either do not care for the salvation of others souls or don't have an answer. Either way I stated from the beginning I am skeptical of ANYONE who thinks they are or have the only way to salvation when Jesus clearly said "I am the way... there is no other way to the Father...".

In my opinion, salvation is not from printed words on paper made by man, but by the Word of God who is Jesus Christ. That my friend is why I am asking how one translation of the same message (whether or not its a whale or fish doesn't really matter when it comes to salvation, does it?). The message isn't about whales, and fish. Its about God and his plan of salvation.

So then my problem is that I think men are knit picking the printed words apart and missing the Word of God in the details. I came here looking for answers and have received some great feedback/comments. And some, not so much.

If you are not helping save souls then you are part of the problem...

[bibleprotector]

It seems to that the questions are insincere, because of the amount of errors in the statements,

e.g.

I have a Tyndale Old and New Testament.

There are six books in the Tyndale Old Testament, and it would be very unusal to have a copy of a Tyndale Bible, because only a few copies are known to exist, other than having a book which prints multiple versions parallel to each other (also unusual).

If these types of things are stated at point 1., how much less should other points be considered to be answered. There are numerous errors in the first numbered paragraph that would need to be resolved before going further.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It seems to that the questions are insincere, because of the amount of errors in the statements,

e.g.



There are six books in the Tyndale Old Testament, and it would be very unusal to have a copy of a Tyndale Bible, because only a few copies are known to exist, other than having a book which prints multiple versions parallel to each other (also unusual).

If these types of things are stated at point 1., how much less should other points be considered to be answered. There are numerous errors in the first numbered paragraph that would need to be resolved before going further.

I *have* copies of the Tyndale Old and New Testaments. If *you* think I am lying, that is your mistake, not mine. Don't judge me based on your opinion without facts. It makes you sound biased and also makes me dicount your opinion on anything to do with this subject.

One is a small book, black hard cover (about 6x8 maybe) and the other is red hard cover that is larger (maybe 10x14). I am trying to go from memory as I am in Chicago and bookshelves are in Missouri.

Also, if I remember right, there is a preface about the life of Tyndale. There is a divider where his finished translation stops. The rest (I believe) is based on his notes and possibly works that he was using to translate. There are also no chapters and verses, only books and it is printed without indentations etc. (ie wall of text)

I will take pictures of them when I get home and link them if you want.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by rbratt

I *have* copies of the Tyndale Old and New Testaments.

Since Tyndale did not translate even a fourth of the Old Testament, you can understand the suspicions about your motives.

Many of your statements are simply incorrect. It is unusual for someone sincerely seeking the truth about Bible versions to start by arguing from several false premises. You have done more than ask questions; you have presented arguments based on false premises. You have also began from a very defensive position (evidenced by expecting people to call you a "devil," etc.), suggesting that you are here to rationalize your beliefs, not to earnestly seek the truth.

You have been given some very good advice on how to approach the matter. I will give mine:

1. Pray for guidance.
2. Get, and read: Crowned With Glory, Which Version is the Bible?

[Josh]

Originally Posted by rbratt

Hey all. I have several questions and comments on the KJV Bible and your positions on it. Please don't take these combatively as they are not meant that way. My wifes father is a Bible Missionary preacher and holds to the KJV is the only inspired word of God. My wife does the same. I however do not, and thought this may be a good place to ask some questions and pose some comments. Dad and my wife both do not have answers and merely say "I don't know, this is just what we believe."

So...

1) William Tyndale produced the copy that the KJV of the Bible was created from. And King James basically prosecuted him as a heretic and then "authorized" this version. I have a Tyndale Old and New Testament. What is wrong with these? Also my KJV (I have several) mostly have WT on the pages between the Old and New Testament in "remembrance" of Tyndale.

Notaclue here.

2) If the KJV of the Bible is the ONLY authorized (what does authorized mean anyway? Didn't God authorize hundreds of men to write his Word?) version of the Bible, how can anyone outside English speaking countries be saved? A German translation will read differently than an English one due to language differences. wouldn't that make it an non-authorized translation?

I would consider it the same if it was translated to read the same as an English KJB.

3) Just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write in different styles and tell the same stories, they are not identicle in content or literary content. They have different perspectives and ways of putting them into words. (Maybe God knows not all people understand the same way?) Why then should we throw out a translation, that is done in good faith, and does not take away from the message of salvation. That is the purpose of Gods Word after all. Right? Personally I have gathered much more insight using several versions of the Bible to get a deeper meaning for what God was actually saying. Should I not use a concordenence, or Josephus, or any of the apologetics to help my understanding? What about commentaries? They aren't scripture.

Because if there are changes, then it's not the word of God, it is just a book that contains God's words along with the words of others.

4) In saying that everyone else's versions are wrong, and only the KJV is the "true inspired Word of God" aren't you just like the saducees and pharisees (sorry I know I spelled them wrong) of old? More caught up in the words, and practice rather than the true spirt of God? (ie.. splitting symantic hairs?)

Not at all. They were caught up in their own righteousness. We are merly interested in reading the pure, perfect word of God.

5) In saying not to change, or add to, or delete from "this book" you do realize that there was no Bible when John wrote Revelations? He was saying not to change the words of his prophecy, not the Bible. The Bible was put together by men, who selected what letters by the apostles should or shouldn't be added along with Old testament scriptures. Indeed they didn't include all of the Old Testament either. The Jewish scriptures contain more books. Why not include those? There are other letters that were written by the apostles that are not included that are just as valid. They just weren't included becasue they didn't add anything to the "message".

I believe God put what He wanted into the Bible, nothing more and nothing less. I trust Him to give me what I need to grow in Him.

6) Didn't Paul (I think it was him) say all scripture is good for reproach and teaching? The NIV, the NASB and KJV all share the same message. Language changes. Look at our society today and tell me the language usage is the same as it was 50 years ago. BUT if you read the NIV do you get the message of salvation? Yes. So why so against saving souls arguing over whse Bible is the best?

This is the problem. Most people believe the lie that they have the same message. They do not. Not by a long shot. Language change is a moot point in this area. Four year olds can learn to read using a King James Bible, it's actually written at a lower grade reading level than all modern versions. The Bible centers around Christ and salvation yes, but that's not it's sole purpose. It is given for us to grow in Chirst and build a personal relationship with Him through His word. If the word you are reading is watered down and errored, so will be your walk with the Lord. This is the big problem with many weak worldly churches today.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and questions. I love the KJV Bible. It is beautifully written. Again, I am not trying to put anyone down, or start any fights, I am merely interested in answers and opinions. I collect Bibles (one could have worse hobbys) and find that there are a lot of good translations, but there are some that are out right wrong. These my friends seem obvious to me. (gender neutral, "gay" bibles etc...)

Thanks, and I look forward to your answers, comments.

Hope you keep searching brother! There is so much info out there you wouldn't believe it. Feel free to PM or email me!

[pbiwolski]

Just a few thoughts that I couldn't resist posting.

Originally Posted by rbratt

1) William Tyndale produced the copy that the KJV of the Bible was created from. (not an accurate statement) And King James basically prosecuted him as a heretic and then "authorized" this version. (assumed from an inaccurate statement)

2) If the KJV of the Bible is the ONLY authorized version of the Bible, how can anyone outside English speaking countries be saved? try Acts 16:31 if this is a serious question
3) Just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write in different styles and tell the same stories, they are not identicle in content or literary content. They have different perspectives and ways of putting them into words. (Maybe God knows not all people understand the same way?) Why then should we throw out a translation, that is done in good faith, and does not take away from the message of salvation. Because every new version does take away whether you've noticed or not, they all pervert salvation somewhere along the lines. Who would want to do that? That is the purpose of Gods Word after all. Right? Wrong! very wrong! Personally I have gathered much more insight using several versions of the Bible to get a deeper meaning for what God was actually saying. suggesting you cannot get the understanding from what God ACTUALLY SAID. Should I not use a concordenence, or Josephus, or any of the apologetics to help my understanding? What about commentaries? They aren't scripture. help yourself

4) In saying that everyone else's versions are wrong, and only the KJV is the "true inspired Word of God" aren't you just like the saducees and pharisees (sorry I know I spelled them wrong) of old? More caught up in the words, (kinda like God is [see Jer. 23:30, 36], you really haven't studied this out much have you? You're just spitting out questions against the Lord's Book and pretending that your ignorance is legitimate) and practice rather than the true spirit of God? (ie.. splitting symantic hairs?) "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

5) In saying not to change, or add to, or delete from "this book" you do realize that there was no Bible when John wrote Revelations? He was saying not to change the words of his prophecy, not the Bible. I agree (with scripture to back me up) with you on this part only.The Bible was put together by men, who selected what letters by the apostles should or shouldn't be added along with Old testament scriptures. Indeed they didn't include all of the Old Testament either. The Jewish scriptures contain more books. Why not include those? There are other letters that were written by the apostles that are not included that are just as valid. in your opinion? They just weren't included becasue they didn't add anything to the "message". Is that entirely true? Where did you come up with that argument?

6) Didn't Paul (I think it was him) say all scripture is good for reproach and teaching? The NIV, the NASB and KJV all share the same message. Language changes. Look at our society today and tell me the language usage is the same as it was 50 years ago. BUT if you read the NIV do you get the message of salvation? Yes. So why so against saving souls arguing over whse Bible is the best? Read what God said about HIS WORDS, and then decide if what you think is most important lines up with what He said. Is. 55:8-9

Anyway, those are my thoughts and questions. I love the KJV Bible. Read Psalm119:140 It is beautifully written. Again, I am not trying to put anyone down, or start any fights, I am merely interested in answers and opinions. What about the truth? That would be a good thing to be interested in!

[Josh]

Whoa, settle down guys. Someone who isn't KJVO yet in his own words, comes here with an honest desire to find out the truth, and all you guys can do is rip him apart? Ok, sure he has some doubts about what we believe, and ripping into him is supposed to show him the truth and answer his questons how?

We are Christians, which means we are to be Christ-list, or "little christs". Show him the truth in a kind, caring manner, and you just might convince him of it. Jump down his throat about the way he asks questons and he'll be gone, possibly never to research the subject again.

In Christ,

Josh