Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

B-Ray · 05-03-2012, 04:20 PM

I read that a lot of you since reforming have also went to other bible versions. For me this is the hardest thing to contend with. I have so much literature on the subject, u know how stuff is removed and changed or even whole verses left out of all those other versions that, i cant see it any different.

For instance, where the NIV calls satan the daystar in that O.T. verse, but in peter its Jesus is the Daystar. Much more than just this, this is just to me the worst

NotUnderLaw · (This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 04:30 PM by NotUnderLaw.)

That's okay. You are free to use the KJV. And you mean morning star, but if we are honest, Satan, the morning star, son of the dawn, in Isaiah is not the same thing as Jesus the BRIGHT Morning Star, the Son of God.

I used to focus on the phrase morning star, but that would be like focusing on the phrase sons of God in Job and saying that was blasphemous because Jesus is the Son of God, when clearly they are different things.

also : I never "reformed". Leaving fundamentalism doesn't mean you have to become a calvinist.

greg · (This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 05:34 PM by greg.)

Definitely quit being fundy, and absolutely not a calvinist, why would someone go from one man-centered religion and jump right into another, but many have, I have duly noted the same.

Anyhoo, sounds like you may have alot of pro-KJV literature lying around. Lucifer is from the Latin. So one must ask what is a Latin word doing in a 400 year old English translation of an ancient Hebrew text? It comes to be in the KJV via Jerome's Latin Vulgate 400 a.d. - the term 'Lucifer" had become very popular and many took the story to be about the "fall" of Satan so the KJV translators left it in. The story there in Isaiah is (I believe) about the fall of the King of Babylon, if you read on down to Isaiah 14:16 he's identified as a man, also the bible never says anywhere, that I know of, that the Devil or Satan is Lucifer.

KJV is a good translation, it's just hard for most folks to understand, just came across the phrase "cover his feet" in 1 Samuel 24:3, this week, was hilarious when I found out what it meant, gotta funny feeling you may not know either, look it up.

FindingMyWay · 05-03-2012, 05:44 PM

You might try reading The King James Controversy by James White. It addresses a lot of the arguments put out by the KJVO crowd.

**redbeardiam** · 05-03-2012, 05:48 PM

(05-03-2012 04:20 PM)brobillyray Wrote: I read that a lot of you since reforming have also went to other bible versions. For me this is the hardest thing to contend with. I have so much literature on the subject, u know how stuff is removed and changed or even whole verses left out of all those other versions that, i cant see it any different.

For instance, where the NIV calls satan the daystar in that O.T. verse, but in peter its Jesus is the Daystar. Much more than just this, this is just to me the worst

At this point in your journey, I would recommend reading the King James Only Controversy by James White. He deals with the common questions raised by KJVO promoters.

**laurat99** · 05-03-2012, 06:01 PM

I cringe when I hear the 23rd Psalm in any other version than the King James. But that's just my personal preference. If another version is widely accepted by the Church, and that helps you draw closer to God, go for it. If the KJ helps you draw closer to God, go for it.

NotUnderLaw · 05-03-2012, 06:24 PM

I really don't recommend the King James Controversy. James White is just a big blowhard, a bag of wind who is more concerned with making himself appear as some authority on all things. Viewing his youtube channel has really given me a poor opinion of the man, especially in the way he responds to people (basically, he comes across as a know it all, belittling anyone without an education, and those with an education, he just dismisses it because they aren't of the same theology as him. And this isn't even anything to do with KJV stuff).

Just use some common sense. None of the IFB arguments really stand up to scrutiny.

B-Ray · (This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 06:35 PM by B-Ray.)

im really happy with the KJV, just curious. Although i do like to hear Max McClaine read the bible. They used to have him on our local non-fundy radio station. I know he didnt read from the KJV, but i still (secretly liked it.)

That'sWhatItSays · 05-03-2012, 06:46 PM

I don't think James White's arguments are that persuasive, though he has a more refined approach that makes him sound level-headed and conscientious, something which Ruckman, Gipp, Grady and the rest lack. Ultimately, all KJV-Onlyism is Ruckmanism. I don't care if the church uses booklets by this guy, that guy, or whoever, KJV-Onlyism is Ruckmanism. All authors and churches that adopt the stand adopt it because of him, not any of his acolytes who simply rephrase his arguments. I read all of his works on the Bible and many of his commentaries, and because of that I really can't bring myself to use anything else.

BUT, that being said, the more you read, the more you realize how many half-truths there are involved in the argument, especially when you see some website proclaiming that the KJV is actually easier to understand than the NIV or what have you. That's just nonsense. I could list hundreds of examples where we don't get an accurate meaning from the text of the King James because OUR modern English is different enough that our understanding of words is placed onto the text. I also feel that there are arguments against the King James that have merit as it relates to accusations of bias in translational choices that lend a greater sense of power to the clergy and civil rulers. It's not a Baptist translation; it was done by a committee representing a state church.

The King James is a classic, but it is obviously from another era. It is not God's Word for the contemporary man like Paul's writings were to the Roman Empire, Jerome's translation was to the Latin church, and what the King James was originally. I am definitely King James preferred, but I have no problem whatsoever with looking at other translations for clarity or looking to the original languages for "nuggets".

I don't know if you're posting all of these things just to get a rise or if you're sincere, but there you go.

**Tiarali** · 05-03-2012, 07:06 PM

This is an interesting discussion for me because it wasn't until Sam Gipp came to our church to preach and I accepted the KJVO way of thinking that I really became 'fundy' as opposed to 'a conservative christian going to a fundy church'.

One thing for me is that fundy pastors often make use of proof texts to try and prove their little pet beliefs. Often, if you read that same verse in its context you won't come to the same conclusion at all, but you hear the same words in the kjv given the same meaning from the pulpit for long enough and it's hard to look at that passage with fresh, unbiased eyes.

What I loved doing to start with was pick a different bible version, like the ESV, and read it. When I find a passage that really hits me and is meaningful to me, I'd turn to the KJV and read the same passage there. Guess what? It said the same thing! But when reading it in the ESV it had real meaning and it impacted me. When reading in the KJV I'd either just miss the meaning or default to however the pastor was thinking.