King James
Recently I have been hearing more and more comments on the use of various Bible versions other than the King James Version. For some, nothing will do but the King James version. They think that the other versions lose meaning in the different word choices. One claimed that the word replacements of other versions are not synonymous with the expression in the KJV and therefore the other versions will lead to heresy, and for this we will be judged. (We all know Jesus spoke King James English. And Paul wrote his Letters in King James English. Too bad for the non-English-speaking peoples, their Bible is full of heresies. Maybe instead of translating the Bible into other languages we should be teaching everyone the English language so they can be saved.) This is bull shit!
Seriously folks!
I understand there are English versions which are paraphrases of the Word and should not be regarded as authoritative Scripture. And I know there are some English versions which were written to accommodate political or religious propaganda. But there are multiple sound English versions, and certainly in numerous world languages too. The King James Version is not THEE Word of God.
Though human hands have scribed the original manuscripts and human hands have copied them and translated them and made copies of copies of copies to be passed on and copied again…God has faithfully preserved his Word through all the generations and through all the different translations into different languages. So that even now, after so many copies and translations, the Bible remains as effective today as when it was first written, to instruct and train us in the way of salvation. We don’t have the original autographs anymore, and we certainly gain understanding if we study Biblical Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin languages. But God’s Word is not without authority even in our own native and cultural tongues.
12 June 2008 at 1:56 pm
This really goes deeper than “Jesus spoke KJ English”. Deeper than the Southern Baptists and Fundamentalists who push the KJB even know. It goes back to the Textus Receptus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_receptus
For those who see the KJV as the only “authorized version” and who are theologically grounded, this is the real issue. The fact that the KJV used the Textus Receptus is the real issue.
13 June 2008 at 1:31 am
For most it is just tradition.
Luther’s translation is based on the Textus Receptus, same as the KJV. Evenso, some are distracted by the fact that the Amish community reads Luther’s Bible.
This is not a crucial “doctrine”, which is why I mainly blew it off in my post.
17 June 2008 at 7:45 pm
A small girl in the children’s church (obviously not a Presbyterian) had questions about Jesus being “born of a virgin”.
“Do they mean the Virgin Mary or the King James Virgin?”
18 June 2008 at 1:11 am
Is she obviously not a Presbyterian because they have Children’s Church or because she would ask such a question!?
18 June 2008 at 1:11 am
whoop! I guess Heidi never logged out of wordpress!
18 June 2008 at 3:39 pm
Children’s Church.
18 June 2008 at 8:51 pm
Guess we’re not Presbyterian then!
18 June 2008 at 10:29 pm
Doh!!!
20 June 2008 at 2:03 am
Sorry haha!