|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jun 11, 2023 21:29:59 GMT -5
Historically (to my knowledge) there has been an emphasis on using the original King James Version (KJV) of the Bible in meetings in English speaking countries. It was used exclusively when I was in meetings (left in the early 90s). I am mystified as to why the KJV - in Old English - still appears to be the official version for meetings, when it is a language no longer spoken.
1) Is the KJV still the generally accepted version used in meetings?
2) Are any other versions accepted or tolerated?
3) Do workers still preach exclusively from the KJV?
4) Has anyone heard workers preach or comment specifically for the KJV over other versions?
5) If professing, do you feel comfortable and confident exclusively using a version other than the KJV in meetings? Why or why not?
6) Do professing people want change in the version used? Why or why not?
|
|
Peony
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by Peony on Jun 11, 2023 22:10:43 GMT -5
Hi. I'd say the KJV is still the generally accepted version. In my meeting, however, many people use the NIV and some of us are likely to use NLT, NET, or Message. No one has expressed outrage. I've heard a worker speak from the NKJV recently. In the past, yes, the KJV was touted as having authority, but I think some people now understand that language (at least English, and specifically American English) is dynamic and a translation from original languages to 1600s English may not be reliably understood today. I particularly like the NET these days, with its discussions of translation challenges and justifications for translation decisions. And that's my opinion only.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jun 11, 2023 22:54:44 GMT -5
Hi. I'd say the KJV is still the generally accepted version. In my meeting, however, many people use the NIV and some of us are likely to use NLT, NET, or Message. No one has expressed outrage. I've heard a worker speak from the NKJV recently. In the past, yes, the KJV was touted as having authority, but I think some people now understand that language (at least English, and specifically American English) is dynamic and a translation from original languages to 1600s English may not be reliably understood today. I particularly like the NET these days, with its discussions of translation challenges and justifications for translation decisions. And that's my opinion only. Thanks Peony. All input is valuable for getting the broad picture!
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Jun 11, 2023 23:43:25 GMT -5
Yes, it seems as though the KJV is still the default, although I have heard the Amplified and the NIV used. I use the NIV or NAS myself, as Old English is simply just that. When I hear it prayed or spoken, to be honest, it's embarrassing. At our parents funerals, the workers did not pray in Old English, and we didn't have to ask them.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jun 12, 2023 0:58:17 GMT -5
The KJV may not be perfect, but it is the best translation from the original languages.
Workers who labor among non-English speaking people have used the NIV. For a while I did all my reading using the KJV and NIV in parallel. I found too many instances where it was more a matter of different than clear, so I dumped the NIV.
The NLT is interesting, as it wasn't translated by a specific denomination with the risk of their own dogma finding it's way in. It is not a word for word translation, but a para-phrase.
I also enjoy Strong's, as the original word used is still the best authority available.
Translating has many challenges!
Easier to read a modern translation using our every day language, but it's safe to always check the particular verse with the KJV.
Have listened to some take part in a meeting, and I could pick up they're not quite on track with their interpretation. Had a discussion with them and asked them about it. Turns out they were reading the NIV only. We compared that passage with the KJV and Strong's, and they were appalled that they were led off-track.
I myself would never preach that KJV or whatever version is to be used only.
But when doctrine is at play I must point it out.
That being said about doctrine, even KJV only readers still get the doctrine issue wrong as they fail to "rightly divide the word of truth". (2 Timothy 2:15)
Having the Holy Spirit reveal the real and true meaning and context of a passage,thought or principle is what matters.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jun 12, 2023 0:59:07 GMT -5
The Living Bible is also an interesting one to have a look at.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jun 12, 2023 2:10:35 GMT -5
The KJV may not be perfect, but it is the best translation from the original languages. Workers who labor among non-English speaking people have used the NIV. For a while I did all my reading using the KJV and NIV in parallel. I found too many instances where it was more a matter of different than clear, so I dumped the NIV. The NLT is interesting, as it wasn't translated by a specific denomination with the risk of their own dogma finding it's way in. It is not a word for word translation, but a para-phrase. I also enjoy Strong's, as the original word used is still the best authority available. Translating has many challenges! Easier to read a modern translation using our every day language, but it's safe to always check the particular verse with the KJV. Have listened to some take part in a meeting, and I could pick up they're not quite on track with their interpretation. Had a discussion with them and asked them about it. Turns out they were reading the NIV only. We compared that passage with the KJV and Strong's, and they were appalled that they were led off-track. I myself would never preach that KJV or whatever version is to be used only. But when doctrine is at play I must point it out. That being said about doctrine, even KJV only readers still get the doctrine issue wrong as they fail to "rightly divide the word of truth". (2 Timothy 2:15) Having the Holy Spirit reveal the real and true meaning and context of a passage,thought or principle is what matters. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. :21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Yes, translation has many challenges. The KJV is a word-for-word translation, but this can result in broader meaning (ie context and idioms) being misunderstood, so it is good to look at different translations of the same passage. Given that Old English isn't spoken anymore, could you recommend the NKJV over the KJV? Though I believe the NASB is considered the most accurate version from source texts, in modern English. I note the old KJV has a number of passages which are removed from most newer translations because of doubt over the veracity of their origins, so it may be less accurate for some content. There are very few versions created by a particular denomination; most widely used versions have been created by a committee of scholars. While I would completely discount the JW Bible (New World Translation) as being highly skewed due to denominational beliefs, do you know of any others?[Edit]: that last question removed because it is too broad for anyone to answer! Revised to: These versions would be generally accepted as accurate translations: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV. Do think these any of these are particularly denominationally skewed? I was surprised by your comment about the NIV being "off track", though I can't speak to the post 2011 versions. Our church stopped using it some years ago when the newer "gender neutral" version came out. Even then, there were only a handful of verses that may have been suspect. But the earlier versions would still be considered very accurate.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jun 12, 2023 3:01:19 GMT -5
The Living Bible is also an interesting one to have a look at. Not familiar with this, but will check it out! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 12, 2023 4:35:39 GMT -5
This is a subject which deserves considerable study. I use the KJV as my primary source, with one or two other versions as back ups. No other version of the Bible is a direct translation of the original manuscripts used for the KJV. The KJV was made available to all when it was first produced. Although it was Crown copyright this was put aside. Anyone nowadays can print of as many copies as they want and sell them. Not so with other translations many of which are based on the KJV, and which all have copyright protecting their publishers. To obtain a copyright it is not sufficient to merely say the same thing in different words, as in up to date English over 17th Century English. There must be a minimum of 10% actual difference to make it a different version. These differences are achieved by omitting, adding or changing sufficient passages or statements in addition to their up to date way of expressing it. There are over 150 different versions of the Bible in English and all differ from one another by a minimum of 10% in order to get their copyright. Talk about confusion and we know who the author of that is. As an example, consult the KJV (Acts 8) original version of Phillip's dialogue with the Ethiopian eunuch over baptism and compare it with the same reference in the NIV. Look at the very important part which is missing? Further research on this subject will take you into a minefield. www.thekjvstore.com/articles/reasons-to-use-the-king-james-bible-over-other-translations/
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 12, 2023 5:45:48 GMT -5
We use mostly the KJV in our meetings, I have a KJV and an Aramaic Bible translated to English and also a Greek translated to English app on my phone. I feel the KJV is the best translation, I have looked at others but the ones I've read don't seem as accurate, for instance I was reading one(can't remember which version now) and instead of having the word heaven in parts of the chapters, they had the word sky, which is confusing as heaven in the context it was written didn't mean the sky. And also there are other things like this that I've noticed like leaving parts of the verses etc. out in some versions, so I just mostly stick to my KJV as I believe it's mostly accurate to the original script.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jun 12, 2023 6:09:09 GMT -5
This is a subject which deserves considerable study. I use the KJV as my primary source, with one or two other versions as back ups. No other version of the Bible is a direct translation of the original manuscripts used for the KJV. The KJV was made available to all when it was first produced. Although it was Crown copyright this was put aside. Anyone nowadays can print of as many copies as they want and sell them. Not so with other translations many of which are based on the KJV, and which all have copyright protecting their publishers. To obtain a copyright it is not sufficient to merely say the same thing in different words, as in up to date English over 17th Century English. There must be a minimum of 10% actual difference to make it a different version. These differences are achieved by omitting, adding or changing sufficient passages or statements in addition to their up to date way of expressing it. There are over 150 different versions of the Bible in English and all differ from one another by a minimum of 10% in order to get their copyright. Talk about confusion and we know who the author of that is. As an example, consult the KJV (Acts 8) original version of Phillip's dialogue with the Ethiopian eunuch over baptism and compare it with the same reference in the NIV. Look at the very important part which is missing? Further research on this subject will take you into a minefield. www.thekjvstore.com/articles/reasons-to-use-the-king-james-bible-over-other-translations/Acts 8:37 is missing, but added as a footnote in the NIV with the reference "some manuscripts include...". The same verse is ommitted from the ESV, NASB and probably numerous other versions. This is because that particular verse is apparently not found in the earliest (or majority) of manuscripts. You appear to indicate that all other Bibles are just re-translations of the KJV. I do not believe this is correct. The most widely accepted versions previously mentioned have used original manuscripts, not just the KJV, for their translation. Hence the omission of various verses and passages. The KJV translation itself also drew on previous English translations, incuding the prior work of William Tyndale. The ESV was "created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors. ESV relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts." This is twice as many scholars as the KJV, and is able to draw from an older and wider range of manuscripts which have come to light since the time of the KJV translation. The ESV would contain very similar if not identical omissions as the NIV. Not sure where you got your 10% variation story from in the context of the Bible. Copyrights are a tool employed simply to ensure fair remuneration to those who spent all the time and money getting the translation as accurate as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2023 10:38:28 GMT -5
Historically (to my knowledge) there has been an emphasis on using the original King James Version (KJV) of the Bible in meetings in English speaking countries. It was used exclusively when I was in meetings (left in the early 90s). I am mystified as to why the KJV - in Old English - still appears to be the official version for meetings, when it is a language no longer spoken. 1) Is the KJV still the generally accepted version used in meetings? 2) Are any other versions accepted or tolerated? 3) Do workers still preach exclusively from the KJV? 4) Has anyone heard workers preach or comment specifically for the KJV over other versions? 5) If professing, do you feel comfortable and confident exclusively using a version other than the KJV in meetings? Why or why not? 6) Do professing people want change in the version used? Why or why not? 1. Generally yes...but its mainly older folks KJV younger any version. I've seen laptop bibles used in meetings too. 2. The NIV is becoming widely used especially overseas. 3. NIV, KJV, NKJV 4. Comment yes, preach no. Recently WB said doesn't really matter the version. I slightly disagreed with him. 5. I stick with the KJV. Better research. We've also had two workers GH and J mention they know Hebrew and found the KJV to be the closer interpretation. 6. nothing has been mentioned so far too me. Allan and sons for a bit now offers 4 versions of the bible so the friends are changing a bit...
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 12, 2023 10:40:23 GMT -5
This is a subject which deserves considerable study. I use the KJV as my primary source, with one or two other versions as back ups. No other version of the Bible is a direct translation of the original manuscripts used for the KJV. The KJV was made available to all when it was first produced. Although it was Crown copyright this was put aside. Anyone nowadays can print of as many copies as they want and sell them. Not so with other translations many of which are based on the KJV, and which all have copyright protecting their publishers. To obtain a copyright it is not sufficient to merely say the same thing in different words, as in up to date English over 17th Century English. There must be a minimum of 10% actual difference to make it a different version. These differences are achieved by omitting, adding or changing sufficient passages or statements in addition to their up to date way of expressing it. There are over 150 different versions of the Bible in English and all differ from one another by a minimum of 10% in order to get their copyright. Talk about confusion and we know who the author of that is. As an example, consult the KJV (Acts 8) original version of Phillip's dialogue with the Ethiopian eunuch over baptism and compare it with the same reference in the NIV. Look at the very important part which is missing? Further research on this subject will take you into a minefield. www.thekjvstore.com/articles/reasons-to-use-the-king-james-bible-over-other-translations/Acts 8:37 is missing, but added as a footnote in the NIV with the reference "some manuscripts include...". The same verse is ommitted from the ESV, NASB and probably numerous other versions. This is because that particular verse is apparently not found in the earliest (or majority) of manuscripts. (The supposed earliest texts are not the majority texts ie Received Texts, but are the minority texts which formed the Bible produced by the Catholic Church - Textus Vaticanus. In Acts 8, we have the only exercise describing what is to be declared at baptism. You are right, this, though not included in the text, is mentioned as a footnote. However, earlier versions of the NIV did not include this footnote. )You appear to indicate that all other Bibles are just re-translations of the KJV. I do not believe this is correct. The most widely accepted versions previously mentioned have used original manuscripts, not just the KJV, for their translation. Hence the omission of various verses and passages. The KJV translation itself also drew on previous English translations, incuding the prior work of William Tyndale. The ESV was "created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors. ESV relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts." This is twice as many scholars as the KJV, and is able to draw from an older and wider range of manuscripts which have come to light since the time of the KJV translation. The ESV would contain very similar if not identical omissions as the NIV. Not sure where you got your 10% variation story from in the context of the Bible. Copyrights are a tool employed simply to ensure fair remuneration to those who spent all the time and money getting the translation as accurate as possible. Copyrights protect the work of an author and his right to remuneration. Otherwise anyone can simply reproduce their work, even if different wording is used, to capitalise on the original work. To produce a different version, there has to be substantial differences to obtain copyright to protect and capitalise from the new work.
As stated in my op this subject requires considerable study 'to settle on a proper opinion. The below link is a good starting place. www.apostolic.edu/the-authenticity-of-the-king-james-version/To be quite honest it goes on and on.www.wordproject.org/bibles/resources/why_kjv/omissions.htmAnd on. By now were are entering a minefield.www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIpkwtfl-dM
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 12, 2023 14:37:30 GMT -5
You can translate all you like, but you have to be completely certain that the originals were accurate to start with. Different versions of Mark in the NT are an example of scribes taking one version and then making some changes based on the language their area used. The gospel of Mark is not considered to be the original even, but copied from another document called Q. The OT is probably as close to the original as it gets in the bible, but the NT is definitely problematic according to biblical scholars.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 12, 2023 15:22:24 GMT -5
You can translate all you like, but you have to be completely certain that the originals were accurate to start with. Different versions of Mark in the NT are an example of scribes taking one version and then making some changes based on the language their area used. The gospel of Mark is not considered to be the original even, but copied from another document called Q. The OT is probably as close to the original as it gets in the bible, but the NT is definitely problematic according to biblical scholars. As I said, the whole thing can become a minefield. It requires careful navigation. That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago. In the end I concluded the KJV was the 'safest' version of the Bible to read. I do not subscribe to KJV only, but to KJV safest, using other versions to back up or support the KJV. Others have trod their own path on the issue and have come to their own conclusions. I was going to use King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to reinforce my views, with him being Scottish, but then I realised that so too was William Irvine! The first started his own Bible and the second started his own way.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 12, 2023 15:28:34 GMT -5
You can translate all you like, but you have to be completely certain that the originals were accurate to start with. Different versions of Mark in the NT are an example of scribes taking one version and then making some changes based on the language their area used. The gospel of Mark is not considered to be the original even, but copied from another document called Q. The OT is probably as close to the original as it gets in the bible, but the NT is definitely problematic according to biblical scholars. As I said, the whole thing can become a minefield. It requires careful navigation. That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago. In the end I concluded the KJV was the 'safest' version of the Bible to read. I do not subscribe to KJV only, but to KJV safest, using other versions to back up or support the KJV. Others have trod their own path on the issue and have come to their own conclusions. I was going to use King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to reinforce my views, with him being Scottish, but then I realised that so too was William Irvine! The first started his own Bible and the second started his own way. Probably as good as it gets, I agree. What I don't like about the newer versions is that they put a modern day viewpoint in the translation that does not reflect the actual viewpoint of the times it was written in. It changes it just enough to have a different meaning imo.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Jun 27, 2023 15:50:42 GMT -5
Historically (to my knowledge) there has been an emphasis on using the original King James Version (KJV) of the Bible in meetings in English speaking countries. It was used exclusively when I was in meetings (left in the early 90s). I am mystified as to why the KJV - in Old English - still appears to be the official version for meetings, when it is a language no longer spoken. 1) Is the KJV still the generally accepted version used in meetings? 2) Are any other versions accepted or tolerated? 3) Do workers still preach exclusively from the KJV? 4) Has anyone heard workers preach or comment specifically for the KJV over other versions? 5) If professing, do you feel comfortable and confident exclusively using a version other than the KJV in meetings? Why or why not? 6) Do professing people want change in the version used? Why or why not? In the meeting where I was yesterday, we heard from KJV, NKJV, NIV, and I used ESV. I have heard a number of workers at conventions (especially those visiting for whom English is not their first language) using different translations. I have used ESV exclusively in meetings for a couple of years now. Used NIV before that.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 27, 2023 19:01:10 GMT -5
The KJV may not be perfect, but it is the best translation from the original languages. Workers who labor among non-English speaking people have used the NIV. For a while I did all my reading using the KJV and NIV in parallel. I found too many instances where it was more a matter of different than clear, so I dumped the NIV. The NLT is interesting, as it wasn't translated by a specific denomination with the risk of their own dogma finding it's way in. It is not a word for word translation, but a para-phrase. I also enjoy Strong's, as the original word used is still the best authority available. Translating has many challenges! Easier to read a modern translation using our every day language, but it's safe to always check the particular verse with the KJV. Have listened to some take part in a meeting, and I could pick up they're not quite on track with their interpretation. Had a discussion with them and asked them about it. Turns out they were reading the NIV only. We compared that passage with the KJV and Strong's, and they were appalled that they were led off-track. I myself would never preach that KJV or whatever version is to be used only. But when doctrine is at play I must point it out. That being said about doctrine, even KJV only readers still get the doctrine issue wrong as they fail to "rightly divide the word of truth". (2 Timothy 2:15) Having the Holy Spirit reveal the real and true meaning and context of a passage,thought or principle is what matters. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. :21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost The KJV has inaccuracies and is not a word for word translation. A word for word translation would be unreadable. Here's what the KJV translaters wrote about that...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 27, 2023 19:27:43 GMT -5
You can translate all you like, but you have to be completely certain that the originals were accurate to start with. Different versions of Mark in the NT are an example of scribes taking one version and then making some changes based on the language their area used. The gospel of Mark is not considered to be the original even, but copied from another document called Q. The OT is probably as close to the original as it gets in the bible, but the NT is definitely problematic according to biblical scholars. As I said, the whole thing can become a minefield. It requires careful navigation. That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago. In the end I concluded the KJV was the 'safest' version of the Bible to read. I do not subscribe to KJV only, but to KJV safest, using other versions to back up or support the KJV. Others have trod their own path on the issue and have come to their own conclusions. I was going to use King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to reinforce my views, with him being Scottish, but then I realised that so too was William Irvine! The first started his own Bible and the second started his own way. You consider it safest because your belief system is built around it. More modern translations (while some are slanted by sectarian bias) have the benefit of an extent of biblical scholarship that the KJV translators didn't have available. Parts are typically left out because they were not in the earliest manuscripts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2023 19:42:19 GMT -5
As I said, the whole thing can become a minefield. It requires careful navigation. That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago. In the end I concluded the KJV was the 'safest' version of the Bible to read. I do not subscribe to KJV only, but to KJV safest, using other versions to back up or support the KJV. Others have trod their own path on the issue and have come to their own conclusions. I was going to use King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to reinforce my views, with him being Scottish, but then I realised that so too was William Irvine! The first started his own Bible and the second started his own way. You consider it safest because your belief system is built around it. More modern translations (while some are slanted by sectarian bias) have the benefit of an extent of biblical scholarship that the KJV translators didn't have available. Parts are typically left out because they were not in the earliest manuscripts. Did ya miss where he said "That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago." Doesn't sound like he didn't do the research. There are more than a few problems with those "newer" models you like...
|
|
|
Post by ForeverFree on Jun 27, 2023 21:35:40 GMT -5
Growing up, we used the KJV. Anything else was discouraged, as it was considered worldly. I think the workers discouraged the use of any other version, as it would open up to other variations of thinking, and as we have seen, they are not good at dealing with anything thought provoking or controversial.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 28, 2023 2:46:27 GMT -5
As I said, the whole thing can become a minefield. It requires careful navigation. That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago. In the end I concluded the KJV was the 'safest' version of the Bible to read. I do not subscribe to KJV only, but to KJV safest, using other versions to back up or support the KJV. Others have trod their own path on the issue and have come to their own conclusions. I was going to use King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to reinforce my views, with him being Scottish, but then I realised that so too was William Irvine! The first started his own Bible and the second started his own way. You consider it safest because your belief system is built around it. More modern translations (while some are slanted by sectarian bias) have the benefit of an extent of biblical scholarship that the KJV translators didn't have available. Parts are typically left out because they were not in the earliest manuscripts. You need to do some more research to understand the truth about the earliest manuscripts, also the differences in the various Bible translations.. I consider the KJV to be the safest because I have done considerable research to arrive at that conclusion. I appreciate others may arrive at different conclusions but I believe in the Majority Texts of Textus Receptus (Received Texts) as opposed to the older but more limited, suspect Vulgate texts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2023 3:14:11 GMT -5
You consider it safest because your belief system is built around it. More modern translations (while some are slanted by sectarian bias) have the benefit of an extent of biblical scholarship that the KJV translators didn't have available. Parts are typically left out because they were not in the earliest manuscripts. You need to do some more research to understand the truth about the earliest manuscripts, also the differences in the various Bible translations.. I consider the KJV to be the safest because I have done considerable research to arrive at that conclusion. I appreciate others may arrive at different conclusions but I believe in the Majority Texts of Textus Receptus (Received Texts) as opposed to the older but more limited, suspect Vulgate texts. It was the vulgate that had spawn the most heretical beliefs the textus did not or very little if I remember right? Most modern translations use the heretical while the KJV and maybe a couple others used the other. I'd have to go back and look to get it right though.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Jun 28, 2023 3:48:34 GMT -5
You need to do some more research to understand the truth about the earliest manuscripts, also the differences in the various Bible translations.. I consider the KJV to be the safest because I have done considerable research to arrive at that conclusion. I appreciate others may arrive at different conclusions but I believe in the Majority Texts of Textus Receptus (Received Texts) as opposed to the older but more limited, suspect Vulgate texts. It was the vulgate that had spawn the most heretical beliefs the textus did not or very little if I remember right? Most modern translations use the heretical while the KJV and maybe a couple others used the other. I'd have to go back and look to get it right though. You have the gist of it Wally. Nothing that a little tweaking cannot correct. I'll give you my opinion on things. These are just my thoughts put down in a very brief manner. God used King James VI of Scotland (and I of England) following the Union of the Crowns (Scotland and England) in 1603 to get the Holy Scriptures translated into English (1611). There was a reason for this. It took time for this to happen and just over 100 years later (1707) the Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments happened. One Crown, one Parliament. During the interim there were religious differences that required to be resolved through civil war, rebellions, etc, ultimately resulting in Acts of Parliament being passed to protect everyone's right to worship as they please. This allowed for the freedom of the true Gospel to operate, without dictat from Church or State. During the 1600s many ministers were outed from their manses on grounds of their conscience to obey God rather than state prescribed religion. They took to fields, caves, the highways and bye-ways, becoming persecuted, homeless, tramp preachers, outlawed, yet remaining true to their God given conscience. They met in homes or out in secret places to avoid detection, in gatherings known as Conventicles (early version of Conventions/Special Meetings). God raises up nations and Empires for his own purposes and in his time he brings them down again. So what happened after the Union of the Parliaments which saw the foundation of the Great British Empire? Britain conquered the world. It was the Empire on which the sun never set. What followed in the wake of this great Empire. Yes YOU Wally have guessed it. Well Done! Thank you! It was the true Gospel supported by the KJV of the Bible. Many thousands of missionaries left the shores of Great Britain to go forth preaching the Word of God as Jesus had commanded, converting many, many souls to Christ. In the lands that Great Britain conquered the Gospel was FREELY preached and most other countries who were not subjugated by Britain, wished to be on friendly terms with the World's greatest empire and one of the things which resulted from that was the Gospel was allowed to be preached in those lands also. A primary purpose of God was to allow the Gospel to be freely preached across the globe.........in English, because that was the primary tongue of the British Empire. If anyone asks you the purpose of God raising up the British Empire.............there you have it! It was to get his work done. No other version of the Bible has had such a widespread impact on the World (nor ever will; nothing like it) and it was God planned, from the beginning, raising up Oor Jimmy to the throne to command the Holy Scriptures be produced for a time when God would send it forth across the entire World, following very closely behind the conquered World. Great Britain created the greatest empire the world has ever seen. The KJV was used to create the greatest spiritual Empire the world has ever seen. Long before the Irvinists made an appearance. If ever there was a reason for supporting the KJV and binning the rest (save the trees) this is it. Consider yourself among the few Wally, whose eyes have been truly opened.......WIDE! (Virgs)
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 29, 2023 1:13:44 GMT -5
As I said, the whole thing can become a minefield. It requires careful navigation. That requires a fair bit of study. I went through this quite a few years ago. In the end I concluded the KJV was the 'safest' version of the Bible to read. I do not subscribe to KJV only, but to KJV safest, using other versions to back up or support the KJV. Others have trod their own path on the issue and have come to their own conclusions. I was going to use King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to reinforce my views, with him being Scottish, but then I realised that so too was William Irvine! The first started his own Bible and the second started his own way. You consider it safest because your belief system is built around it. More modern translations (while some are slanted by sectarian bias) have the benefit of an extent of biblical scholarship that the KJV translators didn't have available. Parts are typically left out because they were not in the earliest manuscripts. My favorite ignorant use of a word from the Bible is how some people use the word "unction" -- like it's a gut-hunch about what's at hand. One worker said she had an unction about a person that he was a CSA offender. But an "unction" is a comforting ointment, something the Bible instructs that we should have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 1:37:25 GMT -5
You consider it safest because your belief system is built around it. More modern translations (while some are slanted by sectarian bias) have the benefit of an extent of biblical scholarship that the KJV translators didn't have available. Parts are typically left out because they were not in the earliest manuscripts. My favorite ignorant use of a word from the Bible is how some people use the word "unction" -- like it's a gut-hunch about what's at hand. One worker said she had an unction about a person that he was a CSA offender. But an "unction" is a comforting ointment, something the Bible instructs that we should have. Might want to re-think that... 1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. There are many commentaries and understandings on what that is...take a look...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 29, 2023 3:27:15 GMT -5
My favorite ignorant use of a word from the Bible is how some people use the word "unction" -- like it's a gut-hunch about what's at hand. One worker said she had an unction about a person that he was a CSA offender. But an "unction" is a comforting ointment, something the Bible instructs that we should have. Might want to re-think that... 1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. There are many commentaries and understandings on what that is...take a look... Unction means anointing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 4:49:26 GMT -5
Might want to re-think that... 1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. There are many commentaries and understandings on what that is...take a look... Unction means anointing. If you look further than Bob for understanding, it's use in the above verse has nothing to do oil/ointment/comfort, the rest of the chapter should be a clue also. Elder.
|
|