What use is an English Bible Version for those who can't read English?

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Olivetan Bible? For example, in 1 Jn. 5:7 the KJV reads,

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 Jn. 5:7, KJV)

But the French Olivetan Bible reads,

"Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont indivisible EN JESUS." (1 Jn. 5:7, Olivetan Bible)

Note that the Olivetan version reads, "...and these three are one IN JESUS," where the KJV reads simply, "...and these three are one." Does the Olivetan Bible *add* the words "in Jesus" or does the KJV *omit* them? Given that we are neither to add nor to subtract from the word of God, which of these two different "preserved words of God" is the *real* word of God? And how do we know this?

 

This is patently false regarding both. James White is a colleague and I won't stand for false witness to be borne of him. Anyone who has read his books knows better. He uses the KJV when witnessing to KJVOs and Mormons.

Either prove these outlandish claims with hard evidence or apologize for lying. </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you should read Dr Ruckman's book "The Scholarship Only Controversy" for more details.

 

Erasmus left us less testimony than Westcott that he was saved. By their persecution of other professing Christians, many of the KJV translators have left evidence that they were not genuine believers.

Contrasted with this, the "heretics" that translated the NASB signed their agreement to this statement of faith before being allowed to work on the translation:

Your honored KJV translators could not have signed this statement without denying their own doctrines on baptism, salvation, sacraments, etc.

If you really want to compare the theology and practices of the translators, the KJV translators will fare very poorly against several MV translation groups.

 

Well,here we go again with what the KJB translators said,did,ect,.I'm not concerned about them;it is the PRODUCT they produced I'm concerned about.

 

Though there is not verse that says, "THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD," that does not mean that it isn't. Probably because scripture was not compiled when scripture was written and that King James was not even born. Isn't the King James the Bible with the complete scripture collated into one book.? Why not the King James Bible? Why use 200+ bibles that contradict each other. Why not just one.? Could you imagine what could happen if all believers used the same bible.? I bet the devil imagined it and did something about it.

There must be a final authority that proves all else to be wrong.

I did a post in the Bible study forum about "Do we have the Truth." Here is what I wrote.

"Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the
people with his truth." Psalm 96:12-13

I get Bible verses in my email and this morning there was the one above. The thing that caught my eye was "he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth."

If He will judge us with the his truth, don't you think/believe that we should know what his truth is in order to be judged righteousily?

 

Pioneer, Please take a look at the logic of this statement. We deny that the belief that the KJV alone is the Word of God in English has scriptural support then you ask for scripture that says that scripture doesn't say what it does not say.

The Bible does not say that the NY Yankees are God's favorite baseball team. But there is no scripture that says that God did not say that the Yankees are His favorite team.

With God, it is dangerous to assume that silence means consent. If what you believed were true, I believe God would have declared it.

What the Bible does say relevant to your belief is that we are not to add to it or take away from it. If the Bible is silent on the KJV being the only preserved Word of God for English speaking people then you should not speak where God has chosen not to- else you are adding to His Word.

You are attempting to establish a doctrine as true because the Bible does not speak out against it?

The Bible clearly declares many doctrinal truths and gives us great evidence of others. It is completely unnecessary to add things in where the Bible is silent.

 

Notice which side brought the character of translators and supporting scholars into question. If you really have a problem with this argumentation then perhaps you should have corrected Askjo when they asserted that the producers of MV's are all heretics or unbelievers.

 

I agree with JYD,I'm concerned with what the AV translators produced! And I am not concerned about what the MV translators said either,I've seen their product(s) and the fruits thereof.(Matt 7:20)

 

This comment can lead us right back down that same rabbit trail though.

For any "bad" fruit you assign to MV's, I can give you equally "bad" fruit for the KJV. If you point to modernism, I can point to persecution, Mormons, SDA's, Russellites, etc.

For any good fruit you can give for the KJV, I can point to great numbers saved and blessed through God's Word in MV's as well as great theologians that use MV's to prove the Fundamental doctrines of the Bible.

Making the discussion hinge on the users of a particular version is no more valid for proving your position than depending on the translators. God did use the KJV in spite of its origins. He also used the Geneva before and is now using several MV's.

 

There must be a final authority that proves all else to be wrong.

Yeah, it's the texts that bibles were translated from. It's not a translation of the same. The KJV s not a final authority, the NIV is not a final authority, the Gutenberg is not, the Staten Vertaling is not.

 

No sir!!! you're wrong! I cannot help if certain folks will not heed to 2Tim 2:15(only in the KJB) and do exactly what Proverbs 16:25 says they would do.The KJB is not responsible any of these sects;read the above Scripture for reference.

 

Homebound writes:
&gt;&gt;Though there is not verse that says, "THE KING
&gt;&gt;JAMES BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD," that does not
&gt;&gt;mean that it isn't.

Hello Homebound, and welcome to the party.

I have never said that the KJV isn't the Word of God. You won't find that statement coming from me. I have a very deep love for the KJV, and personally use the AV1611, Apocrypha included. My problem lies with the contention that the KJV is the ONLY source for the Word of God, and the fact that it is being held out as doctrine. There is no Biblical support for a KJV-Only stance: none. Contrary to what some KJV-Onlyists willingly misrepresent: just because one does not believe that the KJV is the ONLY English version of the Word of God does not mean that they are anti-KJV.

&gt;&gt;Could you imagine what could happen if all
&gt;&gt;believers used the same bible.? I bet the
&gt;&gt;devil imagined it and did something about it.

Please amplify this response, because I do not want to misunderstand you:
are you implying that Satan was behind all of the modern translations? Are you saying
that Wiclif, Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin were under the influence of Satan?

 

That would be the first sign of it being a problem.

Second, the word "study" is not in any of the greek manuscripts. Not even the TR could blow this one.

Third, why do KJVOs take such pleasure in recognizing errors in the KJV?

Fourth, it is a grave error to add to God's word.

 

Askjo said:

John Ankerberg and James White are foes of the KJV.

First, no, they are foes of KJV-onlyism, not the KJV - a distinction which a child can understand. And rightly so, too, since it has no basis in fact, history, or Christian doctrine.

Second, what of it? Does that magically change what Gipp said or did? This is probably one of the most useless rebuttals I have ever seen.

 

Ransom, nice to have you back. Please stop using logic and thinking skills. You are making the debate one sided.

 

MV-neverist said:

Maybe you should read Dr Ruckman's book "The Scholarship Only Controversy" for more details.

Maybe you should post your evidence yourself instead of asking everyone else to do your homework for you.

 

Daniel David said:

Ransom, nice to have you back. Please stop using logic and thinking skills.

Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be back again; I've been busy with stuff and had to cut down on the number of sites I frequent.

Sorry about all the thinking. I wouldn't want to create a negative environment or anything; I'll try to do better.

 

JYD writes:
&gt;&gt;No sir!!! you're wrong! I cannot help if
&gt;&gt;certain folks will not heed to 2Tim 2:15(only
&gt;&gt;in the KJB)

Exactly why do you add "only in the KJB" to the end of your sentence?

From my newly-acquired 1557 version of the Geneva Bible (I now have a copy of the 1557 version as well as the 1599):

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workeman that nedeth not to be ashamed, diuiding the worde of trueth iustly."

Hey, wait a minute: the KJB has the same chapter/verse format that is found in the Geneva Bible, which predates the KJB. I guess that doesn't shoot a hole in the KJV-onlyist "doctrine" now, does it?

 

Baptist in Richmond, he is talking about the command to "study". Interesting that such a command in found only in the KJV but not in any greek.

It is a grave error to add to God's word.

 

Wow, it is in the Tyndale Bible too (just checked).