The third reason I would like to give... or better put the third NON-reason I am KJV is:
Reason # 3: Because the King James Version is an example of progressive or advanced revelation.
The basic premise of this point is that the King James Bible contains some sort of revelation that God wanted to get across to mankind that was not contained in the original languages and autographs. The reason I don't accept this is that God told us not to add to His word, and I don't believe He has added to it either. God inspired His word in the canon of Scripture ending about 95 AD with the Apostle John. If we allow that a translation of the Bible contains more revelation from God, then we would have to allow the possibility that God is revealing His word still today in other ways. Perhaps He is using men as prophets to add to His word again. Maybe the book of Mormon is actually just progressive revelation that He had not given back then... I don't see how we could make a difference between those ideas.
There are advantages in my KJV Bible over the original autographs:
First, I have all 66 books together in one book in my lap. The original autographs were not together.
Second, I can read English :)
Third, I like being able to go to a specific chapter and verse, rather than having to turn to a book and skim through it to find a particular point. That would be an interesting way to preach - I guess you really would stick to expository preaching.
Fourth, It is an advantage to me to have spaces in between words, ANDNOTHAVEALLOFTHEWORDSTOGETHERLIKETHIS.
Now, all of those things are advantages - so is the dictionary & concordance in the back of my Bible. But that does not mean that those things are added revelation from God. They are helps, and since every good & perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, I will even say that those helps are from God, but not that they are inspired revelation that was not found in the original autotraphs.
Just a thought...
Andy Hinds
Showing posts with label Not KJV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Not KJV. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
NOT KJV-Only Reason # 2
As we continue this week's theme of reasons I am NOT KJV-Only (again, not the best way to say it, but the most eye-catching!), yesterday I talked about not being KJV-Only because of the copyright issue. Today, I want to give you reason number 2:
Reason # 2: Because you can only be saved if you are using the KJV.
The argument would go like this: James 1:21 says that we can be saved by the 'engrafted word.' 1 Peter 1:23 is more specific, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Since the KJV is the word of God and is without corruption, and "the other version" is full of corruption, it goes without saying that you can't be born again with "the other version"... Right!?
Well, I have a couple of issues with that. First, I'm pretty sure that people were saved before 1611 (think about guys like Martin Luther or John Knox here...). Some would say, then they must have been using the Greek Textus Receptus for that... Ok, but I'm pretty sure that there were some people that were saved before 1611 that did not speak Greek. They would have either used the Latin, or some other language of Scripture. That means, that they were saved using a translation that most people realize would have had some level of corruption...
Second, what if someone is just saved from the testimony of others. What if somebody witnesses to someone else using their personal salvation story and including the truths of the gospel without quoting the Scriptures behind it. For example, what if I say: "You're a sinner, and Jesus died for your sins. He then rose from the dead, and you need to repent and put your faith in Him or else you will die and go to Hell." If someone believes that and repents... can they be saved? Even though there was no Bible verses quoted? I think so... The authority needs to be God's word, found in the Bible, but I don't think an exact quote is mandatory for the person to receive God's word - arguments?
It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. When we witness, we ought to use Scripture - the word of God is quick and powerful - but if we misquote a verse on accident, we don't need to be afraid about that person not being able to get saved. (I don't think we ought to misquote verses either!) Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The closer we are to the word of God (which is pure), the greater opportunity there is for faith to increase.
Just a thought...
Reason # 2: Because you can only be saved if you are using the KJV.
The argument would go like this: James 1:21 says that we can be saved by the 'engrafted word.' 1 Peter 1:23 is more specific, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Since the KJV is the word of God and is without corruption, and "the other version" is full of corruption, it goes without saying that you can't be born again with "the other version"... Right!?
Well, I have a couple of issues with that. First, I'm pretty sure that people were saved before 1611 (think about guys like Martin Luther or John Knox here...). Some would say, then they must have been using the Greek Textus Receptus for that... Ok, but I'm pretty sure that there were some people that were saved before 1611 that did not speak Greek. They would have either used the Latin, or some other language of Scripture. That means, that they were saved using a translation that most people realize would have had some level of corruption...
Second, what if someone is just saved from the testimony of others. What if somebody witnesses to someone else using their personal salvation story and including the truths of the gospel without quoting the Scriptures behind it. For example, what if I say: "You're a sinner, and Jesus died for your sins. He then rose from the dead, and you need to repent and put your faith in Him or else you will die and go to Hell." If someone believes that and repents... can they be saved? Even though there was no Bible verses quoted? I think so... The authority needs to be God's word, found in the Bible, but I don't think an exact quote is mandatory for the person to receive God's word - arguments?
It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. When we witness, we ought to use Scripture - the word of God is quick and powerful - but if we misquote a verse on accident, we don't need to be afraid about that person not being able to get saved. (I don't think we ought to misquote verses either!) Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The closer we are to the word of God (which is pure), the greater opportunity there is for faith to increase.
Just a thought...
Monday, September 10, 2007
NOT KJV-Only Reason # 1
Ok, I have gone through and shared 10 reasons why I am KJV-Only. If you haven't read them, they can be found here: KJV-Only. What I'd like to do now is share some reasons why I am NOT KJV-Only. Ok, I know that it is not the best way to word it, but it gets people's attention! I should say, this is not a reason that I am KJV-Only.
Reason # 1: Because the KJV is not copyrighted, whereas all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money.
There is a mixture of truth and falsehood in what I just wrote.
Truth: The KJV is not 'copyrighted.' That statement is true as far as we understand current coyright laws. However, the situation in England at the time of the translation in 1611, and the desire of the king at the time (I think his name was James), had what is known as the Crown Copyright - or something like that. It actually was more binding than what we consider current copyright. It never expires... just it is only good for England. Here in the United States, we were under that law until around 1776 - about July 4th I think it was, when in the course of human events it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands... OK, I'm off topic. If you look at a Bible printed in England (that would be an Oxford or a Cambridge), you will find the phrase 'cum privilegio' which means that it was printed with permission, or it was 'copied' with 'rights' by the crown. In England, the KJV is still copyrighted.
False: all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money. That is false because the copyrights of some verions have expired. Normal copyrights lasted for about 75 years. That means, that today, the American Standard Version (which is the American edition of the 1881 Revised Version of England) is no longer under copyright. But, just because it isn't copyrighted, does not mean that it's a good translation.
As for whether or not they are just out for money... I imagine some of them are, but I imagine some (if not the majority?) are actually out there trying to improve God's word... er, I mean, trying to improve the translation of God's word. I really don't know their motive. None of us do.
The copyright of the KJV by the crown was not for monetary benefit like copyrights are USUALLY employed today, but rather for political reasons. In America, there is freedom of the press, so books can be printed at will - though you can't copy someone else's work without permission. So, had the KJV been translated in America today, would it have been copyrighted?
...Interesting thought.
Reason # 1: Because the KJV is not copyrighted, whereas all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money.
There is a mixture of truth and falsehood in what I just wrote.
Truth: The KJV is not 'copyrighted.' That statement is true as far as we understand current coyright laws. However, the situation in England at the time of the translation in 1611, and the desire of the king at the time (I think his name was James), had what is known as the Crown Copyright - or something like that. It actually was more binding than what we consider current copyright. It never expires... just it is only good for England. Here in the United States, we were under that law until around 1776 - about July 4th I think it was, when in the course of human events it became necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands... OK, I'm off topic. If you look at a Bible printed in England (that would be an Oxford or a Cambridge), you will find the phrase 'cum privilegio' which means that it was printed with permission, or it was 'copied' with 'rights' by the crown. In England, the KJV is still copyrighted.
False: all the rest of the versions are copyrighted and only out for money. That is false because the copyrights of some verions have expired. Normal copyrights lasted for about 75 years. That means, that today, the American Standard Version (which is the American edition of the 1881 Revised Version of England) is no longer under copyright. But, just because it isn't copyrighted, does not mean that it's a good translation.
As for whether or not they are just out for money... I imagine some of them are, but I imagine some (if not the majority?) are actually out there trying to improve God's word... er, I mean, trying to improve the translation of God's word. I really don't know their motive. None of us do.
The copyright of the KJV by the crown was not for monetary benefit like copyrights are USUALLY employed today, but rather for political reasons. In America, there is freedom of the press, so books can be printed at will - though you can't copy someone else's work without permission. So, had the KJV been translated in America today, would it have been copyrighted?
...Interesting thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)