Why does everyone seem to need to come up with their own belief and doctrinal formula?

[marks]

Ok. The KJV is not a book you pick up and read. It's more like a carpenter book, or a mechanic book. You have to learn the technical names and definitions, and most go to school to learn, but you can learn on your own. You can study the KJV with a dictionary and commentary until you are learned.

Well said.

In the 43 years I've been a Christian, I've used many different translations, with much study concerning their reliability and clarity. The NIV is by far the worst of the more popular translations, the KJV is by far the best.

Many translations are "easier" to read then the KJV, and so is Dr. Seuss easier to read then C.S. Lewis. But you won't learn from Seuss what you will learn from Lewis.

In my schooling and studies in Koine Greek, to me, reading the KJV is the most like reading the Greek.

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

What does that scripture mean?

2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
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.

[

Perhaps exactly what it says as in...

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Romans 8:13

Who among us, believers that is, are following always the Spirit rather than the flesh? Who among us are still mixtures of the two?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Ok. The KJV is not a book you pick up and read.

No actually, It is a good book. but so is the NKJV the NASB and other bibles.

It's more like a carpenter book, or a mechanic book. You have to learn the technical names and definitions, and most go to school to learn, but you can learn on your own. You can study the KJV with a dictionary and commentary until you are learned.

Or I can read the NKJV or the NASB and understand better what is being said.. without having to do all this.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well said.

In the 43 years I've been a Christian, I've used many different translations, with much study concerning their reliability and clarity. The NIV is by far the worst of the more popular translations, the KJV is by far the best.

Many translations are "easier" to read then the KJV, and so is Dr. Seuss easier to read then C.S. Lewis. But you won't learn from Seuss what you will learn from Lewis.

In my schooling and studies in Koine Greek, to me, reading the KJV is the most like reading the Greek.

Much love!

I see the New Living Translation as being far worse than even the NIV.

I have not used a KJV since I was a teenage. I have used the NKJV since then. When my mother dies. i took her KJV to have as a momento. Every now and again I will get it out to reed it. There are times when I have to pick up the NKJV to understand what is being said because I do nto speak the language.

now one thing to understand, I grew up as a child using the KJV, all the way until My father bought me a NKJV when I was about 16 years old. so the language is not new to me.. imagine a kid who has never seen that language ?

 

[Lambano]

That broad definition would support the practice of institutionally controlling biblical interpretation.

Not necessarily institutional control (though I'm pretty sure that's how our Catholic brothers and sisters understand it), but certainly communal interpretation. Wesley considered Bible Study to be a team sport.

Which is why we're discussing it in community now.

 

[amadeus]

God promised to preserve His words forever, I believe the KJV is that preservation. Therefore, it doesn't matter what someone a thousand years ago said, it is the Holy Spirit in the KJV translators who brought God's Word to the world and stood the test of time.

Psalms 12:6-7 -
The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

But... without the Holy Spirit leading us what does it matter what we think about what we read in any Bible translation?

"[God] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2 Corinthians 3:6

 

[Wrangler]

Ok. The KJV is not a book you pick up and read. It's more like a carpenter book, or a mechanic book. You have to learn the technical names and definitions, and most go to school to learn, but you can learn on your own. You can study the KJV with a dictionary and commentary until you are learned.

Why would anyone do that when there are FAR better translations regarding both, the FROM and the TO? Today's translators have better mastery of ancient languages and older manuscripts (Dead See scrolls found in the 1970's, etc) than the KJ translators. Regarding the TO, the KJV translates to Middle English, not spoken today.

The KJV is the worst translation available in English today. KJVO-ism is one of the worst IDOLATRIES in all of Christendom!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The KJV is the worst translation available in English today.

Not sure I agree.. The NIV and NLT are worse

KJVO-ism is one of the worst IDOLATRIES in all of Christendom!

Agree,, one of many

 

[marks]

I suppose the gospel is at the heart of this topic, but I was actually hoping to focus on the great error and people's tenancy to pit one assumed gospel against another based on their own opinion and understanding--rather than simply believing it as stated, and being silent except to repeat it.

I think that we need to understand the words so that we aren't just parroting sounds, but that we are telling the same message as the Bible, using the Biblical statements, but we know what they mean, and we repeat them from our own selves, because God has put His Word into us, and we let His Word speak.

"I believed, therefore I have spoken"

When we can speak the very words of Scripture without any reservation or feeling the need to add or subtract "lest they get the wrong idea", but just give God's Word without reservation, we will all be saying the same thing.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Not sure I agree.. The NIV and NLT are worse

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can, at least, read the NIV and NLT. (And I think the NLT is the very best translation available in English. The very best - unless you are doing a word for word analysis, which most rarely do.)

It doesn't help me to say the best translation of the Bible is in Swahili. I don't speak Swahili!

 

[marks]

Essentially, universalists can accept our different understanding and move on with the knowledge that all of us will, eventually, be in God's Kingdom. Mainstream Christians, on the other hand, cannot (apparently) reconcile that differing doctrine. My impression of you is that you believe that we should not share the theology that all will be in God's Kingdom and that only you and those who agree with you should post. I'm not knocking you. I'm simply stating my impression based on your OP.

Does your belief in universal salvation cause you to disregard the Bible's call for each of us to choose to submit to Christ? Do you evangelize?

Much love!

 

[NotTheRock]

40,000 different denominations and nasty internet forum debates and "everyone coming up with their own beliefs and doctrine" is the natural and logical consequence of this practice. It is a systemic problem with its historical roots in the Protestant Reformation.

All part of God's plan. I believe he allows ALL to be lost from him for a finite period of time and from one extent to another. One hundred people = one hundred different doctrines. Eventually ALL will be reconciled to him through Christ. The ultimate lesson is that we are truly lost without God, our true Father.

 

[NotTheRock]

Does your belief in universal salvation cause you to disregard the Bible's call for each of us to choose to submit to Christ? Do you evangelize?

Much love!

No & Yes.

 

[marks]

"Private Interpretation" is the buzzword some of our Catholic brothers and sisters (yes, I do regard them as my brothers and sisters in Christ, though many would not reciprocate that status back to me) have used to criticize the Protestant practice of allowing the laity to interpret scripture. Interpreting God's Word (and that has a broader scope than just "prophesy") is much too important a job to let every Tom, Dick, and Harry do it. 40,000 different denominations and nasty internet forum debates and "everyone coming up with their own beliefs and doctrine" is the natural and logical consequence of this practice. It is a systemic problem with its historical roots in the Protestant Reformation.

I believe that is the "Official" Catholic interpretation of the Second Pete scripture. I've heard the "private interpretation" buzzword during interdenominational Bible discussions going all the way back to my Catholic college roomie.

Did you see this thread? (And pick up on the "solo" instead of "sola"?)

The Problems with Solo Scriptura

This passage makes for a great example of what @ScottA is getting at here.

People commonly repeat this passage a though it were speaking of how we understand and interpret ourselves the prophecies we read in the Bible, yet the verse itself, if we just repeat what it says with understanding of what the words mean, what it says is that no prophecy is of private interpretation, which speak towards the origin of that prophecy.

2 Peter 1:20-21 LITV
20) knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
21) for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

Our responsibility is to understand the words without changing them.

Yet many don't understand these words, and misapply them.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No & Yes.

And I rejoice!!

Much love!

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Why does everyone seem to need to come up with their own belief and doctrinal formula?

Upset again that others aren't blindly following you?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can, at least, read the NIV and NLT. (And I think the NLT is the very best translation available in English. The very best - unless you are doing a word for word analysis, which most rarely do.)

the problem is the NLT is so riddled with errors. it is not a bible I would recommend everyone read.

readability is great, if it was sound in its doctrine. its not.

My church attempted to start using it. so i did when i was teaching. The problem is we keep having to correct major issues with the interpretation by going to the NASB and or NKJV (in my case) to correct those issue. we have since decided that in these cases. we will nto even use the NLT, because it does not look good when have to keep correcting it.

It doesn't help me to say the best translation of the Bible is in Swahili. I don't speak Swahili!

No sure what you mean

 

[Wrangler]

The problem is we keep having to correct major issues with the interpretation by going to the NASB and or NKJV (in my case) to correct those issue.

Hmmm. I see that as backwards. The NLT corrected the major errors, especially of any translation with "James" in the title.

No sure what you mean

Do you speak Swahili? I don't speak Middle English. I know NKJV is not technically Middle English but it is still virtually unreadable to me. The sentence structure is like reading the Gospel of Yoda. The NASB is only a little better.

I prefer the ESV, which competes with the NASB in claiming to be the most literal. It is too choppy by today's quick standards. Here is an example I use:

Jesus came inside from the rain.​

After coming inside from the rain, Jesus took his raincoat off.​

After taking off his raincoat, Jesus went down stairs.​

Once down stairs, he, Jesus, took off his galoshes.​

​

Other translations put this in a much more naturally flowing by today's standards single sentence. Sure, the order of taking off the galoshes and going down stairs might be reversed but I'd hardly call it a major issue.

 

[Rockerduck]

Why would anyone do that when there are FAR better translations regarding both, the FROM and the TO? Today's translators have better mastery of ancient languages and older manuscripts (Dead See scrolls found in the 1970's, etc) than the KJ translators. Regarding the TO, the KJV translates to Middle English, not spoken today.

The KJV is the worst translation available in English today. KJVO-ism is one of the worst IDOLATRIES in all of Christendom!

Every translation is a derivative of the KJV. However, phrases are sometimes changed and loose meaning. There are some decent translations. Not all, just some. I'm not KJV only. It is the standard to judge others by. For instance, I have and read the LSB, I'll read a passage, then I'll read the KJV.

 

[Wrangler]

Every translation is a derivative of the KJV.

100% False.

I recall KJVO-ists saying this for decades. Have you ever actually read translator notes from modern translations? I have.