[JMWHALEN]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

Dear JMWHALEN,

I do not understand what you are trying to say, but I will try to clarify myself as best I can.



I use the KJV for my Bible reading wherever I am whether it is in church, in my room having devotions or witnessing to someone on the street. Yes, I do "prefer" it to the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the other modern versions because these other versions greatly weaken many of the great doctrines of my faith (removing I John 5:7, for example, removes the one of the greatest proof texts on the Trinity that we have). Therefore, because I use the KJV in my devotions and in church and any other time, I refer to the Bible in my life I depend on it for guidance in my life. Further, I believe that any time I have a question in life I can go to it and find the answer. I use a Strong's concordance and a dictionary (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) as a tool to help me understand passages that are somewhat confusing to me. I also consult commentaries such as Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible for further explanation although I do so with a critical eye because what he says is merely man's opinion on what the Bible means. The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.



There are several words in the original languages for which we do not have an English word to describe fully. For example, one of the many facets of God's love is His loyal love to us. The Hebrew word that that expresses this concept is the word chesed. This word has been translated into the KJV as mercy or kindness. Strong's describes it as "kindness; by implication (towards God) piety; rarely (by opprobrium) reproof, or (subjectively) beauty: - favour, good deed (-liness, -ness), kindly, (loving-) kindness, merciful (kindness), mercy, pity, reproach, wicked thing.” However, no single English word fully describes this Hebrew word. Therefore, when the KJV translators translated that word they certainly did the best they could at finding the best English word to describe this Hebrew word. Consequently, it is obviously better to go back to the original language to find the full meaning of the word. Anyone that has learned a foreign language knows that this is true. So since I believe that God's inspire Word is preserved through the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have not been corrupted like the Alexandrian or Vatican texts (that is the Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Textus Receptus, or whatever you want to call it) and the entire meaning of the words cannot be captured through any translation, I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.

Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?

_______
My comments:

Originally Posted by JMWHALEN
What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

My comment:

Please answer the question. I did not ask if you “use”(“Prefer”, “like”…..), I asked:

Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

And you did not answer it.


“The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.”

Perhaps this will. I believe Christianity. However, I believe in Christianity not because I “like” it, or because I “prefer” it, nor because of its "usability"-I submit to it because it is true. Thus, the question.: Do you believe that the KJV is true=the inspired word of God? Yes or no? If it is true, i.e., the inspired word of God, we/you should submit to it, irregardless whether you “like“/prefer/”use it”. That is, preferabilty, usability, or likability are thus irrelevant. I "like" ice creme, but is it good for me, is it "true" to a healthy body? Should we chose which "the" Bible as we chose Christianity? Did you choose Christianity because you "like" it, or you "prefer" it, or because of its "usabilty", or because you determined, based on the evidence, it is true? Most choose "which 'the' Bible" as they choose which "religion", like a big buffet("a little of this, a little of that"), i.e., based on "usability", "preference", "likeability", and NOT TRUTH. Here is my article, hopefully expressing this point:


Bible Buffet/Stew-Truth or Preference
Submitted by John M. Whalen
(bold is my emphasis)

"Come, let us reason together...." Isaiah 1:18
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________


Comments from posters(another board), on the question: “Which Bible translation do you favor, and why?

“ I personally favor…”

“I've tried the….”

“Love the …....that's probably my favourite for everyday use. I also like the……”

“I use the …. in my daily devotions, but I love the …..”


“My preferred bible is the….., although I love the archaic and poetic construction in the….. I also like …… translation, but my favourite New Covenant translation has got to be ...”


My fav is ….as well - I love the prose, the way it flows. I have others that I use…..”.


“….I prefer the ….”


“I like the…….and the……. These are the three that I use on a regular basis.”

“I read the….”

“I actually prefer the….”


“….which one do i use today?..... i prefer ….. but i get a better sense out of any verse or passage im studying when i use all that i have.”


“I read different ones.... the one we use in church is….. at home we also use a chronalogical Bible for some study……. but we do like ….. quite well.....”

“I chose other. My favorite translation is the..... It is for sure one of the best ones around of the ones I've read…… I also like the….I like…..”

“My favorite is the… as well. I love reading it on a daily basis. I still use the…..”


“my favorite translations in order of preference are :….”

“I used to read the…”

“I not only prefer the,,,,,,, it is the only translation I have any confidence in. To me, all other translations are full of errors and ommissions….., I use the ….”

“I have always used the…because I have found it reasonably well translated, but I know it has flaws like any translation, if I seriously thought….I would use that version as well..”

Vs.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13

“…for I trust in thy word.” Psalms 119:42

“Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:” Psalms 106:24

“…they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” John 2:22

“Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed;..” Acts 4:4
__________________________________________________ ___________

A serious comment that I would hope would be considered, for we serve a God of reason(Isaiah 1:18): I am under the assumption, which I feel is a reasonable assumption, given the depth/insight of many of the comments I have read on a vast number of theological subjects/questions, that there are many rational, reasonable, and prudent believers writing on these issues. Given this, I still would ask you to prayerfully consider the following: I understand that the question is

“Which Bible translation do you favor, and why? ", or, to restate the issue, "Which 'version' do you PREFER"? I would ask the following: Is it not more important not to ask which we "prefer", “favor”, like”, for implied in that question is the notion that "preference/taste/like determines truth", but MOST IMPORTANTLY, should not our criteria, the question be, "What is the Bible"? That's seems pretty simple to me. Do or do we not have a "the Bible" we can press to our heart, and say, without reservation, and without apology, that "This is the preserved word of God, without error-He inspired it, He preserved it, and it is without error." If we can do this, then, it seems to me that what we "prefer", what we “like”, what is our “favorite”, …. is not only irrelevant, it is subjective and should be discarded as the standard. After all, even though I may "prefer such and such version", if it is not the word of God, why read it, and certainlt we should not believe/trust it? That is, it is a moot point. I “like” smoking, and I “prefer” NOW shorts,…. I “like” not going to work, and “prefer” sleeping in bed Monday-Friday,…I “like” ice cream, and I “prefer” vanilla….

Allow me to elaborate.

"Religious" Pluralism, or "Religious Stew"

Religious pluralism is the world view that, when it comes to” religious" issues, "all roads lead to Rome". That is, it doesn't really matter what philosophy or "religion" you accept", as long as you've got "God"("THE UNKNOWN GOD"-Acts 17:23) thrown in there somewhere, and you're following your "heart"(despite Jeremiah 17:9); that is, you are "sincere"("The Oprah Winfrey Show") . This is an approach to "religion" that is sweeping the world. However, this approach is flawed in the best case, and is deception in the worse case.
.
I "like", I "prefer" sweets, and my brother is a doctor, so perhaps an analogy would clarify my argument. This may seem obvious, but there is a vast difference between choosing an ice cream flavor and choosing a medicine. When choosing ice cream, you choose what you like, what you "prefer".
When choosing medicine, you have to choose what heals.

When many/most(?) consider that of the spiritual realm as it pertains to God, they think of Him as they would of ice cream, not like they think of insulin. That is, they choose religious views according to their tastes, to what they "prefer", and not according to what is true. The question of truth hardly even comes up in their consideration.

Furthermore, the question of truth is somewhat of a confusing, almost incoherent issue to them. How can you test something like a "religious" claim to determine if it's true or not? That is, "religious" truth is what you believe-your "opinion", your "preference", what you "choose". It's that "blind leap of faith" you take, and ultimately it has nothing to do with reality. Thus, it is not anything you can test or measure. It is something you have to believe and hope against hope that it's true. It becomes a kind of wishful thinking, a religious placebo of sorts- "Fantasy Island", if you will.

In contrast, Christianity contends that you can test religious truth, and I'd like to offer one of those methods to you.

Someone once asked me to "try" "Jehovah's Witness's ism". I declined and provided my argument. The Jehovah's witness accused me of not being "open-minded", of being "intolerant"(ever you heard that-politics?) in that I wouldn't try it to see if it was "for me". This reveals something about how people choose "religion". They choose what they "like", what they "prefer", rather than what is true. I was considered "close-minded", intolerant, even "mean spirited" or "unchristian", because I wouldn't "try it" to see if I "liked" it.

But this admonition and criticism was misplaced. Why? Because "religion", isn't the kind of thing you "choose" because you "like"/"prefer" it. It isn't a matter of tasting, and sampling, and seeing if it "appeals" to you-it is not a buffet or stew where you "choose a little of this, a little of that".

Regrettably, not only is this a mistaken way of encouraging somebody to accept a particular "religious" view when done by a Jehovah's Witness", for example, or any "religion", it is also a mistaken way for Christians to appeal to non-Christians, because ultimately it is ineffective.

"Try my Jesus, you'll like Him." Although I have been a Christian for only 10 years, and I try to thank the LORD God every day for the joy I have experienced through the Lord Jesus Christ, there are a many times that I don't particularly like the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you find this shocking? Have not we all "been there" in our walk? The Lord Jesus Christ, and his standards, is not very convenient at times, in a sense. That is, the appeal, the conviction, of Christianity is not to preferences, not to what you "like", but to truth. The real question is this: "Is Jesus God, Lord, and Messiah, or not?" That ought to be the "bottom line" issue regarding Christianity.

The real issue is whether your "religious" beliefs are true or not, not whether you "like" them, not whether you "prefer" them, not whether you "try" them and find them appealing, or whether it is your “favorite” way of being acceptable to the LORD God..

Again, this is "Buffet/Stew Religion"-taking little bits and pieces of different "religions", mixing them together in one "pious smorgasbord", if you will.-go down the buffet line, pick a little here and a little there("prefer", "like", “favorites”), place it on your plate, and call it "your religion". When you put things on your plate you put them there for a reason. You put things on the plate in a smorgasbord because they are the things you like, not necessarily things that are good for you health-wise. This the inherent flaw the religious stew approach.

If you have this view, how do you know you haven't just invented a religious placebo based on what you "prefer", based on what are your “favorites”, that, in the end, and in the best case, doesn't do you much good ultimately, but just satisfies your appetite, and, at worst, will kill you(eating poisonous mushrooms)? It may be spiritual junk food, or empty "religious calories"--something that appeals to the palate, the senses, and you "prefer" it, but does nothing for spiritual health.

Is not much of "religion" in people's lives merely a placebo, like a sugar pill that they take to make them feel better, and not a pill that does any medicinal good, but a pill that helps them talk themselves into believing it will do some good? A placebo is given to people who are hypochondriacs and aren't really sick, but just think they are, so you give them a sugar pill. And they think it does some good and they feel better, but nothing has changed.

If you are looking for a religion that suits you, a religion that fits what you "'like" or "prefer", is it not true that you are simply manufacturing a "religious" view of your own invention?. This, of course, is the attack that philosophers through the ages some have used against Christianity, accusing Christians of inventing God out of psychological reasons, and for a "crutch"-we create God in the image of our own desires, our own "preferences".

To those I would respond as follows: If I were inclined to invent a "religion" and a "god", the LORD God of the Bible is the very last God I would ever invent. I would invent a "god" that would allow me to choose what I "prefer", or one who is my “favorite”-life would be more like ice creme.

I certainly would not invent a Holy(the most often stated attribute of God in scripture-not love) God whose perfect moral character becomes the absolute law of the universe. He is utterly demanding, encroaching on every corner of our life. Who would invent a God like that? That isn't the kind of God that would make me feel more comfortable, or the God I would "prefer", or my “favorite” “god.”. That type of God makes me feel uncomfortable, because that God's righteous demands are much greater than my ability to deliver on my own.

Some might think this idea of testing a "religious" truth is an unusual, an irrational concept, because in this day of religious stew pluralism, the notion that any one "religion" is true is viewed as "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13). It is viewed as "impolite, incorrect, mean-spirited, intolerant, divisive, closed-minded, irrational", coming from the minds of those who just aren't "enlightened". You just don't say that anymore, since saying that there is an objective truth that necessarily excludes all other "supposed truths" is not only intolerant, it is bad manners in this "civilized" society. And this is why Christians should be expected to be rejected by "the world".

Again, when choosing ice cream, for example, you choose what you like or "prefer"-your “favorites.” When choosing medicine, you cannot choose what you "prefer", you must choose what will cure you. If not, you will die.

In simple terms, due to the exclusive claims of Christianity, if Christianity is true(and it is!), all other "religions" are automatically disqualified by the law of non-contradiction. When somebody says I'm "close-minded, intolerant, bigoted", because I won't even "try" it, that's akin to someone saying to me "my brother is an only child, and you're so close-minded and intolerant you won't even take the time to investigate this", implying that knowing this truth involves some type of "Columbo" investigation, and I'm irrational and intolerant for not taking the time and effort to find out.

No, some things are obviously and irrefutably false. It is false to say "my brother is an only child"-this is a contradiction, and must be rejected as false, whether I "prefer" it or not. I have no rational obligation to even consider it. In the same way, if Christianity is true, all other "religions" are false, regardless of "opinion' or "preference".

And thus "religious stew' has got to be false by its very nature, and must be rejected, irrespective of what you "prefer". The only relevant question to consider is: Is it true?

Consider the implications of the preceding when witnessing to a predominantly Christ-rejecting, and thus lost and dying world.

I recently engaged in a debate on another board with a gentleman regarding this same issue. After many posts back and forth, he made a comment along the lines of this:

"That is your truth. What may be true for you, may not be true for me. My God would not(do such and such)............"

What was he saying? He was inventing a "god" of his own choosing, a "god" he "prefers", a "god" he "likes". His mind set is "That's good for you, but I don't need that, and I prefer......"

The problem is not that the nonbeliever doesn't "need" Christianity. How do we get them to feel the need for the Lord Jesus Christ, or "change their minds"(the biblical meaning of "repent")? The 'stumbling block" to the non-believer is that he/she does not have in their perception of reality the mind set that there is such a thing as truth-they are relativists. To them, Christianity is just a "preferred" activity of the Christian, or preferred notion or belief-an "opinion", if you will. The decision is simply a matter of preference. He/she "prefers" something different. And why would you fault him/her for their "preference", or what they "like", their preference? Why does he/she have to be like you in your "preferences"?

There's no sense that this is a world filled with both true and false notions, and that we have a rational, logical obligation to separate the two, and a moral responsibility to embrace and follow truth. Would I be "way off base" by the following observation?: Christians do not seem to understand this, because our own Christian world view is not broad. We don't have a rich understanding of the inevitable consequences of what we hold to be true. Instead, we embrace the rushing tide of the "world view"- things aren't true or false; they're pleasant or unpleasant, appealing or unappealing, "liked" or "disliked", "preferred" or "not preferred".

No, Christianity is not a question of our preference, or at least it should not be. As mentioned earlier, there are a "a lotta things" about the demands of this great Saviour of ours I just don't "like" or prefer". If our Christianity is what we "prefer", are not we misunderstanding our hope? As stated earlier, I will tell you, I "prefer" smoking, I do not "like" quitting. I do not "like" getting up early every morning going to work. I prefer staying home all day and smoking a few cigarettes! Similarly, I do not "prefer" Christianity. I "prefer" agnosticism, since it is not only much easier, it is much less troublesome. With it, I would have much more wordly freedom. However, I believe that Christianity is true based on the evidence, therefore I'm rationally and logically obligated to accept it as true, and not because I "prefer" it, and not because I “like” it, and not because it is my “favorite.”. And because it's true, there is a necessary quality to it. We can say this because we understand world views. That's why we approach this issue in this manner. But if we don't understand that our Christianity is necessary, that it is true, then we are incapable of discussing this truth when we try to witness to someone who doesn't share our "preference".

In "buckling under" to this notion of "preference", we try to appeal to the false view, instead of telling them the truth. We attempt to make the Lord Jesus Christ more likable, more pleasant, more appealing("Try him"! You will like him. He changed my life"-so do health clubs!), rather than clarifying that it is more true because that's what they're looking for, rather than clarifying that Christianity is more true. And so we fall into the trap of resorting to entertainment, rather than advocacy and conviction.

To restate the preceding in a somewhat different manner, consider that all begins with this great God, not man. If in fact man is all there is, the perspective of the atheist, for example, then the only place the atheist can start and end with is man. Then "preference" becomes the only relevant priority. However, if God does indeed exist, as Christians contend(and others), it is irrelevant what is "preferred". What only matters is: is it true?

Part of being "in Christ" includes a change in our world view, having "...the mind of Christ..."(1 Cor. 2:16), not just a change in our appeals to our senses. We adapt our lives to a new, true view of the world based upon the word of God and the exclusiveness of our faith, as opposed to offering a view that is meant to be adapted to our lives. So instead of trying to find a method of making the Lord Jesus Christ more pleasant, more agreeable, more appealing, more "preferable" to the lost, we explain that his/her view of the world is false, and then proclaim without reservation or fear that the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the truth, and all others are necessarily false. We conform, submit our desires, our "likes", our "preferences" , our “favorites”, to the truth, rather than the truth to our desires, our "likes", our "preferences", our “favorites.” Although we must make the truth appealing, for that is part of our roles as "... ambassadors for Christ..."(2 Cor. 5:20), but never can we, or should we, substitute appeal or "preference" for the truth. Or, as one writer stated this principle, we must never seek to build a temple of unity upon the grave of truth. This great God of ours expects more than this from those he calls his own.

Cannot the same be applied to the issue of this post?

If the Lord Jesus Christ's name is so precious to God the Father, and it is(Philippians 2:9, Eph. 1:21), and if God's own name is even exalted above all blessing and praise, and it is(Neh. 9:5), and if God has glorified His word (Acts 14:38, 2 Thessalonians 3:1), and He has, and if God has magnified His word above His own name, and He did and has(Psalms 138:2), is it not a disservice to frame the "Bible version debate" issue to a matter of "preference", or what we “like”? And, as a related question, given the glorification, magnification, and thus importance the LORD God has placed on his word, is it legitimate to ridicule and criticize those who stand on the premise that the LORD God, who created the universe, raised his Only begotten Son from the dead, and saved (formerly) dirty, rotten scoundrels such as all of were prior to his bestowing his infinite grace upon us, did in fact preserve his word without error as a present possession in a book we call "The Holy Bible"? "The" is singular, is it not? If the God as revealed in scripture is true, that is, possessing power we can not even imagine, much less comprehend, is it not "reasonable" to conclude that He could preserve his word without error? After all, what type of God do we serve, honor, and worship?

Does our "preference" miss the mark? "Try this version, you will like it." Was not this employed in Genesis, the "seed plot" of the Holy Bible(Genesis Chapter 3)? As outlined previously, the "appeal" to Christianity, as revealed in "the Bible", is not to preferences, but to the truth. The real question should be: Is this the word of God, or not, and not whether I "prefer" or "like" this "version".

Someone once said to me: I find people who limit God to the KJB do not believe in the full power and glory of God". I told this person this is backward. We do not limit God with the KJB-He limits us. If you can PREFER whatever version you want when you come to a passage you do not prefer-it is you that needs to be limited, because you are not under subjection to God's word, if in fact you are judging God's word as if you are superior to it-you are your own "god" and authority(Gen. 3:5). Do you not often find it to be the case that, when arguing a doctrinal point with someone, in the spirit of "...speaking the truth in love...."(Eph. 4:15), invariably your opponent, when his/her doctrinal argument seems to be "losing", will cite a passage in another "version" as proof text to support their "take" on a doctrinal issue?

I live in Texas. My preacher friend Mike Arnold provided me the below prize winning Chili recipe(ingredients). It is an 94.73% accurate "copy".

2 1/2 lb. lean ground chuck/ 1 lb. lean ground pork/1 c finely chopped onion/4 garlic cloves finely chopped/1 cn Budweiser beer(12 oz)/8 oz Hunt's tomato sauce/1 cn water/3 tb chili powder/3 tb ground cumin/2 tb Wyler's beef-flavored instant bouillon(or 6 cubes)/2 ts Oregano leaves/2 ts paprika/2 ts sugar/1 ts unsweetened cocoa/1/2 ts ground coriander/1/2 ts Louisiana hot sauce, to taste/1 ts flour, 1 ts cornmeal/1 tb warm water/2 ts ARSENIC

Pastor Jerry Lockhart of Berean Bible Church in New Braunfels, Texas points out that rat poison is 99.05% cornmeal, and .05% strychnine(a poisonous alkaloid). The .05% “gets the rat”. Satan’s deception is to “mix a little lie in with a whole lotta’ truth”, and the Body of Christ has bought into this deception.

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" 1 Cor. 5:6

The danger of relativism is not people believing nothing, but people believing anything. The devil is "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), and the essence of deception is "mixing" just a little bit error with the truth. As most believers know, the Jehovah's Witnesses "prefer" the following "version" of John 1:1:

"...and the word was a(emphasis mine) god"(notice also lower case 'g'-New World Translation)

I applaud one believer, who wrote, who wrote:

"... here is what the bible says.
Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The bible says that his words will be preserved from generation to generation. He also says that anyone who adds to his word, or takes away from it will be stopped.....my stand is that the KJV is the pure, perfect, and infallable word of God."

This person did not "prefer" this "version" of "the Bible", he/she took a stand. I find that not only refreshing, but uncompromising and courageous. Does not conviction "separate the men from the boys"? And, more importantly, is that not what the Lord God demands, not "prefers", from those who are his children, from those who he "...bought with a price..."(1 Cor. 6:20), that price being the death by blood of the Lord Jesus Christ on a lonesome hill we call Calvary?

I wrote this post not to frame the issue as (fill in the blank) vs. "the other versions". Many of you know are well aware of my stand on this issue. My motivation was hopefully to inspire reasonable thinking on this issue, for I know that most believers on this board embrace the notion, the truth, the conviction, that we have a "reasonable" God(Isaiah 1:18). And as such, how can we ever be convincing to a lost world of the "...truth in Christ...."(Romans 9:1), which is, by its nature, based on uncompromising exclusivity, and not PREFERENCE, if we, in fact, do not hold to this ourselves on a simple issue such as "what is the Bible"?

I ask that, like Mary of old, you "ponder" these things in your heart(Luke 2:18).

No one has stated that they believe every word of the Holy Bible. I do, and I will. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved, without error word of God foe English speaking people. The word of God, by definition, has no errors, or it is not the word of God, as it is written:

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” Psalms 119:160

“…in the scripture of truth…” Daniel 10:21

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

___