This is an interesting article from the adventist biblical research archives.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/kjvonly.htm
and this one:

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Which%20Version%20Can%20We%20Trust.htm

Has anybody looked over the links provided in this topic?

If so, do you have any comments pertaining to what is contained in those links?

For about half a century I have taught and presented the precious Advent Messsage to people in five different languages, plus several more where I had to use an interpreter. I would have been severely handicapped if the Advent Message had been limited to those people who have access to and understand the English King James version of the Bible.

For those who understand and read the KJV it is a most impressive and beautiful language, and I appreciate it very much. But SDA is a world-wide movement and to be preached to all people in the verious languages of the world. I have often found it much easier to present the whole Advent message when using one of the Bibles available in other languages that are not based on the KJV.

This reminds me of people's reaction when a new evangelist arrived in Iceland a number of years ago. I heard some of the older saints complain that this preacher was not presenting the Advent message the way they had learned it. In former days the long-time pastor had always presented the message with his own illustrations, such as the new birth with planting and growing potatoes. He pointed out how the old potato had to die so that the new potatoes could grow.

The visiting evangelist used his own illustrations, and therefore the old-timers thought he was proclaiming another message, and did not like it. To some of them he was not a real Seventh-day Adventist.

Good point, Pastor Johann.

I personally think this is in reference to the English language rather than all the other obviously necessary languages of the world.

Remember, the original language/s of the Bible wasn't/weren't even English in the first place.

Daryl,

I this topic, i would say a few things.

1. the first is poorly translated bible better then no bible?

2. IF for example the NIV(or any other newer translation) had been the translation done 400 years ago and the KJV was the new kid on the block would not we be having this same discussion just flipped on it head.

3. I often wonder if the strongly KJV crowd is doubting the power of God to protect HIS word.

Just thoughts to thing about.


Erik

It's a long time replying to this last post, however, I think it does deserve a reply, therefore, I am bumping this thread.

I think it's good to take advantage of as many translations as possible. The KJV has some good things going for it, including it's an actual translation, whereas others, like the NIV, tend more towards being a paraphrase. Another thing is that it used the Textus Receptus, or received text, which, for example, has the story of the woman caught in adultery, whereas the NIV says something like "the most reliable manuscripts don't have this story," so reading the NIV leaves you wondering what should be in Scripture and what shouldn't be.

Of course a disadvantage of the KJV is the language is archaic. The NKJV helps in this regard.

If I could only read one Bible, I'd choose the KJV over the NIV, but thankfully, I'm not restrained to only use one version. Some things the NIV translates wonderfully. Again, I think it's good to consider all the versions one can look at.

I think some good points have been raised. To say that the English KJV is the best borders on racism. Hebrew and Greek would be the best, but then you have different manuscripts. The commentary states that John chapters 7:53 to 8:11 appears in only one of the early uncial manuscripts and the "large majority of the Old Latin manuscripts do not have it". This seems to agree with the NIV statement.

Where does that leave us? Back to reading a number of different versions, understanding the general message of the Bible, and not basing one's religion on any one version or any one verse. The commentary is full of comments such as, "rather", "better translated as", etc. Which still doesn't mean another version is "better". Neither should one say a certain version is better because it has "less" errors. What would they be compared to?

To say one version is the only one would be to say that God only protected one and not the others. Obviously, there are "errors" in all of them. But then, some would say there are errors between the gospel stories. Some say that in John, the Word became a god. They are basing their religion on an indefinite article. Reading the chapter in context, comparing to the rest of the Bible, especially the parts about one God and having no other gods before Him makes it clear to me.

Comparing scripture with scripture, both within and between versions seems to be the best approach.

Some of the churches I have visited [I was an over road trucker for 25years] show that it hasn't changed much. People still cling to certain ways of doing things as the only way.