Which One Are You?

[JM]

Quoted:

KJVO #1 "I PREFER THE KJV"

This group believes the KJV is the best single English translation available today. This is based on its history, usefulness, beauty, etc. It does NOT mean that there might not be a better English translation possible and that other present translations are "bad".

These are only marginally KJVonly and should NOT be lumped in with discussion on other issues.

KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.

KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

KJVO #5 "I BELIEVE THE KJV IS NEW REVELATION"

This group believes that the KJV was supernaturally inspired in such a way that the English text itself is inerrant revelation. The Bible was "re-inspired" in 1611, rendering it in the English language.

These would say that the Greek/Hebrew should be changed to agree with the "new" revelation in 1611 and that all translations into other languages (Spanish, French, etc) should match the KJV.

I'll add a #6 as 'I do not believe in KJV only.'

[mhess13]

I'm somewhere between 1 and 2, leaning more toward 2. I haven't studied the issue enough, though.

With that said, I have other translations. I refer to them to help get a broader understanding of the meaning of a problematic verse. The KJV is the authority though.
My wife read NKJV and I let my 11 year old use a NLT because it is WAY easier for him to understand.
I know this would get me into trouble w/ a lot of other fundies...

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I'm somewhere between 1 and 2, leaning more toward 2. I haven't studied the issue enough, though.

With that said, I have other translations. I refer to them to help get a broader understanding of the meaning of a problematic verse. The KJV is the authority though.
My wife read NKJV and I let my 11 year old use a NLT because it is WAY easier for him to understand.
I know this would get me into trouble w/ a lot of other fundies...

Why should it get you into trouble? No English translation is an authority, to get the best understanding you should get Greek and Hebrew lexicons, study the different texts, pay attention to the text dates, look at commentaries. IN other words "study to show thyself approved". As it stands right now I think the NASB is the most accurate English translation. I am a complete fundy, but being sola scriptura I see nowhere in the Bible that says what translation is the best.

[mhess13]

Why should it get you into trouble? No English translation is an authority, to get the best understanding you should get Greek and Hebrew lexicons, study the different texts, pay attention to the text dates, look at commentaries. IN other words "study to show thyself approved". As it stands right now I think the NASB is the most accurate English translation. I am a complete fundy, but being sola scriptura I see nowhere in the Bible that says what translation is the best.
well some fundies shun you over use of other translations. It's a shame. Some act like new translations are on the level of the book of mormon almost!

I like to let my 11 year old son us NLT so he can understand what's actually being said. When i was his age using KJV, I spent all my time trying to sort through the archaic words and difficuly sentence structures and didn't really get a lot out of the text. I feel you need to have a grasp on english before you can really get a lot out of KJV

[twistedsketch]

I grew up with the NIV and have found that it works pretty well. It is better than the NASB for some passages, and vice versa. Most accepted translations say the same thing, anyway. Since the English language has changed quite a bit since 1611, I believe the "KJV Only" doctrine makes it harder for newer believers to get into the Bible. If you can't understand what you're reading, the text isn't helping you very much.

It is useful to know the KJV, though. Over the last few hundred years, many good commentaries, lexicons, and Bible dictionaries have used this translation. If you want to dig deep into the Bible and study it, this translation has far more resources that use it than any other English translation.

[Rebirth In Flames]

I use the New American Standard Bible (NASB), because it’s the most literal translation currently. However I’m in the process of learning its original language so that I can get the full and original meaning of the text.



Side note: I see a lot of Christians starting arguments with other Christians just because they use a different version of the bible than themselves. I’ve met a few people who can argue all day why their version is the “best.” My question to you is, is that the best thing to consume your time with? Who needs a doctor the most, the healthy or the sick? The time we spend arguing with one another is time we could have used to bring others who don’t know Christ to Him. We have the Word already, in whatever text/version you choose to use, God’s love is portrayed the same. Now share it with others who have never even read a bible and don’t know Christ, and be an effective soldier in God’s army.



Which army makes the most difference, the army that stays on their base and argues with one another over petty issues? Or the one that works together and goes to battle, winning souls over in the name of Jesus Christ before the dark forces can claim their souls?



Put things in perspective here.

[Knight]

I use quite the variety of translations.... I'm still undecided on which to use for my primary.

NIV - I used it growing up and our church currently uses it.
NASB - I like the more formal language and it's devotion to accuracy is appreciated
ESV - Readable and accurate. The best newer translation IMO.
HCSB - Brand new and well made.
NKJV - The best modern translation of the TR, IMO.
KJV - I don't really use it much but I do appreciate the poetic style language in some passages.

[Rebirth In Flames]

You remind me of my grandma.. whenever I do a bible study with her, I always see her flipping through the various bibles she has in order to get the “closest meaning” in English. It’s hilarious because it takes her about 15 minutes to look up one verse in all of the bibles she has, but her intentions are good. (=

[TheScottsMen]

I use the Interlinear Greek-Enlish New Testament by Jay P. Green Sr.
Has the KJV on the right, Received Texts down the middle with the literal english word under each Greek word including the strongs number on top of each word, and the LITV (Literal Translation) down the right. Most excellent.

[Rebirth In Flames]

Scotts, that sounds really cool!! I've looked at bibles like that but they're so darn expensive, well worth the buy though!!

[Knight]

You remind me of my grandma.. whenever I do a bible study with her, I always see her flipping through the various bibles she has in order to get the “closest meaning” in English. It’s hilarious because it takes her about 15 minutes to look up one verse in all of the bibles she has, but her intentions are good. (=
I never said I used all of these every time I read the Bible.

Honestly, I enjoy reading from various translations.

[Harry the Heretic]

As far as translations go, there is always a hint of doctrine or some perspective when it is made, ie capitalization of pronouns or the word spririt, the choice of word in a given context (which the translator must determine) etc. I like the KJV because I feel it is the most honest in this regard (note I said most) imho.

translations that i have and used listed in order of the "honesty" factor:


tyndales new testament (listed 1st here but KJV for entire bible)
KJV
ASV
___a little gap___

JB and NJB
ESV
NASB

[TheScottsMen]

Scotts, that sounds really cool!! I've looked at bibles like that but they're so darn expensive, well worth the buy though!!
Rebirth: you can pick up the paperback edition for$20 new on amazon

[richardsherratt]

This is me:

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

[Iosias]

I agree with number 4: KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

[Lynn73]

I picked # 3 but #4 applies as well, I think. I don't see much difference between the two really. I just don't feel comfortable with any other Bible but the KJV. My church mostly uses the NIV but there are a few of us who stick with the KJV. Some might say it's because it's what we were raised with and that may be part of it. But things I've read make me more and more sure of the KJV. Here's a site I found that I thought explained things well from the KJV perspective with other links at the bottom of the page, including one with quotes from Westcott and Hort.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

There's just so many different Bibles you can get nowadays, including with Greek and Hebrew texts, which I can't read so it wouldn't do any good to have them. I do have a large Strong's concordance with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries that I got from Jack Van Impe. I don't even know what interlinear means. I just bought a new KJV study bible recently. Not really used to a study Bible. If you look at all the study helps, it takes forever to get through the passage.

[Victorian Rose]

I am a #6.

[Marissa]

I don't know what I'd do if I only had one version of the bible. I'd be completely lost. The best way to understand is (given one can't read the original greek and hebrew) is to study different versions.

I currently have five translations: ESV, NIV, KJV, NLT and Message. The first 3 being my most used. My mother has a NASB which I would also use until I moved out recently.

The primary reason I use the KJV is because both the concordance and greek/hebrew dictionary I have use the KJV as their basis.

[Iosias]

I don't know what I'd do if I only had one version of the bible. I'd be completely lost. The best way to understand is (given one can't read the original greek and hebrew) is to study different versions.Only the KJV is from an uncorrupted greek text!

[PaladinGirl]

I use quite a few different Bible versions such as:

1. NIV
2. HCSB
3. NLT
4. NKJV
5. NCV
6. TEV (2nd edition)

The ones in bold are the ones I use the most.

[Harry the Heretic]

I use quite a few different Bible versions such as:

1. NIV
2. HCSB
3. NLT
4. NKJV
5. NCV
6. TEV (2nd edition)

The ones in bold are the ones I use the most.
HCSB? Which one is that? Just curious.

[wobbly]

I've got a question for those who are #4's and think that 'any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt"'.

I'm curious (and I'm definitely not AV bashing) about what you think of the fact that the AV/KJV has had a number of revisions. Do you think that only the 1611 version was inspired or the latest one or which? Why do you choose that version over all of the others?

cheers
Martin

[Iosias]

Take a look at this: http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

[Iosias]

I use the Interlinear Greek-Enlish New Testament by Jay P. Green Sr.
Has the KJV on the right, Received Texts down the middle with the literal english word under each Greek word including the strongs number on top of each word, and the LITV (Literal Translation) down the right. Most excellent.http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0801021383.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg Is this it?

[wobbly]

Take a look at this: http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
AV,

that web page doesn't answer my question about how you decide which edition of the AV was inspired, so I'd still like to know.

The page critiques other versions on whether they are different to the AV and assumes that any of the differences mentioned indicate that the AV is correct and that the others are wrong.

But to me the fact that the AV has a stronger version of an important statement about God (eg it offers a clearer statement on Christs divinity in 1 Tim 3:16) does not necessarily prove it correct. The statement could have been added by a well meaning scribe to help clear up a controversy about the deity of Christ. That means it is still an incorrect version even if what he has inserted is correct.

Is that a fair comment?

And should we move this discussion to another thread? We're getting a bit of topic.

cheers Martin

[TheScottsMen]

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0801021383.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg Is this it?Thats it! Great book for a great price. Should be something like $20 on Amazon? You can pickup the OT & NT version for around $45-$50. I have it ordered but has not yet arrived. The scripture is based only on the received text and has a great literal translation on the left side, with the interlinear in the middle with the KJV on the right. Again, great Bible resource and very cheap.

Have you ever read "Things that Differ - Fundamentals of Dispensationalism" by Stam?

[Harry the Heretic]

AV,

that web page doesn't answer my question about how you decide which edition of the AV was inspired, so I'd still like to know.

The page critiques other versions on whether they are different to the AV and assumes that any of the differences mentioned indicate that the AV is correct and that the others are wrong.

But to me the fact that the AV has a stronger version of an important statement about God (eg it offers a clearer statement on Christs divinity in 1 Tim 3:16) does not necessarily prove it correct. The statement could have been added by a well meaning scribe to help clear up a controversy about the deity of Christ. That means it is still an incorrect version even if what he has inserted is correct.

Is that a fair comment?

And should we move this discussion to another thread? We're getting a bit of topic.

cheers Martin
Wobbly,

I have a copy of the 1611 KJV, published by hendrickson. In doing a side by side comparrison with my "updated" KJV and tyndale (comparing bibles is sort of a hobby for me, I have most of the major translations), I have only found 1 instance of a change, that was not a spelling change, and it was in the book of Job. Job 4:6

The "new" AV reads like this;

Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?

the 1611 AV;

Is not this thy feare, thy confidence; the vprightnesse of thy wayes and thy hope?

Granted I have not compared all of the two as yet, but after going through most of the NT, Isaiah Job, and some of the Psalms, I found so far only this one.

[wobbly]

Harry,

that sounds like hard work, good luck. There seem to be quite a few sites that deal with the issue of variations between editions of the AV. (There's lots of aggressive writers on each side so you'll need to wear your thick skin) Maybe you could check them out and verify what is true. Id be interested in what you found.

One site had some samples of the prefaces of some different editions, which stated why the editions were printed. These were pretty interesting too. Its a Catholic site which might raise a few hackles, but they have actually been pretty good a preserving the word over the millenia. Its at http://www.catholicapologetics.net/Cloud_and_the_kjv.htm

cheers Martin

[wobbly]

I hope double posting is ok, but I just want to say how impressed I am with the behaviour of everyone here compared to the arrogance and pettiness of some people in other areas.

Well done and thanks
Martin

[Iosias]

AV,
that web page doesn't answer my question about how you decide which edition of the AV was inspired, so I'd still like to know.
Sure give me a second to find the link...ahhh here it is: http://watch.pair.com/another.html

[Iosias]

Have you ever read "Things that Differ - Fundamentals of Dispensationalism" by Stam?
No...I will probably take a look at it when I get some spare cash! I got my Companion Bible recently and so I have been working my way through Bullinger's notes!

[wobbly]

you'd better be careful AV, Bullinger is an ultra-dispy.

I think his notes in the Companion Bible are great, he gives you so much to think about and an unobtrusive aid to understanding the greek and hebrew behind the translation. (I'm not sure which greek texts he used so you'd better be careful there too. )

I spent a lot of church time reading and checking them out rather than listen to sermons which were more opinions than explanations of scripture. imho of course.

(I like being cheeky too in case you hadn't noticed.)

cheers Martin

[Harry the Heretic]

Harry,

that sounds like hard work, good luck. There seem to be quite a few sites that deal with the issue of variations between editions of the AV. (There's lots of aggressive writers on each side so you'll need to wear your thick skin) Maybe you could check them out and verify what is true. Id be interested in what you found.

One site had some samples of the prefaces of some different editions, which stated why the editions were printed. These were pretty interesting too. Its a Catholic site which might raise a few hackles, but they have actually been pretty good a preserving the word over the millenia. Its at http://www.catholicapologetics.net/Cloud_and_the_kjv.htm

cheers Martin
Hello Wobbly,

The ones I could compare were the differences in the 1611 to now.

Yes they are there, but that being said, most are obvious printing errors. For example in Lev 13:56 they quote the 1611 as "the plaine be" and the present AV as "the plague be". The word should be plague and it is obvious from the passage as the word is repeated several times. The passage is describing a Priest inspecting a person for "plague".

The error in Jer 22:3 says to "deliuer the spoiler out of the hand of the oppressour..." It's again another printing error. (should have been "spoiled")

The big one, or so I thought was in Lev 17:14 (1611) "Ye shall not eat"
(present AV) "Ye shall eat" Oh, here is a significant doctrine change in Leviticus! but compare the 2 in context;

(1611)
"...Ye shall not eat the blood of no maner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoeuer eateth it, shalbe cut off.

(present AV)
"...Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."



It was interesting to note that no Nt errors were cited from the 1611 AV to todays. (Also that I had not missed anything in my own comparison so far :D)

I found the page disappointing for Catholic Apologetics, usually they do much better.

What they called revisions were not, from my limited inquisitions. The errors were obvious printing errors (the 1611 version is hooked on phonics, on one page it may read "saith" and in the next chapter read as "sayeth")

I'm guessing the reason that greek texts were consulted for the "corrections" is that the original translation is missing. All we have is the printed copies of the original. The original was hand written and confirmed by a committee of 10, I believe. One person read aloud as the others listened, and dissented or approved. The consensus was then written.

Though there have been a few corrections to some printing errors, and greek texts were consulted to verify the translators' intent, i find no evidence of any revision in the classic sense.

My modus operandi for doing this is to listen to an audio version of the AV and read the other translation, sometimes I'll read two while listening. The last one I did in depth was a AV and 1901 ASV comparison( the Pentatuch, about 1/3 of the psalms, the 4 gospels and the non Pauline epistles). That was an eye opener!(even if you accept the newer texts for the NT, there were many unaccountable shifts of emphasis found in the OT)

I would recommend getting a copy of the 1611 AV just for the alternate readings offered by the original translators. The intros to each chapter are interesting also.

Peace

[Iosias]

you'd better be careful AV, Bullinger is an ultra-dispy.
:eek: :help: I think his notes are helpful however some of the Apendixes I find hard to swallow...the one on baptism and the 3 commissions especially!

[TwinCrier]

Not directing this at anyone inparticular, but it would be useful to direct posts at the bible versions and not the people. With few exceptions, KJVOs while calling the modern versions Satanic or perversions do not demean the fellow believer. We usually feel those who choose modern verions do so out of ignorance or indifference. However, calling a KJVO a cultist or heretic or fool, will almost certainly cause us to dismiss the argument that follows.

[steviedee]

I am basically anything BUT KJ. I use the ESV, ASV, NAS, JB, NJB, NAB, HCSB, NKJV. I think the most accurate translation is either the ASV, or Darby or Young's.I think the whole KJVO issue is silly. Why make such a big to-do about a 400 year-old English Bible revision that has over 800 archaic words and is based on inferior maunuscripts?:scratch:

The King James is pretty. That's about it. I don't understand it. :confused:

[Iosias]

I am basically anything BUT KJ. I use the ESV, ASV, NAS, JB, NJB, NAB, HCSB, NKJV. I think the most accurate translation is either the ASV, or Darby or Young's.I think the whole KJVO issue is silly. Why make such a big to-do about a 400 year-old English Bible revision that has over 800 archaic words and is based on inferior maunuscripts?:scratch:
I think you have been reading the wrong literature! The KJV comes from the BEST text whilst all the other translations come from a corrupted Greek text. see http://watch.pair.com/another.html

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Not directing this at anyone inparticular, but it would be useful to direct posts at the bible versions and not the people. With few exceptions, KJVOs while calling the modern versions Satanic or perversions do not demean the fellow believer. We usually feel those who choose modern verions do so out of ignorance or indifference. However, calling a KJVO a cultist or heretic or fool, will almost certainly cause us to dismiss the argument that follows.

The below post is the KJVO argument that I don't like. This is a post from a Sovereign Grace Baptist forum that I am revisiting after a year of being away.


There does not seem to be much of a difference between ESV & KJV.




Any difference at all is too much.


“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it:thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, And if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelations 22:18-19

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6



The King James Version of the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God!! You may argue that it uses a superior, or purer manuscript, but the translation is not the inerrant Word of God, its the original manuscripts themselves.

Personally, I still use the KJV as my primary Bible. I listen to Alexandre Scourby read it in the car and I do all of my personal Bible studies in KJV. However, I acknowledge that I think the ESV read very close to KJV and is in some cases clearer. Although I have noted other verses that seem a little less clear through ESV. Just my 2 cents.

[steviedee]

I have been studying in depth the English Bible Version issue for approximately 10 years now. I have shelves of material on it, representing all views, from Ruckman to the Jesus Seminar. I possess loads of KJVO material.

I do NOT agree with the KJVO position. Most scholars don't, either. As I stated in my first post on the subject, the KJV is very pretty and very nice. It's a good translation for its day. And that day is long gone. It's been revised numerous times, the last being in 1873. There are over 800 archaic words in it. I don't feel the need to keep a dictionary or a KJV word list as I study the scripture, having to put the KJV into English first. I wasn't raised on it---we had the RSV. And, I see no need to go "back" to something I never came from. If I were to head in that direction, it would be one of the KJV updates, such as Green's MJKV, the KJ2000 from the Bible League, the Easy-Reading KJV as in the Sword Study Bible or the Evidence Bible, the KJ21, or even the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967, and, of course, the NKJV.

I think people overemphasize the difference in the manuscripts. I know Bruce Metzger personally, and he will tell anybody that the manuscripts agree in about 98% of the time. So, really, it isn't that big of a deal.

I compare the KJVO problem in Fundamentalism to the fight over the Latin Mass of the 1570 Roman Missal vs the Novus Ordo of 1969; or the 1928 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer people vs the 1979 book people.

I say if anyone enjoys the KJV and derives benefit from it, God love ya, and keep on keeping on. Just don't call what I prefer, garbage. 'Cuz it isn't.

[TwinCrier]

The below post is the KJVO argument that I don't like. This is a post from a Sovereign Grace Baptist forum that I am revisiting after a year of being away.
Any difference at all is too much.


“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it:thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, And if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelations 22:18-19

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6
The King James Version of the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God!! You may argue that it uses a superior, or purer manuscript, but the translation is not the inerrant Word of God, its the original manuscripts themselves.

Personally, I still use the KJV as my primary Bible. I listen to Alexandre Scourby read it in the car and I do all of my personal Bible studies in KJV. However, I acknowledge that I think the ESV read very close to KJV and is in some cases clearer. Although I have noted other verses that seem a little less clear through ESV. Just my 2 cents.So the answer you DON'T like is one of mostly bible verses??? Odd concept. So if we don't have the original manuscripts in our hand, we're sol. Me thinks bible-believing Christian is an oxymoron.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

So the answer you DON'T like is one of mostly bible verses??? Odd concept. So if we don't have the original manuscripts in our hand, we're sol. Me thinks bible-believing Christian is an oxymoron.


The ESV is an attempt at a literal translation of the Bible. It sounds just like the KJV to me, only with modern grammar and wording. I can see where these verses pertain to paraphrase versions, but the ESV is an attempt at literal translation. That is what I mean by I don't like this argument, I don't see the point to it.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

So the answer you DON'T like is one of mostly bible verses??? Odd concept. So if we don't have the original manuscripts in our hand, we're sol. Me thinks bible-believing Christian is an oxymoron.

Here is the problem with the argument using those scriptures, you could ONLY apply them to the autograph, which we do not have for most texts. You cannot use scripture to prove a single translation of the Bible. Nowhere in scripture does it ever state that any translation will be perfect, the only gaurantee we have is that the autograph is perfect. Manuscript evidence is on both sides of the issue and to be frank, it is only by faith that a single translation can be accepted. The corrupt manuscript argument has been refuted by as many scholars that argue they are corrupt and if you start studying Greek and Hebrew you can see where even the points listed on all the KJVO websites are up to translators discrection and they are not obvious to an English speaker knowing those languages. English is by no means a perfect language for translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. To believe in KJVO you have to explain away the fact that errors were made and have been corrected during translation, which disproves perfection, you have to explain why English is a even a good language to translate from, which it is not, you have to explain why even the KJV translators used a different translation for their scripture quotes in the foreword, you need to explain why the Deuterocanonicals are not in the modern translation yet were in the original, which I have yet to see successfully done. That is just the start of what has to be explained, I have a long list here, but those points are good enough to start with. I can take apart most every argument on any KJVO site that I have seen so far, and I am not even a Greek scholar. I don't mind people that are KJVO, as long as they can admit it's faith and nothing less that causes them to believe that, but when you try to make rational arguments, using man's logic, you will always fall short. The scripture argument is not even remotely supportable because scripture never mentions a single translation being perfect and could only refer to the autograph to begin with. Be KJVO all you want, but to say other versions are corrupt is fallacy and unsupportable.

[Harry the Heretic]

As was mentioned earlier, the debates on easier reads, or archaic language, are not getting to the core issue. I personally find the KJV the easiest to read (except for Tyndale's NT). My eight year old son reads it aloud in our bible class, and can tell you what it means. In fact since I switched my children over from the NIV their understanding has improved and their verse memory has increased. I credit this to the economy of language, and style of prose used in the AV. Again if you remove the verb endings and really look at the text, it is so simple. One should compare the intro to Romans in Tyndale's own words then read his translation or the AV, the contrast in readability is startling.
Having read most of the major translations (and some a little more obscure) I have come to the conclusion, not just for me, but for my children as well, that the newer translations are "veiled", the one exception might be the ESV at which to this point I consider the best modern translation. Its style is heavily "KingJamesees". I do not approach the inspiration of the KJV as the Israelites did the pentatuch. Yes there were very minor revisions, yes it is not the original language, but it is sublime.

Not just quaint or beautiful in prose, but having an ability to transcend, to soar, to reveal spiritual truths like no other. Many modern translations seem like a technical manual when compared to the AV. The language of the AV is good for centuries to come. How dated will the NIV's "dignitaries" be when compared with the AV's "princes". "princes" being a term that even a five year old can understand, but the former being a lot more vague and possibly being subject to a lot more context, say in even 50 yrs.

Some of the "archaic" terms take on a meaning that is richer and deeper than could be expressed today. Take the word "conversation". How do we express this today? Is it "manner of living" or "conduct", , or just "ways", and then oh, how we loose the thread, the theme that makes the scriptures a cohesive whole, as we all accept is the case, when detail and context of a single phrase dictated the scholar's mind in choosing his words. Is "perfect" simply mature, or is it the attribute ascribed to God?, Does it mean that Christ was mature, or that we should lack nothing, as in the case of "complete", but is it carried over to other verses so that we clearly see the meaning?

The newer versions, then are not as simple to understand as they appear.
Is this by inspiration? Yes for the spririt moves through his word, and he did not abandon it with the author's pen or language.

Is God capable of speaking through another version, Yes, but this does not imply that one version is as good as another.

(A little Rant, I do so because, Hey, it's a KJV thread is it not? ;))

God Bless

[steviedee]

Harry, I found your response above VERY helpful! Really!! Thank you. I don't hate the KJV. I just don't understand all the archaicisms. I read it for a page or two and put it down with frustration, and pick up another translation and have no prob.
Strange for someone with a Masters degree, huh?
But, with your post in mind, I'llk try it again :)

[Harry the Heretic]

steviedee,

Might I suggest you also try a copy of Tyndale's New Testament, edited by David Daniel. It is available in paperback. I carry it with my AV. It is a masterpiece of simplicity, in many ways, it is ahead of its time in this regard. Read the Gospel of John and see. Tyndale's translation (even more so than the AV) "opened" this scripture up for me, especially chapters 13-17.

Peace to you