Featured On Bibles

they would have approved those versions to come after them such as the Nasb/Esv/Niv etc!

 

A clarification is in order...

Brother...you ARE, of course, entitled to your OPINION (based on your understanding of the version of supporting manuscript evidence that you personally prefer to accept)but.....that is ONLY your opinion and should properly be expressed as such since NONE OF US, either KJV onlyists OR MV adherents has ANY verses of scripture that CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY support our respective positions (in my opinion). That said....I will remain a KJV guy because I not only believe my position honors God and is right, but also because I like it better and feel comfortable and confident in it.
I personally believe the 1611 translators WOULD NOT LIKE the NASB/ESV/NIV/Etc. for several reasons such as the underlying texts used and the methods employed (dynamic equivalence,etc.) in the translations. All of that is, of course, subject to endless subjective debate which usually has no clear winner and is, as we have observed in here repeatedly, is ultimately pointless. That is simply MY own humble and honest opinion. Carry on..if you must!

Bro.Greg

 

Big difference between KJVO and us is that we do still see the TR/MT as being the word of God to us today, while they do not see CT other than being 'satanic influenced/inspired!"

Just saying the KJV translators knew that their work was NOT the final version that God would have and use going forward! They knew that even their work could and would be improved upon!

So KJVO folks claiming things NEVER did by the Translators!

 

You are entirely wrong because you are caught up in KJV madness. The KJV revisers would certainly welcome the advanced scholarship behind the modern versions. Do yourself a favor and read Miles Smith's Preface sometime soon.

 

Yes but....

I agree...the translators did NOT claim that their work was the "end game". They were honest in that they did NOT presume OR assume such a thing for themselves or their work. They were three things as far as I can tell....VERY Scholarly, Humble and Honest. I have read the preface and what I believe above I got from that. That said....it has little or no bearing with what God WROUGHT through their dedicated labors.... regardless of what they believed about themselves.

One other thing....yes...I do believe that Satan is still hard at work today trying to corrupt and pervert God's perfect word just as he began doing in the garden of Eden at the very beginning. He is a liar and the father of lies. It stands to reason that he would do that not only in the modern languages that exist in our day, but also in versions and manuscripts of the original languages that the modern versions are translated from. There is much valid evidence in print TODAY that this has indeed happened and continues to do so. I know you guys disagree with me but I believe the KJV, in its finished form today is God's "line in the sand" for english language versions in our dispensation. Aside from spelling corrections, EVERY attempt to "update" it has resulted in changes to and tampering with the wording of the text in a way that corrupts it. That is my opinion based on the evidence I have seen and read....I am settled in it.....I'm NOT going to change it....and making fun of me or calling me not-so-nice things is NOT going to change my mind. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment cause I keep coming back for more but I live in the hope that my point of view will have a positive effect on anyone who may be riding the fence and that the Lord may use it to help someone to see the truth about His Word in a day where more and more people are falling victim to the compromises of this hell-bent world. The KJV is the Word of God for (english) speaking people and it is perfect and error-free. Anybody that says it has mistakes in it is just plain wrong because they are setting themselves up as its judge. I could never be that bold.

Bro.Greg:type:

 

Not to belittle your opinion, Bro. Greg (though I no longer adhere to it as I so strongly did many, many years ago), but would you be so kind as to tell us here in BB land what precisely is "God's Word for the Chinese-Speaking World," what is (w/ our dear BB brother "John of Japan" in mind!) "God's Word" for the Japanese people? What is God's Word for those whose language is Azeri?

And, while so doing, give us the solid, biblical reasoning(s) for your contentions with regard to the other God-created languages.

Thank you.

 

I will plead ignorant here...

Bro.ktn4eg.....I will have to respectfully plead ignorance as to your question referring to Chinese and Japanese. I have no idea how to answer that since I do not speak either of those languages nor any other than english for that matter. Actually, Bro.John probably could supply us some interesting answers about that matter since he is "attuned" to more things "Asian". What part of the world is Azeri spoken in? I'm not even slightly familiar with that. To sum things up, I'm an English ONLY believer. I look forward to Heaven where I'll have the gift of tongues:smilewinkgrin::thumbs:. Then maybe I can answer that! For the record....I praise God for people who are gifted and smart enough (and humble enough)to be able to do the work of translating God's Word into the many different languages spoken in the world today. May God Bless them. By the way....I'm NOT talking about people translating the KJV into other languages (although I'm not against that if the effort is honest). I'm talking about people that translate from the right "family" of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The Received Greek text and the Masoretic Hebrew text are, I believe, the correct basis for translation work in our day. The manuscript evidence I regard as true points to them and NOT the arguably older elements of the Critical text. I don't believe things are necessarily better just because they are older. Beyond that, I know what I regard as true after "reading and praying up" on the subject but I am neither qualified nor smart enough to argue the point beyond what I have already stated in these forums. There are those in here and elsewhere who are far more capable at doing that to good effect and I will happily cheer them on as they fight the good fight. In every army that is why there are Generals and that is why there are the "grunts" or foot soldiers. I just aspire to be faithful.:saint:

Bro.Greg:type:

 

Please furnish examples of your contentions.

You are making the claim that Satan is behind the Critical Text?! LOL!

When did God put the KJV "in its finished form";in 1769? Is that your line in the sand? Why does the KJV still have so many mistakes if God was happy with its perfection?

Are you talking about the NKJV and other updates of the KJV? Because you certainly can't be referencing the modern versions which are certainly not based on the KJV.

How has the NKJV corrupted the text?

Your dramatic language needs to be reviewed. Do you mean that those who prefer the modern versions are compromising on the Word of God?

You are quite mistaken. What was the Word of God before the KJV came around in 1611 in its prefinished form?

The KJV is a translation...not the original. It has mistakes as all translations do...just a lot more than most translations. All translations are in need of revision and improvement. How bold of me to say that. LOL!!

 

It's interesting that Bro.Greg has such iron-clad certainty that the KJV (in its finished form) is the only legitimate Bible translation for the English-speaking world. He says that with such conviction it's as if it was a major tenet of Christianity like belief in the incarnation or something.

How he arrived at such a conclusion is certainly not something God told him (private revelation). It was not revealed to him that his "principle" is universal in scope i.e. that all languages have only one singular translation and that all other versions in a particular language are corrupt. He claims ignorance about the issue when it comes to other languages but he knows for a fact that the KJV in its finished form is the singular translation for the English speaking world....Amazing inconsistency among other glaring flaws in his thinking.

 

Brother Greg, my hat's off to you.

Consistently you respectfully and humbly present your beliefs for all to consider. I don't know that I could have turned my other cheek as many times as I've seen you do in this form recently.

There's much that I could say, at this point. In fact, I did and though better of it. I'm thankful raying: there's backspace & cut options available today. So, all I say in closing is:

:applause: :thumbsup: :applause:

 

So do you mean the TR was not the correct basis for translation in the past?

Oops,you had a Joe Biden moment there. You were discussing what you believe is the best manuscript basis for translating. However, then can you apply your maxim that just because something is older doesn't necessarily mean it is better to your KJVO position? It is an old translation therefore it is not necessarily better? LOL! Ironically the modern versions use manuscripts much older than the handful of relatively new manuscripts used as the basis for the KJV. Think about it.

And something else...most Bible translations in foreign languages do not use the TR or even the Byzantine text-type. Are you set to condemn them as corruptions of God's Word? Just wondering. Your inconsistencies are just so tempting to bring up.

 

Was the TR even the basis for the KJV though?
what did those such as Bishop/geneva use?

Why aren't they also seen in same light by KJVO if used same texts?