Featured Kjvp

that is the main feature that I use when studying from the Nkjv , as that is a very helpful feature to be able to contrast and compare how renderings were done!

Also big selling point of the net bible, the version itself not so good, but notes worth price of the Bible!

 

Lets take the word "logos" and consider how it is translated:

It appears in the NT about 330 times.

Sometimes the meaning is Jesus Christ, i.e. the Word with a capital W.

But lets look at Matthew 5:32. The KJV translates logos as "cause". The ESV translates it as "ground," i.e. basis. The HCSB translates it as "case." The NKJV translates it as "reason." The idea is that except on account of sexual immorality, divorce is sinful. Now logos is translated 8 times in the KJV as account, and so there is no reason not to translate logos as account here.

Next, Matthew 5:37 translates logos as "say" "word" "communication" or "statement." Why not stick with the other 200 plus times it is translated word?

Next, Matthew 21:24 in the KJV translates logos as "thing." Most other versions translate it as "question." But again the underlying reasoning, or basis or principle is in view. Thus maxim fits nicely.

Finally, for this is enough for one post, Matthew 22:15 translates logos as "talk" but "speech" would work just fine.

Bottom line, there is no good reason to translate logos by using more than 30 different English words, when a concerted effort could probably reduce that number to 6 or 7. This would also mitigate overlap where the same English word is used to translate different Greek words, obliterating the distinction made in the underlying language.

 

I disagree. I am KJVP, meaning that I prefer the KJV. But, if you ask me what verses I like in other translations, I will tell you that I like the KJV the best. Which one do I recommend? The KJV. That's the whole point of KJV preferred. You prefer the KJV.

Now, I have preached out of other versions, if I were at a chapel that only had a different version, to avoid confusion in the audience. This precludes me from being KJVO. But, I'd have preferred to use the KJV.

Can someone get saved from reading the gospel message in other versions? Yes. Can someone grow from reading other versions? Yes. Do I recommend other versions? No. So I am KJV preferred.

 

Would you recommend a KJV to one from an unchurched background? Would you advise a person in which English is not their first language to read and study the KJV? Would you say that's the one to bring to a prison ministry instead of an NIV or NLT. Would you give a person of limited literacy a KJV instead of an NIrV? Would it be wise to push the NKJV on ordinary 21st century Christians?

 

I would recommend simply that they get a Bible. If they asked me, I would tell them that I preferred the KJV. A friend of mine and his wife and kids from a Church of Christ / Mennonite background started coming to church with me and my wife. They bought their children NIVs, and that's what they take to church. I have not once said anything to them about it, or even pointed out that we have different versions. If they ask, I will tell them why I use the KJV.

That's a different matter entirely. Obviously I would not. And any KJVOs that I've been around have held the same stance. The common quote is "The perfect Word of God for the English speaking people."

Yes.

Yes. I was of limited literacy once; when I was learning to read as a child. And I read the KJV. And understood it. And if I didn't understand it, I asked someone.

I don't understand the question. Why would I "push" anything? And if I am KJVP, why would I "push" another? (I still consider the NKJV to be a different translation than KJV.)

I am not exactly sure of the intent of this battery, but I answered honestly. Like I said, I am KJVP. In almost any circumstance, I use and recommend the KJV. But I've used others before. So, I am KJVP.

 

I am KJVP. And I grew up in an NIV church of Christ congregation.
Later became a southern babbadist.

A lot of the older folks at our chuch are KJVO.

 

Thanks for your candor, you prefer the KJV only, and each and every verse in the KJV you prefer over every other translation. Since the only version you recommend is the KJV, you are a KJVO advocate.

 

The correct answer is "no to all", correct?

I would agree with you here that one can choose to use Kjv/, or Niv/Nasb/Esv/Hcsb etc, as ALL are english word of God to us, so just pick and use one most comfortable with, the one can get most out of!

 

Would you say that no other translation does a better job of translating a verse, any verse, than the KJV?

Would you say that other translations are "bad" and to be avoided?

 

Brothers, he gave you an honest and forthright answer. Why not let it stand on it's own merit(s)?

 

I am KJVP because I prefer the KJVP. I prefer others use the version they glean the most from, whether it be KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, ASV, NLT, HCSB, NASB, EIEIO(McDonald's version...:laugh: )

 

I thought I did? I did not suggest his answer was less than honest, in fact I thanked his for his candor. The only version of the Bible he advocates is the KJV. That statement is fully consistent and does not misrepresent his view.

Lets contrast that with me being a NASB95 preferred advocate. Sometimes I prefer another version's translation of a verse, i.e. the NET translation of John 6:29, but overall I think the best bible to use as a basis of serious study is the NASB95. Sometimes, I think the KJV offers a superior translation of a verse than the NASB or NET, such as James 2:5.

The key difference is that my view is all translations are flawed, some much more than others, i.e. the NWT, but by comparing the various translations and doing studies of the key words and phrases, you can come to a conclusion as to what is the most likely intended message from God.

To claim that the KJV is always the best is the right and privilege of any bible student, but to claim they are not KJV only advocates is simply a distinction without a difference. And discussion does not lead to enlightenment, only animosity.

 

I'm afraid you are wrong. You are ignoring contextual meaning. Dave Brunn,who authored One Bible,many Versions has a very good section on this topic. Chapter 4 is called : What is in a Word with various subheadings.

"Many of the twenty-four renderings of logos in the KJV are used in other versions too,such as the ESV and NASB. But those versions also translated logos in ways that the KJV did not. If we survery all the ways the ESV and NASB translated logos,we will find more than thirty additional renderings.
...the area of meaning of the Greek word logos is much broader than the area of meaning of 'word' in English. There is some overlap,but it is not 100 percent." (p.75)

"Young'sLliteral Translation (YLT) translated logos as 'word' 86% of the time. The other 14% of the time,logos was translated in other ways. The rest of the versions ...were willing to set aside the default rendering 'word' much more often. If 'word' is the most accurate way to translate logos,then the NASB and ESV achieved only about 70% accuracy and the KJV achieved only 66%" (p.80)

If you're curious,here are the percentages that 'word' was used in some other translations for the Greek word logos.

NIV : 54%
NET : 53%
HCSB : 45%
NLT : 27%

 

The devil, knowing he can't suppress God's word entirely, as he's tried before, now uses guile and deception to try to cast doubt upon it. And the KJVO myth is one of his tools for that.

Like Van, I contend that some translations render some verses better than others. For example, I prefer the KJV's rendering of Psalm 23 & the NKJV's renderings of Acts 12:4 and 1 Tim. 6:10. I read and use a variety of English translations, from Wycliffe's to the ESV, trying to obtain as broad an overview of Scripture as possible.

 

Why agree while claiming to disagree?

1) Logos has a broader range of meanings than can be translated using one or even three or four English words or phrases.

2) As I showed in the examples provided, the contextual meaning was consistent with one or more of the English words used frequently to translate logos. No need to grab a miscellaneous word that add to the confusion.

3) No one said "word" was always the most accurate way to translate logos! Why construct a strawman argument?

4) To repeat, logos could be translated in every case where it appears consistent with the context, by probably 6 or 7 different English words or phrases, including "word", "saying" "account," "speech," and "maxim" This means sometimes the most accurate English word is not "word" but one of our other choices.

 

Spot On!

I fully agree. I love the NET for the footnotes, and the WEB for its Byzantine text type without the TR corruptions (at least in my opinion).

 

No,many more than 6 or 7 Van. Aside from the words word,saying,account,speech (and the curious selection of maxim) --what would your other two words be? Would those 7 different English words be sufficent to cover the range of meaning in different passages? Would it make sense? Would it even be grammatically correct? Are you making the assumption that forms of those words of yours are acceptable like say,says,said for the individual word you picked of saying? If so, then your original proposition of just 6 or 7 words or phrases would have to be extended to around two dozen or so. And I'll have to check past posts of yours but I think you are just now adding phrases to the mix.

 

And this is why it is literally impossible to have ANY single English version to be able to claim to be perfect, as there are indeed at times legitimate ways different renderings may be used, and they all still would give same basic meaning!

 

I totally agree. And it is a pleasant surprise that you said all that "perfectly"!

 

That's why the AV translators were in favor of a "variety of translations". To have a readable translation, those translators had to make choices from the many possible correct renderings of many Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases.

Remember, in their preface, those translators said they weren't bound to any one rendering of many words they were translating. Thus, KJVOs who insist that every word in the KJV is the only possible correct translation for the "original" words, are wrong, declared wrong by the makers of their own pet version.