What Do I Do?

[Logos1560]

"I always feel prompted to go back to the KJV" - with good reason brother. Inspiration doesn't work the way the humanistic scholars tell us, so trust the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the opinions of Christian men who reject the supernatural element involved in preserving and translating the word of God.

Perhaps it is your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning which would in effect reject the supernatural element involved in preserving and translating the word of God since you contradict scriptural truth in suggesting that God shows partiality to one exclusive group of biased Church of England critics in 1611.

KJV-only advocates indicate that they may be more often humanistic scholars than those Bible believers who apply scriptural truths consistently and justly. KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that they hold to any consistent, sound view of Bible inspiration and Bible preservation. You have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for your own subjective non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. You present no scriptural case for trying to suggest that God was supposedly more involved in Bible translating in 1611 than He was before 1611 in the pre-1611 English Bibles and than He was after 1611 in post-1611 English Bibles. Does KJV-only reasoning attempt to limit and bind God's involvement to one period of time and to one language?

You do not prove that Bible believers who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching are rejecting the supernatural element so your allegation could be considered to bear false witness against them.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are no verses missing from the ESV, this is a common misconception.

Its fostered and spread around by those who see one certain translation as being only one to have and use!

 

[Yeshua1]

You do not know. What makes one reading correct and another reading wrong? How is it the KJV has more correct readings than not? How would I know that?

Again, your assumption is that the Kjv had the preferred rendering each time!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I am an old geezer, so the hard copy bibles I have will serve me as long as needed. I will compare a verse or passage under study with the NASB20, because I can use on line resources. For example the John 3:16 translation in the NASB20 is superior to the NASB95.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB95)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB20)

Here the NASB20 removed the mistranslation of monogenes. Of course the newly revised translation is still flawed because Jesus ily Begots not the only son of God, so was Adam, and so are all the born anew believers. Jesus of course is the uniquely divine Son of God, and is the "one of a kind" Son of God.

On

There are many issues. One major one, ". . . only begotten Son . . ." versus ". . . only begotten God . . . ." John 1:18. Or the combining of the two.

Both state Jesus is God though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you! You actually did have something to add because it’s the same thing I find myself struggling with. I love the language of the KJV but know that other ancient documents have been discovered since 1611, which contribute to every other modern version we have. I get that. I love the ease of reading some of the many modern word for word translations. I refuse to read a thought for thought version when it comes to study, because the Bible isn’t a book; it’s the Word of God. No matter which way you slice it, any translation that moves into the realm of interpretation over translation, is crossing into dangerous waters. So I sit there with different translations, and yes I have them despite what some eluded to in this thread, and wonder which one is truly in fact closest to being the Word of God; without learning Hebrew or Greek.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think that a Formal translation such as the Kjv/Nkjv/Nas would be best for serious studies!

 

[Yeshua1]

Being led to Jesus thru God's word as found in the NASV, I was rather partial to it for awhile. However, I began to read other versions, old & new, to see the different views of different translators.

I don't care for paraphrsed nor 'dynamic' versions; I prefer literal, as I believe Scripture literally as possible(I know some symbolism & metaphors exist in it) and I know some words/phrases must be paraphrased to make sense in English.

There's about a 2% difference between the known Scriptural manuscripts, which is remarkable, given that there were many penmen for those mss. This shows that God has superintended His word.

My advice is to go with what you feel comfortable using. If it's the KJV, fine; just don't believe the false KJVO myth that says it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, & that it's perfect;neither is a bit true. The famous preacher Dr. J. Vernon McGee used the KJV, while readily acknowledging there were several other newer & older versions that were just-as-valid. He said he was led to Christ thru the KJV, grew up with it & it was the most-familiar version to him & he felt comfortable using it.

I believe God caused/allowed several English translations to be made so more English users with differing dialects, or having learned English as a 2nd language could understand His word more-easily, as well as keeping His word current with the language changes He's caused/allowed.

Be sure to **PRAY** about it, and remember, there's really no wrong choice for a Bible version, or versions, to use, long as they're well-translated, valid versions, such as ESV, NASV, NKJV, KJV, & several others.

Ole J Vernon many times would give to us his translation of a passage, as he was not KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

Sometimes the KJV is a thought for thought version with dynamic equivalent renderings.

All Bible translation involves interpretation.
Sometimes the Church of England makers of the KJV translated according to their Church of England interpretations.

Yes, as there are certain words used to translate in the Kjv that have no known source text used!

 

[Yeshua1]

"I always feel prompted to go back to the KJV" - with good reason brother. Inspiration doesn't work the way the humanistic scholars tell us, so trust the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the opinions of Christian men who reject the supernatural element involved in preserving and translating the word of God.

Watch this and let me know what you think. You can Private Message me if you prefer.

I VERY much doubt that those involved in translating the Nkjv/Nas/esv would deny the supernatural aspect of inspiration of the originals!

 

[robycop3]

"I always feel prompted to go back to the KJV" - with good reason brother. Inspiration doesn't work the way the humanistic scholars tell us, so trust the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the opinions of Christian men who reject the supernatural element involved in preserving and translating the word of God.

Watch this and let me know what you think. You can Private Message me if you prefer.

Posted by one who has succumbed to the false KJVO myth, & who can't support that myth with Scripture.

 

[rlvaughn]

Why is it necessary to turn a BB member's personal question into one more extended argument about the King James translation? Why not answer his questions and move on? We can do the debating in all the other threads that are intended for that purpose, of which we have plenty.

 

[StephenUSAFVet]

Why is it necessary to turn a BB member's personal question into one more extended argument about the King James translation? Why not answer his questions and move on? We can do the debating in all the other threads that are intended for that purpose, of which we have plenty.

Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tyndale1946]

"I always feel prompted to go back to the KJV" - with good reason brother. Inspiration doesn't work the way the humanistic scholars tell us, so trust the leading of the Holy Ghost, not the opinions of Christian men who reject the supernatural element involved in preserving and translating the word of God.

Watch this and let me know what you think. You can Private Message me if you prefer.

Really enjoyed the second video George and this morning, I read and studied my KJV while drinking an Alexandrian cup of coffee... Brother Glen

 

[rsr]

The member asked a question. Has it been answered yet?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think that we can do well using different translation, but the formal ones such as Kjv/Nkjv/Nas /Esv would be the primary ones to be using!

 

[StephenUSAFVet]

Thank you all for your responses. I am pretty sure my question has been answered, as some of you have relayed you also deal with the struggle that I described. The last thing I want is to post and cause a debate regarding translations, or further fuel a divide amongst believers. Satan does a good enough job at causing confusion. Those who side with KJV-only, as well as those who don’t, are both strong and confident in their beliefs and opinions to support their views. I think further attacking someone based on their held view isn’t edifying. Neither you nor I will change someone’s mind on this thread or elsewhere. We have to leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide, convict, and solidify what is Truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rsr]

Since the question has been answered, the thread is closed..