Why do you use the Bible translation you use?

Is this you, JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1?

 

What's funny is that you nitpick peoples chosen version as if your opinion matters.

 

Well, well. You're a bit testy today Austin. My opinion matters as much as the next fella or gal. This is a discussion forum. Opinions are bantered around all the time. Even you have offered a pretty fair dose of them Austin.

George asked why he would not use the KJV. I supplied some reasons. It's a give and take proposition.

 

I simply said that the KJV is inaccurate. Are you willing to say that other Bible versions are faithful to the originals and hence God-honoring?

 

You're on the money Jerome.

 

We are in agreement then. That elevated tone was a mistake and certainly not to be maintained for all generations.

 

Well then, that means you require further study.

 

And you or a bunch of humanistic scholars are gonna decide when that ends? I trow not.

 

"Keep studying till you're smart enough to find a mistake in your Bible so you can be smart like me".
Classic Genesis 3:1 stuff. No thanks.

Yeah, and the serpent simply asked "hath God said?"

 

Accept the Kjv as a good translation. but not perfect

 

But that does not tell the whole story. There are many times the KJV is more accurate in it's Greek Text than all of the popular Modern Versions. That means despite the disadvantage of archaic modern english, it still has value in it's underlying Greek Text. What to do when an English user of a modern text has an error? He could consult the KJV, which usually has the correct underlying Greek Text. No, the KJV's Text is not always right. It does contain some errors. But most modern translations have more errors in their underlying Greek Text than the KJV does.

Most of the time all three Greek Text's agree. Textus Receptus, Majority Text, Nestle Aland.
The next highest number of agreements is the Textus Receptus, Majority Text.
Then the Majority Text, Nestle Aland.
Then the Textus Receptus, Nestle Aland.

 

Yes. I have 2 copies of it.

 

So name a perfect one.

 

I am primarily a TR guy so, kjv and nkjv. However, my first four years of college my bible of use for class had to be a niv. I enjoy ESV as well.

 

Invalid comparison.

A believer acknowledging the truth that the KJV has some inaccurate renderings is not at all the same thing as the serpent's question.

 

Forgive my ignorance, what is a "TR guy?"

 

How are you entitled to command something that you do not demonstrate to be scriptural?

Where do the Scriptures state and teach that there is or has to be an absolutely pure and perfect English Bible translation?

 

TR would refer to the Textus Receptus.

 

I did not say "English".

Where do the scriptures teach that the scriptures in people's hand aren't perfect?

This is the world upside down.

 

According to the Scriptures, the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God involved the prophets and apostles. The exact specific words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God were the words given to the prophets and apostles. No scriptural case has been made that the supernatural process of giving of Scripture by inspiration continued after the completion of the New Testament.

When the Scriptures teach that words added by men are not inspired, that words omitted by men should be restored, and that words changed by men may diminish what God said, it could be understood to be teaching that post-NT Bible translations which add words, omit words, and change words would not be perfect.

Since the Scriptures do not teach that post-NT Bible translations are perfect, perhaps it would suggest that the negative that they are not perfect would be true.