Are you KJVO?

One can not judge the perfection of people by the type of Bible that they choose. No one is perfect. Noone

 

For deep study, and to prepare sermons, I use the NRSV. When I read the text passages to the congregation, I use the NIV.

I don't think I even own a KJV bible anymore, unless it is packed away in a trunk in the attic.

 

For people who use a Bible other than the KJV, go to this website. www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html
GO TO> Let's compare Bibles.
One of the comparisons:

KJV-
Isaiah 14:12- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning.....

NIV-
Isaiah 14:12- How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of dawn....

Rev 22:16- Jesus refers to himself as the bright and morning star...NOT Lucifer.

Also go to> Translating the King James Bible
> The New King James Version
Pretty interesting stuff.

 

Everyone has seen those charts ad naseum and this is not the place for a versions fight.

 

C4K, I don't think that you can speak for everyone on the matter of the charts. And I'm not fighting, I'm just pointing out why I use KJV. That is what was asked of us at the onset of this topic.

 

Do you believe everything you read? I don't waste my time comparing English Bibles but rather the textual variants in the Hebrew and Greek text.

It does not good to compare English translations when you do not understand the issue of textual criticism and how to deal with the variants. Otherwise you are taking someone else's word for it. That could be one with a big dose of SYI talking to another giving out their SYI.

 

He can speak for me on that subject, and based on experience, his comments reflect the opinions of many (if not most).

Yes, you are "arguing" if not "fighting" - and you're quibbling, too. This is a poll; take the KJV Only debate to the KJV Only forum, that's why it's there.

 

For the KING JAMES VERSION ONLY see
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/hushbeck_article.html
and
http://www.wwy.org/wwy4696.html

 

NASB (revised) preferred.

 

Dan-
Well I see that alot of people are participating in that debate...including yourself.
I also see that there are alot of prejudice people, in this area. Sorry, I did not mean to ruffle feathers.

 

gb93433-
Thank you for the websites. I will read over the documents.

 

here now said "One of the comparisons: KJV- Isaiah 14:12- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning....."

See:
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

 

You still don't get it, do you? I did not debate the KJVO issue nor were my feathers ruffled. Those who wish to debate that issue should go to that forum. Since this is Clint's forum to supervise (not mine), I'll withdraw from this conversation. Lev.19:17

 

I generally do not use the KJV, simply because I find it hard to understand.

I am very comfortable with more modern translations like the NKJV, NASB, ESV, and even NIV. I do not think that the KJV is a better translation than many of the other word-for-word translations such as the NASB and ESV. I also do not agree that modern translators have an "agenda" and are messing up the Bible. Why? Simply because in the 1600's nobody was more righteous than they are today and there were plenty of people (like the entire English government) who didn't want an English Bible at all. The translators of the NASB and ESV are just as good Christians as the 1600's translators were, and just because the KJV is old, that doesn't make it better.

Finally, I would like to remind those die-hard KJVO people out there that the KJV was translated by fallible people and was not inspired in any way and therefore should not be considered more high-and-mighty than the other word-for-word translations.

 

I use KJV and NIV. I'd like to get a NASB (I think that't what it is that my pastor uses.) I was really hung up for a while on KJV when I was in a Missionary Baptist congregation for a while in AR, but when I really searched deep, I felt that it was unnecessary, and as long as it isn't a tainted translation, I'm ok with whatever it is.

What I would REALLY love though is to read Greek and Hebrew and have one of those that you can compare original and translated... but I have a hard enough time with Spanish

 

Dutch is my first language, so naturally I use a Bible in that language.

 

21st Century (2001-2100) English is my
adopted language. (my native language
is 20th Century English) I use a Bible
in my adopted language: the
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

Romans 10:9 (HCSB):
if you confess with your mouth,
"Jesus is Lord," and believe in your
heart that God raised Him from
the dead, you will be saved.

I first confessed Jesus as my Lord 52
years ago in 1952. He became my
Master and my Savior. And today I confess
that Jesus is still my Lord and Master
and still my Savior. Amen!

 

The Textus Receptus is the main issue. The bogus texts that the "modern" version are based on the writings of heretics and bad scribes. Sadly, scholars are not scholarly enough to figure that out as well as many other things. We went from Pope to Professors and did not get much of a change.

 

The Textus Receptus is a strawman.

1. The REAL King James Version of 1611
has footnotes showing variatins among
the sources called Textus Receptus.
These are suppressed by many KJVOs though
they help one understand the meaning
of God's Written Word better.

2. What I have observed shows the TR
gambit is a strawman argument.
The argument was made in the late 1970s.
Someone said, say, if we translate only
from the Textus Receptus (TR), will you
accept our translation? Yes, sure we
would. The translation was completed
by 1885 and called the "New King James
Version (nKJV)". Here is what the avid
KJVOs attacked:

A. the symbol on the front (which was not
part of the translation) We note the
original KJV1611 edition package has the
sun god pictured on one of it's drawings.
This makes about as much sense as condemning
a Bible cause it has a bad map in it

B. The translator footnotes cause doubt.
They really only cause doubt to those who
don't undernstand what translation is about
and that the TR has multiple different
renderings. The footnotes denote this and
at least are the truth and at most help one
understand (as always with the help of the
Holy Spirt) the Written Words of God.

C. The translator footnoes tell what the
earlier souroces say (you know the ones before
the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) had highly
edited the text). Again, it is the truth.
Those earlier texts do exist and now we know
about them.

What I like about the nKJV:

A. the nKJV was translated by Baptists and fellow
American Protestants. It was NOT translated by
all Anglicans like the KJV.

B. The nKJV was in the language that I
used in daily life in the 1970s. Durst thy
bowels get releaved about that?

 

http://www.sermoncentral.com/contributor_sermon.asp?SermonID=55560&ContributorID=5141&NameFirst=Dr+Ronald&NameLast=Shultz&ImageName=5141ronkare2%2Ejpg&ImageHeight=235&CN=Maverick+M inistry&CWeb=www%2Eorgsites%2Ecom%2Ftx%2Fmaverick%5Fministries%2F