Bible Preference

Best mss? Superior mss? Baloney!

 

Which KJV do you use?
KJV1611?
KJV1769?
KJV1873?
Fess up

 

PTL

 

Sound like closet Catholic W/H called it, "vile." However W/H admitted TR is best.

 

Do they affect any doctrines?

 

I think he is actually refering to the Good News Translation.

Though I call my NA27 the GNT </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, then he meant GNB. GNB stands for Good News Bible aka Good News for Modern Man aka TEV aka Today's English Version.

 

Do they affect any doctrines? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.
More than all the MVs put together

 

Most often, I use: ESV, NASB, NIV.
Less often: KJV, NKJV.
Sometimes: NLT, NRSV, REB, Holman NT.
Rarely: GNB, Amplified (really doesn't amplify much).

As for the persistent KJVO controversy, after studying the textual issues I felt in the end that I should simply submit the whole matter of translations to the Lord. Like most, I am confident that the KJV is the Word of God, but not exclusively so. God has not limited us to any one version in English. It's just my opinion, but we could all do with a bit more humility in dealing with this subject.

 

I think he is actually refering to the Good News Translation.

Though I call my NA27 the GNT </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, then he meant GNB. GNB stands for Good News Bible aka Good News for Modern Man aka TEV aka Today's English Version. </font>[/QUOTE]Correction past the editing limit: OK, I see that recently the GNB (TEV) changed its name again to "Good News Translation," so GNT is correct even if a little confusing. I mean, we have the NIV, NIrV, NIVI and TNIV and then we have the unrelated NAB and NASB, and we have the TEV and CEV--now, the TEV that was also known as the GNB is also known as the GNT?

Hmm, I'm suddenly getting the mood for alphabet soup...

 

started a new thread instead.

 

Do they affect any doctrines? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.
More than all the MVs put together </font>[/QUOTE]Please show me!

 

Do they affect any doctrines? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.
More than all the MVs put together </font>[/QUOTE]Please show me! </font>[/QUOTE]Please answer my question. Thank you.

 

For Isaiah 14:12 Scofield says
that Lucifer must be Satan
(i.e. "Satan" is the title, "Lucifer" is
the name)
This is taken from the KJV1769.
If one reads the translator sidenote
in the KJV1611, one sees that "Lucifer"
could be translated "Day Star".

I've heard the Bible called false
because in Isaiah 14:12 Satan is
called the Bright and Morning Star
and in Revelation 22:16 Jesus, the
Christ, is denoted as the Bright and
Morning Star. Then just who is
the "Bright and Morning Star" --
Satan or Jesus? Of course, i understand
that Isaiah 14:12 is NOT about Satan
at all (other than the king of Babylon
being a TYPE of Satan).

Thus, the doctrine varies according as if
you read the KJV1611 or KJV1769.

Most of the doctrinal variations were
created in the hey-day of the KJV, which
is 1611 to 1880. Very few doctrinal
variations are in the hey-day of the MVs
which is 1970-2003. Therefore i say,
which variation of the KJV one uses
has caused more doctrial variation than
which MV one uses.

 

Do they affect any doctrines? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.
More than all the MVs put together </font>[/QUOTE]Please show me! </font>[/QUOTE]Please answer my question. Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]I use the 1769 Cambridge KJV.

 

i love my kjv, it's nice having the error free, fully authoritative preserved word of god conveniently available in a language i can understand.

 

Why do you worry about these sidenotes? The KJV is correct to use the word, "Lucifer" in this verse, but "morning star" in the Old Testament in modern versions is incorrect because this words are not found in Hebrew text.

 

Amen! Amen! Amen!

 

At least Timothy 1769 is honest enough
to testify preferring the KJV1769
over the KJV1611, KJV1873, etc.

Of the ten paper Bibles i have on my
desk now (i just moved), three of
them are King James Version (KJV).
Does the term "Authorized Version"
refer only to the KJV1611?
Or does "Authorized Version" also
apply to the KJV1769 and KJV1873
(which were NOT authorized by King James )?

 

Amen!

All ten of the Bibles now on my desk
are "the error free, fully authoritative preserved word of god" and seven of them
are "conveniently available in a language i can understand". The three KJVs are in
a langugage i've studied quite a bit
at church.

I'm not "worried"
about the sidenotes. I do honor the
sidenotes, for they were written by the
blessed fifty KJV translators. They show
the second best translation of the
Hebrew or Greek term .

Yes, the blessed fifty KJV translators,
inspired by God, knew that in translating
there is not always a WORD FOR WORD replacement.
"Lucifer" is an English word
for a doctrine held in England (and not many
other places, except the USofA).
What was intended by the physical author
(probably Isaiah) and the spiritual
author (God) is "Morning Star".
"Day Star" is the "Morning Star" and/or
the "Evening Star".