Bible version poll

[tyndale1946]

Would somebody start a poll on this! I would but I'm not familiar with every translation. I read the KJV and not any others. Those who know of the various translations can start a poll. Now that we have the post a poll section... Just an idea!... Brother Glen

 

[Maverick]

It was the good ole KJV and it is still the book for me and should be for thee. When I was first saved I was given a NASB because the lad thought I might have trouble with the KJV. However, I found problems with it before I even knew there was acontroversary or knew anything about texts, Westcott or anything else. When I picked up the KJV my own personal controversary was solved. Years, after Bible College I started studying the issue and find the other versions anathema. Indeed, for all the controversary the KJV is still the best seller and is used in 3rd World countires where they are supposed to be less literate than we are so why do Americans have so much trouble with the English? Indeed, if you go to http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html you will see that the NIV uses as many if not more archaic words than the KJV. I am not a double inspiration Ruckmanaite and have no problem with updating the English, which is all the folks in 1881 were supposed to do and by their own admission all they were qualified to do. The text is the issue. Older does not necessarily make better. All the contested verses are referenced in versions, lectionaries and writings of the fathers that are far older than the Westcott-Hort texts so if age is the issue get back to the true ancient sources and all will be solved and the KJV will come out the winner as it does in most of the Flesch-Kincaid tests of readiability. I use large sections of KJV verses in my sermons and most of my reading level stays at 6.9 - 7.1 reading level. No rocket scientist or Shakespeare scholar needed to understand it.

 

[Bible Believing Bill]

KJV was the bible used. The biggest thing in my conversion was not someone quoting the bible, but the good Christian example of my wife, and the people in our church. Their example show me move of what I could become than hearing scripture quoted. That is not to say I did not need scripture, once I saw the example the bible is where I went to find out HOW to become like them.

Bill

 

[Ransom]

Alex Mullins said:

The only pure "Word of God", the KJV, the 1611 and the inspired updates which followed.

I'll take this as a ringing endorsement of the NASB, a second-generation inspired update of the KJV. Thanks, Alex.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Maverick:
It was the good ole KJV and it is still the book for me and should be for thee. When I was first saved I was given a NASB because the lad thought I might have trouble with the KJV. However, I found problems with it before I even knew there was a controversary or knew anything about texts, Westcott or anything else.

That's curious; what "problems" did you find in the NASB as a new believer?

When I picked up the KJV my own personal controversary was solved. Years, after Bible College I started studying the issue and find the other versions anathema.

As stated many times on this board, it is unwise (and really blasphemy) to call any version of God's word "accursed". Consider the KJV translators own words that even the meanest of translations is the very word of God.

Indeed, for all the controversary the KJV is still the best seller

Where? Since 1984, the NIV has sold the most bibles, with the KJV second or third.

and is used in 3rd World countires where they are supposed to be less literate than we are so why do Americans have so much trouble with the English?

Are you saying that in third world countries they are reading a 17th C Elizabethan version of the Bible, and not one in their own language?

Indeed, if you go to http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html you will see that the NIV uses as many if not more archaic words than the KJV.

That is absurd.

I am not a double inspiration Ruckmanaite and have no problem with updating the English, which is all the folks in 1881 were supposed to do and by their own admission all they were qualified to do. The text is the issue.

So then you have no problem with the NKJV, LITV, MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000, Webster, YLT, and other TR translations?

 

[Ransom]

Maverick said:

. . . the KJV will come out the winner as it does in most of the Flesch-Kincaid tests of readiability. I use large sections of KJV verses in my sermons and most of my reading level stays at 6.9 - 7.1 reading level.

The Flesch-Kincaid test does nothing but count words per sentence and syllables per word and apply a mathematical formula to those figures to come up with a reading level. It cannot account for poor or unusual grammar or syntax, and indeed if you take a paragraph and jumble up all the words in every sentence so the result is completely illegible, you will still get the same readability score (i.e. "Cat the sat mat on the" scores the same as "The cat sat on the mat"). Nor can it account for words currently out of use or words that have changed meaning over time, or poor type or layout which can also affect readability (the close leading and heavy blackletter type of the original AV is difficult for modern eyes used to contemporary Roman typefaces and lots of whitespace)

Moreover, the best-known readability test of the KJV vs. modern versions, which is described in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions, is completely skewed for a variety of reasons.

 

[TomVols]

Legacy,
This forum is for Baptists only. You must identify yourself as Baptist in order to post here.

 

[tyndale1946]

I posted something for Legacy but when I put mine in his was removed and since it was directed to him I have removed what I said... Anyway I read and study the KJV because I enjoy it and it hasn't let me down in the 40 years I been reading it. I stay with my true, tried, and tested KJV!... Brother Glen

[ February 26, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[TomVols]

Legacy,
You are blatently continuing to violate BaptistBoard rules. Please read them and post accordingly.

 

[BrotherMatt]

It was the one and the only KJV 1611

 

[Deekay]

I grew up in a church where the KJV was preached, but no one actually sat down and went through the salvation passages with me. It just gradually seeped in, I suppose.

Anyway I use NIV mostly now, with NASB and others for comparison.

 

[Bartimaeus]

KJV 1769
My wife does alot of canning here in NW Indy and she uses a special type of canning jar. The first year she canned she used several diferent types and one surpassed them all. We found that when she canned applebutter the most important factor in preservation was that everything she put in the jar in Oct was still there intact and unspoiled in Mar-Apr. Do you think that if this is important in our kitchen and God said He would give us and keep for us His inspired Word, He lied? If the Word was inspired in the beginning is it lost now? I think not. I know not.
Thanks, the forum, the wonderful way to express what you believe.

 

[ChristianCynic]

You're not going to keep this valuable secret from everyone, are you? Tell us exactly what kind of cans God uses to preserve His word.

 

[trumpet]

The KJV1611 was the last bible to be translated with any accuracy. Christ was crucified because people didn't want to believe or accept Him and His teachings, which bible are people trying to do away with.John 1:1 If you check the line where those other bibles came from you will see for yourself. I highly recommend Gail Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions. Beware of those who come in sheep's clothing.

 

[javalady]

The Lord saved me under the preaching of a fiery young man using the KJV.
I read the KJV almost entirely for my first several years as a Christian. However, I used the Living Bible for a time as a comparison. Kept going back to the KJV. Tried the NIV & NASB for awhile. Back to the KJV.
We use the KJV & the NKJV now.
By the way, please forgive my ignorance. What's the difference between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1769?

 

[got2liv4him]

The 1611 is in olde english and contaqins the apocrypha. The 1769 was revised at Oxford to update to the modern form of English and the apocrypha were not included.

BTW, I was gloriously saved at eight with the AV1769, which is the only one I will use now.

[ March 04, 2002, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: got2liv4him ]

 

[KeeperOfMyHome]

As with a few others here, no one sat down with me to show me how to be saved! That fact mostly has to do with the fact that everybody thought this "good girl" was already saved! I grew up in the Christian church and started attending a Baptist church with my husband when we married. I was very active in the church and I believe this is what made everyone think I was saved. When my husband's pastor counseled (and I use the term loosely) us before our marriage, he asked if I knew I was going to Heaven, but he didn't bother to ask how I knew I was! I shudder to think of it today.

Anyway, a few years later he left the church and we acquired a new pastor. He had only beed there a month of so when God began to deal with me about my lost condition. It was hard to accept at first, and I resisted what the Holy Spirit was showing me. I was confused, and due to many factors, I felt I had no one to talk to about it.

I realize now that this was a good situation to be in. I know when I finally accepted that I was a sinner separated from God and I believed on Jesus, it was because of what God had shown me and no one was there to confuse me further!

I suppose, though, that in a way, the Bible was used because of the preaching I had heard. But no one sat down with me and used a Bible to show me I needed to be saved! Our church preaches from the KJV.

Julia

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by KeeperOfMyHome:
I suppose, though, that in a way, the Bible was used because of the preaching I had heard. But no one sat down with me and used a Bible to show me I needed to be saved! Our church preaches from the KJV.

Julia

I think the attempt at drawing a relationship between the KJV and its role in salvation, instead of the Bible itself (if that was indeed the original purpose of this thread) is tenuous at best. I wonder how many conversions under the KJV were similar to Julia's and were due to an older saint using/preaching from the KJV because that is what they always used? Prior to 1611 most conversions would have been under the Geneva Bible in English.

Today I am confident that most conversions of young people occur under the NIV.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by javalady:
By the way, please forgive my ignorance. What's the difference between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1769?

With the exception of spelling, punctuation, and type face, the 1611 differs from the 1769 in only 421 places a person listening to the 1769 being read from the pulpit and following along in his 1611 would hear. Of those 421 changes, 285 of them are minor changes of form only, such as "towards" being changed to "toward" "burnt" being changed to "burned" "amongst" being changed to "among" etc. Of the remaining 136 changes of substance, all but 9 of them can be attributed to correcting printers errors in the 1611 edition. Of the nine remaining, all are synonyms for the words chosen in 1611.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by trumpet:
The KJV1611 was the last bible to be translated with any accuracy.

How do you know this? In comparing the MVs with the original language texts, I find them to be very accurate, in many places even more accurate than the KJV.

FYI, Riplinger's "work" (if such it can be called) has been exposed and refuted in many places. I would recommend availing yourself of those resources for further study of her methods and "facts."