Does it really matter?

Ed, if you would quit running your preachers off you could stick to the same version a while.

 

Interesting......

I have preached and taught out of the KJV,NKJV,NIV, and HCSB and you know what I have discovered?

It's not the syntax, sentence structure, or choice of translation; but the Holy Spirit of the Living God that brings to us understanding of the scripture.......James 1:5 states that it is God who gives us wisdom; John 16:13 tells us that the Holy Spirit leads us into truth.

We all prefer the translation that speaks to us; but is there one here who can or will declare that God is not big enough to give understanding to those who seek him....regardless of translation?

Or do we forget that the AV1611 was a MV when compared to the Geneva, which in turn was a MV when compared to the Matthews.......

 

mcgyver,
Started to express the same thoughts, but just couldn't get them out as succinctly as you.
WallyGator

 

And we can also provide just as much anecdotal evidence that show the opposite is true. I.E., people can read different English translations and not be confused.</font>[/QUOTE] I can trump that.

I sat in a Sunday School class one morning led by a KJVO who was taking James verse by verse.

He got to this verse:

[/qb] and explained that it was an command against cussin'... As far as I know, I was the only one who knew that he was wrong.

Bottom line: Sometimes KJVO's are confused without knowing it. This is one of the very real dangers of KJVOnlyism.

 

Just did a Askjo fact check. Not surprisingly, I discovered that the KJV uses the name Jesus 942 times in the NT while the NASB uses it 947 and the NKJV uses it 940 (with at least one of the omissions a recognition that Joshua was being referred to).

Askjo, Do you ever check your information before perpetuating lies?

 

quote:
-----------------------------------------------
The only reason that I'm talking to you now
is because of your arrogance and dihonesty
about MV's causing confusion.
------------------------------------------------

Askjo: //Ignore the Bible saying, God is not
the author of confusion.. (See 1 Cor 14:33 KJV)//

I agree with the unnamed quoted person.
The two 'confusion's are different words with
different meanings.

 

And we can also provide just as much anecdotal evidence that show the opposite is true. I.E., people can read different English translations and not be confused.</font>[/QUOTE] I can trump that.

I sat in a Sunday School class one morning led by a KJVO who was taking James verse by verse.

He got to this verse:

and explained that it was an command against cussin'... As far as I know, I was the only one who knew that he was wrong.

[[Bottom line: Sometimes KJVO's are confused without knowing it. This is one of the very real dangers of KJVOnlyism.]] [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

As pertains to the above italicized and bracketed quote;

Yes, sometimes KJVo's are confused. And sometimes MV'ers are. What you have described is NOT a result of the man being KJVo but rather is a result of him being lazy and NOT doing his homework to learn that "conversation" is the quoted verse means manner of living.

No it is NOT a very real danger of "KJVo-ism" but instead it is a very real danger of laziness when teaching the word of God!!!

And I think you KNOW that.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

That won't fly Jim.

Why should a person have to question the definition for words that they use every day?

People today know that "conversation" involves speech.

This is just one example of many possibilities. People today know what "let, prevent, communicate, etc." mean. They shouldn't have to double check the definition of every word. That's not how God gave His Word nor how we should have to deal with it now.

I still use the KJV. It is the version I feel most comfortable with because I have used it for 30+ years. But I also teach a youth class with kids that didn't come from a Christian home. Explaining the meaning and correcting misconceptions of the KJV often distracts from the message. These aren't stupid kids either. One girl in particular is straight A's in a highly rated school.

The more time goes on, the more difficult it is going to be for English readers to discern God's Word from the KJV. Denying this can only hurt the cause of Christ.

 

That won't fly Jim.

Why should a person have to question the definition for words that they use every day?

People today know that "conversation" involves speech.

This is just one example of many possibilities. People today know what "let, prevent, communicate, etc." mean. They shouldn't have to double check the definition of every word. That's not how God gave His Word nor how we should have to deal with it now.

I still use the KJV. It is the version I feel most comfortable with because I have used it for 30+ years. But I also teach a youth class with kids that didn't come from a Christian home. Explaining the meaning and correcting misconceptions of the KJV often distracts from the message. These aren't stupid kids either. One girl in particular is straight A's in a highly rated school.

The more time goes on, the more difficult it is going to be for English readers to discern God's Word from the KJV. Denying this can only hurt the cause of Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

Scott, they don't have to question the meaning of words. The passage in question makes it clear that "conversation" is NOT speech only. Otherwise what you end up with is speech being our ONLY works.
Once more,(I hate to do this) I refer you to just ONE word from the NIV. Without a dictionary can your kids define this; "fomenting" ? I'll guess that MOST high schoolers can't. You may find it at ISA. 59:13 in the NIV. OTOH the same verse in the KJV has "speaking". In this one place, which is easier to understand?

I don't agree with you. Explaining the text does not take away from the message. Yes, there are some words that have SECONDARY meanings which have become PRIMARY in our everyday speech. But that does NOT happen as often as some would like us to believe. What is so WRONG with giving the meaning of a text?
Ne 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

{You will remember that this was after many decades without the Book of God. To hear some (not necessarily you) on this board speak, the Jews should have been seeking a NEW translation!}

Seems to me that this practice of EXPLAINING the text, which APPEARS to be comdemend by a particular crowd, is nevertheless APPROVED of by God.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

av1611jim said:

You pull one comment out of the MIDDLE of my post and reply as if that was the entirety of my view.

I quoted a "might" and understood your point just fine. Not quoting redundancy on your part does not constitute misrepresentation on my part. My rebuttal stands.

 

Jim, Apparently they do. This guy wasn't a babbling idiot nor was he lazy like you contend. He just saw a word that he knew the definition of and interpretted the verse accordingly.

First, I don't use the NIV and only reluctantly defend it on principle.

The word "foment" has a meaning. If someone knows that they don't know the meaning then they will be prompted to look it up. That's the difference.

As for the word itself, I agree. It was a bad choice.

That's not what I said either. The message sometimes needs to be explained even when people understand every word.

Explaining things isn't the issue. The issue is that words that people think they know sometimes mean different things now than in 1769... and we haven't even gotten into some of the confusing grammar and punctuation.

It happens. That is all I have said. And, it only has to happen once for someone to develop a false belief or at least to become confused.

Nothing except that when a Christian becomes that dependent on someone else for their biblical knowledge, we are starting back down the same road that left millions of sincere people hell bound during the days when the RCC forbad any version but the LV.

There is alot left open to interpretation with this passage. I won't argue over it other than to say your view isn't the only valid one.

Explaining the text is fine. Withholding the Bible from people because they can't understand the language of it for themselves is not.

The Bible should be made as understandable to the common man as possible without compromising faithfulness to the original language texts. A person should not have to struggle through language they don't understand well to get to the truth God has for them... which is already challenging enough to apply and interpret correctly.