-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is it just my imagination, or are many folks here hostile to people who read the KJV?
- Thread starter Thermodynamics
- Start date
- Status
My personal opinion is that the essence of God's truth is contained in all versions of the Bible with few exceptions.
I believe God has preserved the thought of scripture, but not one version as it all.
We, as bapists, never declared a version as being inspired, We always stated the originals as being inspired, period.
I still use my 1945 copy of the KJV. I learned from it, memorized most of it, preached from it, and grew up when it was the majority accepted version.
On this board, I have both sides condemned and commended. The fact is, I can point out the way of salvation from any version. My theology has not changed because of any one version. One of my favourites is the Phillips NT, even though I know that J.B. Phillips was a liberal in theology. I gave a copy to every person who happened to come to Christ under my ministry. They read it and understood what they were reading. That was the important thing.
Cheers,
Jim
I believe God has preserved the thought of scripture, but not one version as it all.
We, as bapists, never declared a version as being inspired, We always stated the originals as being inspired, period.
I still use my 1945 copy of the KJV. I learned from it, memorized most of it, preached from it, and grew up when it was the majority accepted version.
On this board, I have both sides condemned and commended. The fact is, I can point out the way of salvation from any version. My theology has not changed because of any one version. One of my favourites is the Phillips NT, even though I know that J.B. Phillips was a liberal in theology. I gave a copy to every person who happened to come to Christ under my ministry. They read it and understood what they were reading. That was the important thing.
Cheers,
Jim
ray Marshall
New Member
preachinjesus said:I don't know if anyone is hostile to those who read the KJV, but in questioning the KJVO position many of us get maligned into positions that we don't accept and we get castigated by the proponents of KJVOism in order to create a red herring to distract the actual argument.
I enjoy the company of people who read the KJV. I appreciate the KJV. In reading the KJV I find it to be a bit dated and in a language that is deeply difficult for new believers to understand.
Many of us grew up using the KJV and grew under ministers and leaders who used it. It is a good translation. I just suggest that in our contemporary time there are other translations which suit us better.
No hostility here. :thumbsup:
It makes no difference what Bible people read. I will stick to KJV regardless.
And, that's wonderful and God bless you.
The problem arises when we who don't hold your view are told that we are wrong because we don't use the KJV on an exclusive basis. And, to that response there may be some perceived hostility because that stance is not going to go unchallenged.
The problem arises when we who don't hold your view are told that we are wrong because we don't use the KJV on an exclusive basis. And, to that response there may be some perceived hostility because that stance is not going to go unchallenged.
Thermodynamics
Member
I regret asking my question, I seem to have thrown a rock at a bees nest.
tinytim said:I'm sorry, but if anything like that were posted about an MV, I guarantee you it would be considered an attack. Again, bias and denial.
Thermodynamics, I'm glad, I guess, that you brought this up. It seems that you noticed it right away, and I feel it really needs to be taken care of by the moderators or this forum will be left to those who've been here awhile, and agree with each other. That's sad, but it seems to be the way they like it, I guess. I, for one, am amazed by it.
Thermodynamics
Member
Jim1999 said:
I'll take that advice!:laugh:
Thermodynamics
Member
One thing I have noticed (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that the modern English versions don't seem to have much in the way of staying power. It seems like a new version will come out, be all the rage for several years and then be replaced by a newer version.
quote: I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.
--------------------------------------
Attack! Not neccesarily so, but it is just an opinion and has nothing to do with intellectualism. Other learned people have different opinions and are not lacking in intellectual abilities.
I don't think my intellectual capacity or understanding of the Bible has been at all hindered by my use of the KJV.
I intend to take up reading one day. I always thought all those books had fancy covers just for looks.
Cheers,
Jim
--------------------------------------
Attack! Not neccesarily so, but it is just an opinion and has nothing to do with intellectualism. Other learned people have different opinions and are not lacking in intellectual abilities.
I don't think my intellectual capacity or understanding of the Bible has been at all hindered by my use of the KJV.
I intend to take up reading one day. I always thought all those books had fancy covers just for looks.
Cheers,
Jim
mcdirector
Active Member
Thermodynamics said:
I've been using my NASB since 1976. That's well over half my life.
I switched to the NASB from the NIV when they started all that gender inclusive non-sense with the TNIV. Talk about ruining a good version of the Bible in my opinion. Anyway, I've been with the NASB for seven years now and don't plan to change anytime soon. Now, that's not to say that I don't own other versions to include my Ryrie KJV which I still use for personal Bible reading and preaching from on occasion.
Baptist4life said:
What exactly is the "attack" here?
That the AV is a Anglican, not a Baptist (actually rejected by Baptists) translation? That is no attack. That is history.
That the AV is woefully out of date with archaic words that even its own readers misunderstand? That is no attack. That is a valid point why many do not use the AV (or one of its many revisions) any longer.
That many today would get more understanding from other modern translations than from the Av? That is no attack. That is an opinion based on experience.
We moderators carefully scan the B/V threads to see if slanderous attacks against ANY English translation of God's Word. You call my translation "not inspired" or "perversion" (WHATEVER translation I prefer to use) and THAT, my friend, is an attack and will get snipped quickly.
In nearly 10 years here on the BB (I'm about the oldest here) I cannot remember anyone saying that AV was not a faithful translation of the inspired Word of God or a perversion. I can tell you of the hatred and vitriole of MANY who condemn MY prefereed translation.
Most of them are not here, since they continued violating rules. Some still are but I am working on it . . .
Thermodynamics
Member
sag38 said:
I have a KJV Ryrie, it is one of two study Bibles that I own, great study Bible!
Dr. Bob, you are not on Baptist4life's side. Look at 2 "Bob" moderators for an example: You and Pastor Bob are different on "Bible translations" view. I think Pastor Bob would be on Baptist4life's side.Dr. Bob said:What exactly is the "attack" here?
That the AV is a Anglican, not a Baptist (actually rejected by Baptists) translation? That is no attack. That is history.
That the AV is woefully out of date with archaic words that even its own readers misunderstand? That is no attack. That is a valid point why many do not use the AV (or one of its many revisions) any longer.
That many today would get more understanding from other modern translations than from the Av? That is no attack. That is an opinion based on experience.
We moderators carefully scan the B/V threads to see if slanderous attacks against ANY English translation of God's Word. You call my translation "not inspired" or "perversion" (WHATEVER translation I prefer to use) and THAT, my friend, is an attack and will get snipped quickly.
In nearly 10 years here on the BB (I'm about the oldest here) I cannot remember anyone saying that AV was not a faithful translation of the inspired Word of God or a perversion. I can tell you of the hatred and vitriole of MANY who condemn MY prefereed translation.
Most of them are not here, since they continued violating rules. Some still are but I am working on it . . .
Thermodynamics
Member
I used to believe that any translation was as good as an other and that it was all a matter of preference. However, after doing a little research I discovered:
1. There are two "families" of manuscripts.
2. There are differences between these two families of manuscripts.
I think asking if one set of manuscripts is better or more accurate than the other is a fair question. You may reach a different conclusion that me, but shouldn't we be asking the questions and looking at the issues involved?
1. There are two "families" of manuscripts.
2. There are differences between these two families of manuscripts.
I think asking if one set of manuscripts is better or more accurate than the other is a fair question. You may reach a different conclusion that me, but shouldn't we be asking the questions and looking at the issues involved?
Thermodynamics said:
Most of us here have done just that and come to our conclusions. Both sets of manuscripts are valid - and the differences between them are indeed very small. Not one doctrine of Christianity is removed, changed or altered in any way between them. Praise God!
- Status