Men From The Past Who Used Other Versions

[Rippon]

A thread from the past was closed back in August of 2009. It was called :"Some Who Approved Other Versions."

In that discussion I had quoted from some sound fundamental types of yesteryear who appreciated other Bible versions.

I was visiting a Christian bookstore today and ran across F.B Myer's Christ in Isaiah.

Here is what he said in his preface:"Most of the Scripture quotes herein are taken either from the King James Version or the 1881 Revised Version. However, the author sometimes uses his own paraphrase."

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

A thread from the past was closed back in August of 2009. It was called :"Some Who Approved Other Versions."

Yep, and let's not forget our Lord Himself and Luke who appeared to approve a non-KJB version of the OT as "Scripture" in Luke 4.

 

[Salty]

And next I suppose you are going to tell me that the aposotle Paul was not KJ ONLY

 

[ktn4eg]

And next I suppose you are going to tell me that the aposotle Paul was not KJ ONLY

You mean to tell me that he wasn't???? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

And next I suppose you are going to tell me that the aposotle Paul was not KJ ONLY

ooooh, Paul was different. of course, he used the Blayney KJB of 1769 from which the LXX was backtranslated.

:tongue3:

 

[ktn4eg]

ooooh, Paul was different. of course, he used the Blayney KJB of 1769 from which the LXX was backtranslated.

:tongue3:

When Peter Ruckman says that the KJV corrects the Greek, I wonder if that means that the KJV also corrects the LXX?

 

[God's_Servant]

R.A. Torrey used the Revised Version.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Alva J. McClain used the ASV 1901 as did Herman A. Hoyt.

 

[Jerome]

Christabel Pankhurst quoted ERV and Moffatt's.

 

[Dr. Bob]

John MacArthur uses the NASB in his commentaries.

My pastor and founder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary used the ASV1901 and I loved it.

Many used the KJV1769 revision, far different from the AV1611.

 

[TomVols]

Sprgeon used the RV

 

[Winman]

Sprgeon used the RV

The RV didn't exist until 1881, so Spurgeon may have used it at the end of his career, but not for the majority.

 

[Rippon]

The RV didn't exist until 1881, so Spurgeon may have used it at the end of his career, but not for the majority.

So what? If it had been published in the early 1850's Spurgeon would have used it. He even suggested a needed revision in the 1850's.

 

[gb93433]

The KJV is not an accurate translation of scripture. It does nothing to accurately translate John 1:1. The word is not in just past tense and translated "was". The verb is in the imperfect tense. Even a number of passages in the English KJV will attest to the fact that Jesus is not just past tense. Therefore it cannot be the word of God. The logos in John's gospel is eternal and was before the beginning and continues on to infinity.

So much for making a KJV God's eternal word. Jn. 1:1 in the KJV leaves Jesus in past tense.

However I told a KJVO recently to take their KJV and win people to Jesus. The problem is that the person has done nothing to do that except argue points.

 

[Amy.G]

The KJV is not an accurate translation of scripture. It does nothing to accurately translate John 1:1. The word is not in just past tense and translated "was". The verb is in the imperfect tense. Even a number of passages in the English KJV will attest to the fact that Jesus is not just past tense. Therefore it cannot be the word of God. The logos in John's gospel is eternal and was before the beginning and continues on to infinity.

So much for making a KJV God's eternal word. Jn. 1:1 in the KJV leaves Jesus in past tense.

NKJV - Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NLT - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.

NIV - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



So gb, what was the excuse for these other translations using the word "was"? Are they also as inaccurate as the KJV?


What a goofy argument.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Nione of you folks should worry. When they finally find Noah's Ark, they'll find a KJV on it and that will settle all of this. :laugh:

 

[gb93433]

NKJV - Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NLT - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.

NIV - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB - Jhn 1:1 -
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



So gb, what was the excuse for these other translations using the word "was"? Are they also as inaccurate as the KJV?


What a goofy argument.

Do you know how to translate the imperfect tense? If you did then you would not ask such a question.

 

[gb93433]

Nione of you folks should worry. When they finally find Noah's Ark, they'll find a KJV on it and that will settle all of this. :laugh:

Are you saying the original manuscripts were in English too?

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Are you saying the original manuscripts were in English too?

Sure...why not? It was before Babel and everyone spoke English...didn't they? :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Do you know how to translate the imperfect tense? If you did then you would not ask such a question.

No, but I can read English. Why do other translations also use the word "was"? Do they also leave Jesus in the past tense?