My Problems With MV's

There are differences in the KJV as well. As you can tell from your own listing above, the KJV differs from the other Bibles in numerous places. That doesn't make the KJV right or wrong. It simply shows that the "problem" is elsewhere.

 

Glad you've chosen the KJV, but be aware that there are differences even among the various renderings of the KJV. What you allege against other translations is something the KJV is guilty of. And remember that when you use one version to compare others by, by necessity you create what you allege.

 

I don't know anyone who has anything "against" the KJV. They simply point out that the obvious fact that the KJV is not perfect and that incurs the wrath of some.

 

Rippon is correct, but that's not something "against" the KJV. It is 400 years old, and uses 400 year old language. Today, the English speaking world needs something in its only language.

It's a strange world we live in where stating that something is out-dated because of language is somehow "against" it.

 

By definition, the KJV (or KJB) itself is a "Modern Version."

Even in the sense in which you are actually mis-using that terminology, the KJV was an "MV" in the 17th Century.

Not to mention, the KJV was done at the dual behests of the Church of England, and King James I, primarily in opposition to a version actually done by Protestants, namely the Geneva, under whatever pretexts.

Do you oppose your so-called "MVs" because they completely remove more than a dozen books from the Holy Scriptures?

Have I actually noticed you quoting from a 1611 KJV?

So would it be reasonable to conclude that you really prefer such versions and editions of the Bible as Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale?

Somehow, I do not expect to get a "Yes!" answer to any of the above questions, thus I consider this to merely be another exercise of 'hyocrisy'.

Granted, you specifically said nore of the above things, but the 'not-so-subtle' implication is certainly there for a 'single-version' advocacy.

(Can anyone here besides my alter ego, Language Cop, spell and define "A-g-e-n-d-a"??)

BTW and FTR, I use a KJV (or a NKJV) almost exclusively, and have mainly done so for more than 40 years, except for a few brief instances, when I did not actually have one in my hands, and used what was available, in that sense. My bride's NIV or HCSB, my own MLB or ASV off the bookshelf, or whatever my bride currently has up on her "electronic Bible" (She can access about six different versions.) have all seemed to work fairly well, in those few instances.

Ed

 

Thanks for the personal attack, but the fact remains: Stating that something is old and linguistically out of date is not "against it."

I can't speak for Rippon, but as for me, you could not be more wrong. I said nothing that would indicate I think that way about people who use the KJV. In fact, I don't. I don't care what version people use.

I expect you to issue an immediate apology and never again say something so irresponsible.

 

You don't like MV's but you like the KJV. So, how would you describe yourself?

 

You said I was blind and prejudice (sic). That was not about the topic. That was about the person, and it wasn't a compliment. So yes, it was a personal attack, and you should apologize.

Where did I insinuate that? I had no idea what your position was. I don't recall insinuating anything about your position. If you can point out where I insinuated that I will gladly take a look. I just went back and looked at my posts and see no such insinuation.

 

awww

another versions thread.

People are going to analyze all versions available. Even the KJV - Because it's been around a long time and in so many hands and so many households, it will most likely be analyzed the most.

 

Personally, I think we get carried away with what version is best, and we do tend to get personal about it.

In my opinion, the best version is still the one that get's read and studied. We can always correct any mistakes that may crop up, make notes and get on with the purpose of scripture in daily living.

I still use the same KJV I started out with in 1945. It, no doubt, has many errors, but I still use it. I am not KJV only, I just happen to be familiar with this book. I memorized text from it and guess what I will quote from the pulpit?

I read many different versions including some very liberal versions. It has not changed my theology one iota, nor has it affected my spiritual affectation for my loving God or for my fellow believers.

So, folks, let us try to stick to constructive criticisms and leave individuals out of the picture. Let us attempt to learn more about truth in the word, whichever version we happen to find attractive.

Cheers, and bless,

Jim

 

I apologize since I apparently did 'misread' you, Baptist4life. It was certainly not intentional.

(Incidentally, I composed my own initial post after 4 posts, thus did not read any additional posts from anyone else, as I went on back to bed after posting and entering, last evening.)

BTW, do any of the rest of these KJV 'advocates' consider any of the KJII, KJ21, KJIII, NKJV, HCSB, LITV, TMB, AKJV, and/or MKJV just as acceptable as the KJV? (1769, you understand.)

(Why do I not expect to get any real "Yes!" here, either? To any of the above??

Never mind that several of the above, by definition, are actually 'Baptist' Bibles.



Ed

 

The title of your thread implies that you have problems with MV's. What else are we to think?