My Problems With MV's

[Mexdeaf]

Luke 2:48- And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Mary even called Joseph Jesus' father- was she wrong??

 

[robycop3]

Jesus was as much Joseph's child as I am my father's child. He's not my father by blood but by adoption. So I can't call him "father"? To EVERYONE who knew the family of Joseph, Jesus was his son.

Right, Ann!

This KJVO excuse has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads that are now buried in the archives. and that's all it is-AN EXCUSE! We had explained that since J married M before Jesus was born, he was legally Jesus' earthly father by both Jewish and Roman law. Adoption was much easier in that time/place than itis in the USA today.

Besides that, only an idiot would assume Mary didn't know where Jesus came from, that she had forgotten Gabriel's message to her, that she was so confused that she accidentally called Joseph His father! she called J His father because for all earthly legal purposes he WAS His father!

 

[Jim1999]

We have no account for Jesus' first 12 years of life, but it is drawn from some scriptures that Jesus worked with Joseph, his father, as was tradition, in his trade of carpentry. Hence, Jesus was called a carpenter in several verses.

None of this negates the fact of His virgin birth and the fact He was God manifest in the flesh.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[rbell]

God has promised to preserve His Word forever. If there was not the King James Bible then God's people would have been without the Word of God for hundreds of years.

This shows a stunning lack of knowledge of the history of biblical translations. (Um...there's this thing called the Geneva Bible, et al)... Not to mention you put limits on God...further still, you have subtlely made "God's people" and "those who speak English" synonymous.

Yes, you're 0-for-3...but take heart...you can turn this thing around! :thumbs: :tongue3:

If that was the case then God is not true to His Word and the Bible that you claim to believe is not worth the paper that it was written on.

Please be careful about attacking the word of God. To do so here is frowned upon. Also, you make an assertion that no one here IMHO holds to. No one here suggests that there were centuries that God's word was not there for His people. Of course there were times that many did not have a copy of it in their hands...but that's not a translation issue. (In the 16th century, few could read, and few owned books...but that's not a KJV/MV issue).

Why do scholars feel they need to improve on the Word of God? These other versions were written by men who wanted to make the Bible fit into their doctrine instead of letting the Bible (as written)shape their doctrine.

Unsubstantiated attacks might be fun to type and they might sound good on the surface...But that doesn't change what they are. God used His word, (the particular version was the NAS) to save my father. No improvement was needed there, and one cannot improve on the miracle of salvation.

 

[Baptist4life]

Please be careful about attacking the word of God. To do so here is frowned upon.

Really? I consider this an "attack" yet nothing was said about it.

More contrasts with the KJV. This time the TNIV will be paired up with/against it. 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

For the record, I am NOT KJVO. But I do see a very strong ANTI-KJV feeling on this forum that is fully supported by the "administrators". It seems you can say whatever derogatory thing you want about the KJV, just don't say anything bad about MV's or you're ridiculed (and warned) as being a KJVO nut! Truly, a double standard exists here. :tear:

 

[rbell]

Really? I consider this an "attack" yet nothing was said about it.

For the record, I am NOT KJVO. But I do see a very strong ANTI-KJV feeling on this forum that is fully supported by the "administrators". Truly, a double standard exists here. :tear:

If you find a post offensive, you can always report it (the little triangle in the upper RH corner of the box...I'm not trying to be condescending; I didn't know if you knew about that).

Anti-KJV sentiment? I couldn't disagree more. The quote you showed us is by far as "attacking" as you will see on this forum. Most folks, like me, love and use the KJV (most admins on here do as well. I have never seen an admin on here attack the KJV).

The problem that occurs this: Many people here love the KJV, but recognize that language has changed and evolved. When that is pointed out...when one says, "The KJV is unparallelled in beauty and is a wonderful translation; however, much of the language is dated to the point it can be difficult to understand."

That is often characterized as an "attack."

It makes dialogue about this issue difficult, because one cannot discuss the issue without having to field some pretty charged allegations.

 

[Baptist4life]

rbell, thank you for your NICE reply. I agree that debating versions can get out of hand. I'm NOT against MV's per se, but I LOVE the KJV, and I DO feel that those of us who prefer it are looked at as "second class citizens" or "intellectually inferior" because we really don't know what we're talking about and need to be "enlightened" by the oh-so-wise members here. I'm sorry, maybe that wasn't their intent, but it sure seems that way.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm NOT against the KJV per se, but I love MVs.

 

[Mexdeaf]

rbell, thank you for your NICE reply. I agree that debating versions can get out of hand. I'm NOT against MV's per se, but I LOVE the KJV, and I DO feel that those of us who prefer it are looked at as "second class citizens" or "intellectually inferior" because we really don't know what we're talking about and need to be "enlightened" by the oh-so-wise members here. I'm sorry, maybe that wasn't their intent, but it sure seems that way.

It's all about the version, not about the personalities involved. No one is advocating the abolition of the KJV from homes, churches or Christian bookstores.

Sometimes folks on all sides of the argument come across as 'second class citizens' and 'intellectually inferior' and they NEED to be enlightened.

Thanks for the light that you shine.

 

[Baptist4life]

God bless, mexdeaf! :applause:

 

[rbell]

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute!!!

What are we DOING here?

This is a versions forum! We're not supposed to be getting along!

Somebody go get Roger (C4K). I've never seen a moderator faint from surprise before...

 

[Baptist4life]

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute!!!

What are we DOING here?

This is a versions forum! We're not supposed to be getting along!

Somebody go get Roger (C4K). I've never seen a moderator faint from surprise before...

Ok, how about this.......from your "signature line"....I always thought it was "pish-Posh" not "pish-Tosh"!!! What "version" did you get that from?? :laugh:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute!!!

What are we DOING here?

This is a versions forum! We're not supposed to be getting along!

Somebody go get Roger (C4K). I've never seen a moderator faint from surprise before...

Wait - gasp. where am I. It is almost seems like Christians who love each other are posting here .

 

[Dr. Bob]

C4, we MUST close this thread immediately or perhaps someone just happening by might think we like each other!!

God forbid!

 

[mcdirector]

awww, this is so sweet

And a lot of truth has been spoken in the last some-odd number of posts. Thanks to all for their graciousness.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I study three Different KJVs each day.

1. The KJV1611 Edition, mostly the e-sword.com electronic edition, but also a Nelson reprint edition (with a Roman Fount - instead of the original Gothic Fount) - this is at home

2. A KJV1769 Family of Editions - at home: the electronic e-sword.com edition; I also have portable book copies

3. The KJV1873 Edition - portable Book Edition only in TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE. I take this with me to teach from at my church (I teach the Sunday School class where new men 36-60 are placed)

I also study the following MVs daily:

4. The Updated NASB, a portable paper copy in TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE.
5. The NIV, a portable paper copy in TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE.
6. The HCSB = Christian Standard Bible, Holman, 2003 - wrapped in a portable paper copy called the Apologetics Study Bible (Holman, 2007).

I practice what I preach:

All VALID English Language Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.




​

 

[Salamander]

Really? I consider this an "attack" yet nothing was said about it.

For the record, I am NOT KJVO. But I do see a very strong ANTI-KJV feeling on this forum that is fully supported by the "administrators". It seems you can say whatever derogatory thing you want about the KJV, just don't say anything bad about MV's or you're ridiculed (and warned) as being a KJVO nut! Truly, a double standard exists here. :tear:

Nice to see the scales have also been lifted from another members' eyes.

It's all in the wordings accepted here, anything they can say according to the word arrangements stands, anything else is mocked and ridiculed.

 

[Salamander]

Ed, practicing then preaching it is best.

 

[Salamander]

It's all about the version, not about the personalities involved. No one is advocating the abolition of the KJV from homes, churches or Christian bookstores.

Yet the KJB always comes into the discussion and derogatory remarks are made against it and those who stand on it.

We don't abolish any good commentaries from anywhere, only those who don't hold to sound doctrine.

Sometimes folks on all sides of the argument come across as 'second class citizens' and 'intellectually inferior' and they NEED to be enlightened.

Thanks for the light that you shine.

What a cut! I'm 3rd class at best!

 

[gb93433]

Yet the KJB always comes into the discussion and derogatory remarks are made against it and those who stand on it.

I would think it is not so much anti-KJV as it is what they see as ignorance and call it knowledge which they perceive as dogmatically right.