My Problems With MV's

[franklinmonroe]

... I meant that the ESV uses an English style that isn't very different from the KJV.I'm surprised when folks put the HCSB in the same category as the ESV.The former uses more understandable English for people living in the 21st century.

Yep, no question about it. I'm much more than half finished reading through the New Testament in both the ESV & HCSB (also parallel with the TNIV). The language difference between the ESV and the HCSB is stark. There are many more points of similarity between the the HCSB and the TNIV. Of those three, I now prefer the TNIV, and the ESV is my least favored.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... There are so many differences in the MV's that I choose to stick with the KJV. MY personal choice; you are free to pick whatever version YOU like...

You provided a list of several differences that can be found between the texts of English "MVs" (meaning 'Modern Versions'). First, you should be made aware that "MV" is primarily used as a pejorative term ("modern" tending to have a negative connotation in these discussions). Second, this is not just a "modern" problem since differences can also be found between ALL English Bible versions of ALL eras (even pre-1611 ones like Tyndale, Matthew's, Geneva, etc.). So, since you have used a derisive term while casting your unjust accusation against some contemporary Bible versions, some folks here will be offended.

Your personal choice of the KJV seems to be based on a sense of comfort and familiarity. And some people prefer Ford products to those manufactured by Toyota, Honda, Kia, Mercedes, Fiat, or Volvo. Of course, there are many differences between the vehicles made by these companies; but they all basically function the same and perform the same service. There is no purpose in comparing people's emotional sentiments about the brands, but there can be beneficial results from an intellectual discussion of the differences using objective criteria.

You like the KJV. (We get that.) It seems you have nothing further to add here.

 

[Baptist4life]

You like the KJV. (We get that.) It seems you have nothing further to add here.

Oh, am I dismissed then??:laugh:

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, you did say --

Anyway, I don't see the need to continue forcing my views on other people...

I notice that you didn't address the two issues brought forward in the first paragraph of my post: that you used a prejorative term, and that you made a grossly biased accusation.

If you're willing to participate in this debate forum (and I hope you are) then move beyond the personal preference announcement and complaints about phantom 'attacks'; try presenting some genuine objections, and expect your assertions to be challenged (feelings may be subject to bruising).

 

[Jim1999]

Quote: I cannot imagine a preacher attending seminary and spending so much time studying the languages then waste away their skills by ignoring them rather than building upon the foundation of what they have already been taught.
----------------------------------------

Some people learned the Greek and Hebrew well enough to make good use of it. I did better with Latin, German, French, Welsh and, of course, English.

I have immersed my mind in many theologies and studied hermeneutics and have many modern versions in my library to complete my study without reading and translating each passage of scripture for that week.

In my younger years I would stand up to any man so learned in Greek and Hebrew in understanding what saith the scriptures.

So, I contend that he is no better equipped than am I in undertanding what is being said in any scripture.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Baptist4life]

Well, you did say --

I notice that you didn't address the two issues brought forward in the first paragraph of my post: that you used a prejorative term, and that you made a grossly biased accusation.

And I suppose this statement by Rippon isn't "grossly biased"?



Originally Posted by Rippon

Here are some more examples where I maintain that even diehard KJV fans wouldn't have an inkling as to the actual meaning of a number of passages.They may know the meaning of many ancient wordings -- but certainly a great number of other verses would leave them perplexed.



There is absolutely no comparison.Without consulting MV's or Bible study helps there would be no way a modern KJV person could decode this.



The same applies to the above.



This is the kind of case where advocates claiming complete mastery of the KJV would come up empty.

....................yet I see NO remark to him from you about that. I'm beginning to understand how this forum works. Somehow that verse about the "speck and the beam" comes to mind.

 

[franklinmonroe]

And I suppose this statement by Rippon isn't "grossly biased"?...

If it is, how does that absolve you from what you have written? Do you always attempt to deflect attention away from your own guilt?

You're still sidestepping the issue.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...yet I see NO remark to him from you about that...

Your quotation of Rippon does not seem to even be from this thread. Why don't you just converse with me, and leave Rippon out of it?

 

[Baptist4life]

If it is, how does that absolve you from what you have written? Do you always attempt to deflect attention away from your own guilt?

You're still sidestepping the issue.

Look, I have NO GUILT about anything! I need not be "absolved" from anything! IF I choose to "converse" with you I will. You have no right to demand anything from me.
What is your problem? Who made you judge and jury on this forum? Goodness, but there are such high and mighty people on here! Heaven help anyone who has a difference of opinion with them! I use the KJV, use whatever you want, if the KJV seems to difficult for you, use something easier for you, but don't insinuate that those of us that use it are missing out and lacking understanding. That is an INSULT to me, and others who use the KJV.



You don't use the KJV. (We get that.) It seems that YOU have nothing else productive to add to this thread. If you feel the need to order me around further please do it in IM's.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm still able to teach the truths of the Christian faith from my much loved TNIV.

 

[mcdirector]

I'm still able to teach the truths of the Christian faith from my much loved TNIV.

I still like the NASB the best

 

[TCGreek]

I still like the NASB the best

Yeah, I use to once, but it got to awkward for me in some places. And I've sort of outgrowth those italics.

 

[mcdirector]

Yeah, I use to once, but it got to awkward for me in some places. And I've sort of outgrowth those italics.

Well, I'm just a teacher and not a Preacher

 

[because of grace]

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. 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. 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.

 

[Rippon]

Yep, no question about it. I'm much more than half finished reading through the New Testament in both the ESV & HCSB (also parallel with the TNIV). The language difference between the ESV and the HCSB is stark. There are many more points of similarity between the the HCSB and the TNIV. Of those three, I now prefer the TNIV, and the ESV is my least favored.

WOW! Franklinmonroe,welcome aboard the TNIV train.Other members include go2church,tcgreek and myself.Are there any others?I know ededwards reads it though it's not his current favorite.We don't hold any TNIVO meetings because we don't think it's the only valid version out there.

 

[TCGreek]

Well, I'm just a teacher and not a Preacher

Well, we both do the same in the end: We read. :thumbs:

 

[annsni]

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. 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. 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.

You mean there was no Word of God in 1610? What about 1510? What Bible did the Pilgrims use when they came to the New World?

The Word of God has existed from the beginning. It's earliest forms in writing began with Moses' writings and have been with us ever since. If King James did not push for a version of his own, we'd still have the Word of God to His people. He has made sure of that.

 

[TCGreek]

We don't hold any TNIVO meetings because we don't think it's the only valid version out there.

But if the train is growing, we might need to. :laugh:

 

[because of grace]

As I said God promised to preseve His Word and yes it was preserved in 1610, 1510, and before the foundation of the world. However the modern versions have taken out scripture that deals with baptism after salvation. If you take that out then you can justify baptizing babies. Also the manuscripts used for many of these versions contradict each other.

 

[mcdirector]

Well, I don't have a TNIV yet. I may have to break down and get one, but I just haven't been able to work up putting down my NASB yet . . . I've been disappointed in other purchases that promised more than they delivered.