New KJV

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Terry, you're sometimes a study in contradiction. After giving us a reason, albeit not a very good one, for being KJVO, you say: This is my preference, others are free to use whatever version they desire.

You then say: I would not attend a church that does not use the KJV exclusively; however, I do not advocate declaring war on a church that does not agree with this stance.]

Since I believe that the KJV is the best English Bible, since I believe that God has especially blessed the KJV, I don't see this as a contradiction. It would be inconsistent for me to be a member of a church that goes against my belief in this area.

AFTER you said: Since I hold to the position that the KJV is the Bible for the English-speaking people, I also believe that all English-speaking people should use it exclusively.

Wouldn't it be rather foolish for me to say that I believe that the KJV is the Bible for the English-speaking people, and then say other English speakers should use another version?

Either you use the KJV from personal preference or you incorrectly believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV. It cannot be both ways.

I use the KJV because I believe it is the best Bible and therefore I believe that all people should use it.

The NKJV is a perfectly valid version; it was even made with KJVOs in mind, but written in TODAY'S English. The AV is in the English of ITS day; what's wrong with having God's word in OUR language?

You are entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:

Now, as far as the NKJV is concerned, I will not use it and will stick ONLY with the KJV. I don't care who translates what Bible, if it is not the KJV it is not for me.

So you are saying the Greek, Hebrew and Aramiac texts of the OT and NT are not good enough for you? </font>[/QUOTE]Not they are not good enough for me since I do not speak Hebrew or Greek. I will let you Bible scholars argue over which manuscripts are the best and which ones are not trustworthy, I will continue to use the KJV!

 

[HankD]

The lie that "the NKJV is not based on the TR" is just that, a lie. Not mistake. Not error. Lie.

If it were not based upon the TR then the translation committee could be sued for fraud because they have publicly made that claim.

If it is indeed based upon the TR (and I have found it to be so everywhere I have looked starting with 1 John 5:7), then those who say that it is not based upon the TR are committing a slander and a false witness against those on the committee who made the claim.


HankD

 

[Ransom]

Terry_Herrington said:

Not they are not good enough for me since I do not speak Hebrew or Greek.

They were good enough for Paul, so they're good enough for me. Just because you are willingly ignorant doesn't make your level of ignorance a rule for the whole church.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Terry_Herrington said:

Not they are not good enough for me since I do not speak Hebrew or Greek.

They were good enough for Paul, so they're good enough for me. Just because you are willingly ignorant doesn't make your level of ignorance a rule for the whole church.

You would be the one to know about ignorance! You are willingly ignorant of the fact that the KJV is an excellent translation and the decision to use it exclusively is a wise one.

 

[GeneMBridges]

No MV has said that the KJV is a poor translation, Terry, and nobody condemns those that choose to use it exclusively. We simply think that there are other translations that are also excellent, and what we condemn about KJVOnlyism is the belief that we should not use any version other than the KJV ourselves and the notion that it is "the" translation for English-speaking people. We don't set the KJV up a pedestal as the "best" translation or "the only" translation, or other such distinctions that legalistically attempt to impose conformity upon the entire Body of Christ in the English-speaking world. That simply is not Biblical.

Once again, you misstate what MV's believe.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
Terry_Herrington said:

Not they are not good enough for me since I do not speak Hebrew or Greek.

They were good enough for Paul, so they're good enough for me. Just because you are willingly ignorant doesn't make your level of ignorance a rule for the whole church.

You would be the one to know about ignorance! You are willingly ignorant of the fact that the KJV is an excellent translation and the decision to use it exclusively is a wise one. </font>[/QUOTE]I will respond too. It is sad that so many of the KJVO crowd try very hard to say that someone who has no problems with other translations is a "KJV hater". This could not be further from the truth. I have YET to see one post on this board from a KJV hater. So, please do not imply that anybody wants to keep you or your church from exclusively using the KJV.

I think everybody would agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the KJV as a translation and it is the Word of God. Yes, it has blessed many people.

But, so have many modern versions.

The KJV we know today is NOT 400 years old as people keep trying to imply. Different versions of what is called the KJV have been around for varying lengths of time.

By the way, I have been starting to notice a lot of evangelists using the NKJV. One explained that it does not cause people who "like" KJVs any grief because of the TR background and the very close, but modern wording. While other people who use other translations can understand it well, also.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
No MV has said that the KJV is a poor translation,

but MVs said the KJV is an inferior translation.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
No MV has said that the KJV is a poor translation,

but MVs said the KJV is an inferior translation. </font>[/QUOTE]Some may feel that it is not as good as certain new translations, it is possible to have that opinion without being "poor". There is a difference. If you consider "readibility" then the KJV would be inferior to the NKJV. But, this by no means says that it is a "poor" translation. The NKJV is simply superior for "readability".

Since the NKJV followed the TR, and the KJV referred to the Geneva, Bishops and Vulgate, it might even be thought by some to be inferior to the NKJV. Again, this does not mean the KJV is "poor". Big difference, Askjo.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
No MV has said that the KJV is a poor translation,

but MVs said the KJV is an inferior translation. </font>[/QUOTE]No, what they have said is that some other translations do a better job in some places. When they state their opinions it is usually as just that. They do not condemn the KJV; nor do they say it has "changed doctrines." They also go out of their way to show where the KJV does better in others, unlike the KJVO's who deny any other version may be better in some respects at all; in fact, some of whom claim advance revelation over the manuscripts, and all of whom in the class 4 and 5 group hold a higher view of the translation than the KJV translators themselves. MOreover, unlike KJVO's who simply do not honor the teachings on matters of adiaphora in 1 Cor. 8 and Romans 13 - 14 and will go so far as to cast aspersions on the Christian character and even the salvation of others and who would make their (unScriptural) opinons a matter of doctrinal orthodoxy, practical conformity, and even use it as a test of fellowship, MV's honor the teachings of the Word of God in such matters. We do not condemn KJVOnlyists; though more and more of us are willing to list you among cultists, though you are Christians and we do not dispute that; nor do we condemn the KJV.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
No MV has said that the KJV is a poor translation,

but MVs said the KJV is an inferior translation. </font>[/QUOTE]Inferior to what? There must be a standard to have something be inferior. But of course every translation is inferior to the inspired version of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by gb93433:
But of course every translation is inferior to the inspired version of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

I disagree. I believe that the KJV is accurately the Word of God and is not inferior to any version in any language!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
But of course every translation is inferior to the inspired version of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

I disagree. I believe that the KJV is accurately the Word of God and is not inferior to any version in any language! </font>[/QUOTE]So, in your book, the KJV is the word for word "Word of God" as accurate as the original manuscripts, right?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
But of course every translation is inferior to the inspired version of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

I disagree. I believe that the KJV is accurately the Word of God and is not inferior to any version in any language! </font>[/QUOTE]Just do a short study on any language and see what you come up with. But I can give you and easy one for right now. Ask one of your Spanish speaking friends to translate Como estas and Como esta. It will translate the same in English. Then ask them to explain the diference. There is a huge difference.


Ask one of your students in your class, "Como esta?" Watch the response you get. Then ask them, "Como estas?"

 

[Phillip]

gb, great example. People can't seem to grasp that translation is not just changing the words to a different word and possibly shuffling the position of nouns and verbs.

This is especially true with Greek, which has more tenses and words that cannot easily be converted to English's limited vocabulary.

I understand Hebrew is more blunt and easier to translate (except for the lack of vowels, added by the Messorites.) Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was beginning to feel like the "Last man on earth" (What was the movie?) All these good Baptists seem to hit the bed after a hard Sunday.

I'm just kidding because I completely understand for those who preach and minister on Sunday. Funny, Sunday is usually a night I stay up pretty late.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
But of course every translation is inferior to the inspired version of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

I disagree. I believe that the KJV is accurately the Word of God and is not inferior to any version in any language! </font>[/QUOTE]I second, Terry!

 

[Phillip]

Askjo and Terry, who is right if the manuscript and the KJV disagrees?

By the way, since you are up, why don't you wander over to "Changes in the Doctrine of Redemption" and provide an answer. We've been waiting for a KJVO view. But, please provide specific answers not overview.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Phillip:
So, in your book, the KJV is the word for word "Word of God" as accurate as the original manuscripts, right?

Yes!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
So, in your book, the KJV is the word for word "Word of God" as accurate as the original manuscripts, right?

Yes! </font>[/QUOTE]I'm honestly not trying to trap you. I am trying to understand why you believe what you do.

How is it possible for English language, which does not have all of the capabilities of the Greek language to always accurately reproduce every single "word". Are you meaning to the "word" level or to the "idea" level? RE: Example of the Spanish translation above.

Also, which Version of the KJV is the correct one. It cannot be all of them if it is word-for-word accurate?

Are other languages priviledged to have a perfect Bible in their language?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I can't answer all the intricacies of how God does what He does, I just believe that the KJV is the best Bible in any language anywhere in the world.

It has done the job, and I see no reason for using anything else!