POLL: KJV Only or Not?

Although I voted for the last one, I feel the wording of this poll makes it very biased.

 

None of the above. The "choices" on the poll are very poor and fanciful at best.

 

Thomas Cassidy said:

None of the above. The "choices" on the poll are very poor and fanciful at best.

#3 was excellent.

 

I vote for that the KJV is the WORD of God for the English speaking people. If one were to translate the WORD into French, they should NOT use the KJV, but the originals instead and so on for any other language. Just my 2 cents!

[ March 07, 2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Bennieboy ]

 

How do you conclude that English is the ONLY language into which the "originals" can not be used to develop a new translation?

 

The originals could be translated into English today. But the point is the KJV is the best english translation of the originals (texus receptus)sp out there right now.

 

It's hard to believe that anyone is still arguing for the KJV as the only inspired version at this late date. I grew up with the King James Bible being preached at my church, and it was the version I used for years. I have a lot of respect for it, and for the translators. But in the end it's just another English version, beautifully-worded but no more "inspired" than any other translation. We need to get past sentimental attachments and allow fellow believers to use whatever version they please without judgment. Yes, some translations are more accurate than others (I never cared for the original Living Bible) and no perfect English translation exists. Christians should know a little about textual criticism and the theology of the translators of the Bible they are reading (obviously, no one wants the NWT in their churches). But that being said, most versions produced today are true to the Word of God and present Jesus Christ accurately as Savior, Lord, and Son of God. There are no anti-God conspiracies contained in the NIV, NASB or even the NRSV. We can never really know if the TR is truly superior to other textual traditions, and in any case the various text-types do not differ as much as often asserted, at least in important matters of faith and practice. In my opinion, it is dishonoring to our Lord for us to argue about such things, and I have cast my vote accordingly.

[ March 10, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Deekay ]

 

BJ said:

The originals could be translated into English today. But the point is the KJV is the best english translation of the originals (texus receptus)sp out there right now.

So who says someone won't do a better job tomorrow?

 

Amen Ransom!

God Bless!!!

Adam

 

As with most such straw man arguments, nobody has said that.

 

What was wrong with #4?

 

CNM: What does best mean?

 

"so are many other translations" is too vague for my tastes. I would agree that some of the translations based on the Byzantine textform such as NKJV, 21st Century, 3rd Millenium, KJVII, etc., are pretty good, but "so many other" could include a lot that I vehemently disagree with.

 

CNM: Hmm.. a reasoned answer. I suppose "many" might possibly be both too broad and too vague, but I don't take it that way. I take it to mean not all, but more than two.

[ March 13, 2002, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

Hey did you learn polling from politicians? What a slanted twisted poll. It Proves nothing nor gives a correct view of anything

As for missionaries, we have a missionarie in Africa who translated the NT in the Tswana language, no he didn't use the KJV, but Moffit's Tswana Bible, which was translated from the Textus Receptus and after being read by Twsana pastors they agreed it read like the KJV.

Ernie

 

How would you like to have seen the questions worded differently?

Just curious. Does this language have equivalents to "thee, thou, thine, thy, ye, etc."? I have given you a hard time in the past but this is a serious question. One point that Dr. Cassidy makes is that the pronouns used by the KJV make it easier to get the true sense of scripture. I was wondering if the people you refer to were blessed in having a similar advantage in their current language.

 

Thomas Cassidy said:

As with most such straw man arguments,

Which straw man argument was that, again? I asked a question.