Using The Right Version Of The Bible

That's sort of like asking if one uses the right dictionary will you speak better English than those who don't.

HankD

 

no

 

Now wouldn't that all depend on whose definition of "right" is being used? I'm sure a KJVO would think that they're more spiritual than someone who's reading from The Message (but that's just my two cents worth).

but then again didn't Jesus say something about that, when He spoke of the two who were praying on the rooftop?

Oh well, to each their own I suppose.

 

Kinda a loaded question. don't you think? Like, "Do you enjoy beating your wife." What is your purpose for such a question?

 

It never hurts to have an accurate translation. It would hard to be spiritual in the right sense using a NWT.

 

no </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Sister Amity -- Preach it!

 

In his publication THE PERILOUS TIMES, KJV-only pastor Raymond Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7).

KJV-only pastor Rolland Star wrote: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (FLAMING TORCH, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).

D. A. Waite wrote: "You cannot have the power of God if you read these false versions" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 145). Waite also commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (IBID., p. 144).

Chick Salliby wrote: "Beyond question, in the King James Version, as in no other translation, can we grow in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, p. 96).

Gail Riplinger claimed that new converts' "spiritual growth is going to be aborted" by the use of new versions (WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, p. 12).

 

By similar logic, Rolland Star has purple hair.

Sorry, i was an adult Christian in the late-70s
(1975-1979). The KJVOs of the day said
that if one could take the Textus Receptus
and translate it into 20th Century (1901-2000)
English, then it would be alright. They lied.
By 1989 the nKJV = New King James Version,
was produced by KJVO specifications.
The KJVOs of the day HATED IT.

I hardly believe how the KJVOs hated this
nKJV Bible (KJVOs are by nature the
bashers of many Bibles). They strained at
a knat and swollowed a camel.
They griped about th3e triskelion on the
title page. Hello - the title page is
NOT PART OF THE BIBLE, NOT PART OF THE
TRANSALTION.

The whole history of the KJVO movement has
taken place right before my eyes.
Probably why i'm a modern version (MV)
user. Besides, i never could figure out
which of the three different KJVs that
i have on my computer desk is
"the Right Version of the Bible".
Tee hee, maybe the KJV1611 is the right
version, the KJV1769 is the middle version,
and the KJV1873 is the left version -
sure is how i've got them arranged on the
shelve over the screen.

 

With the people Logos quoted it is clear to see where he is coming from. I can't believe anyone would quote Riplinger with a straight face. If these are your authorities you need to spend more time in the Word and less time reading the books of lunatics.

Bro Tony

 

__________________________________________________

Nope!
Neither does going to the "right" school. Nor listening to the "right" scholar. Etc...

I would think the only thing that would amke one more spiritual than the next is if one is saved and the other is not!

JMHO

In HIS service;
Jim

 

No, unless it's my own home-made translation from the Greek NT or Hebrew/Aramaic OT.

Hmmmm.....

Aha! The MOBV!

"My Own Bible Version" (c)2005

Now, I'm really spiritual!

 

Logos was quoting those authors to show how silly their reasoning is, and to remind us that KJVO has its share of fanatics. However, the more fanatic they are, the more wrong they are also.

Logos' other posts show his view of the KJVO myth.

As for the question...the answer is NO, as there's no one single BV that's 100% right, with all others being wrong.

 

Consistently Christian people (TR/KJV onlyists) use the KJV because of their Biblical faith.

&lt;attack deleted&gt; people use modern versions because of their &lt;attack deleted&gt; thinking.

[ February 08, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

In his publication THE PERILOUS TIMES, KJV-only pastor Raymond Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7).

KJV-only pastor Rolland Star wrote: "The truth is, users of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc. do not believe God" (FLAMING TORCH, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).

D. A. Waite wrote: "You cannot have the power of God if you read these false versions" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 145). Waite also commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (IBID., p. 144).

Chick Salliby wrote: "Beyond question, in the King James Version, as in no other translation, can we grow in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, p. 96).

Gail Riplinger claimed that new converts' "spiritual growth is going to be aborted" by the use of new versions (WHICH BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, p. 12). </font>[/QUOTE]All this proves is that some people in the Christian world are fools!

 

Another Gospel!

 

By similar logic, Rolland Star has purple hair.

Sorry, i was an adult Christian in the late-70s
(1975-1979). The KJVOs of the day said
that if one could take the Textus Receptus
and translate it into 20th Century (1901-2000)
English, then it would be alright. They lied.
By 1989 the nKJV = New King James Version,
was produced by KJVO specifications.
The KJVOs of the day HATED IT.

I hardly believe how the KJVOs hated this
nKJV Bible (KJVOs are by nature the
bashers of many Bibles). They strained at
a knat and swollowed a camel.
They griped about th3e triskelion on the
title page. Hello - the title page is
NOT PART OF THE BIBLE, NOT PART OF THE
TRANSALTION.

The whole history of the KJVO movement has
taken place right before my eyes.
Probably why i'm a modern version (MV)
user. Besides, i never could figure out
which of the three different KJVs that
i have on my computer desk is
"the Right Version of the Bible".
Tee hee, maybe the KJV1611 is the right
version, the KJV1769 is the middle version,
and the KJV1873 is the left version -
sure is how i've got them arranged on the
shelve over the screen. </font>[/QUOTE]Not a bad post for a Holman Onlyist.

In all seriousness. I still think that the NKJV will become the next KJV in a generation or so. I would also imagine that history will show that each revision was not accepted immediately by any KJVo's that may have existed in the day. (If they actually did.) At least to those people the KJV was an MV, so probably a lot rejected it.

We KNOW the Catholic church rejected it in favor of the Vulgate.

So, spirituality?

Nah, just make sure the translation is a true and mainstream translation.

 

This statement makes
no sense.

I have three different paper copies of books
called King James Version (KJV) on my
computer desk. Two of those KJVs have
margin notes noting variations among the
TR sources used. Sorry, "TR/KJV onlyists"
is a meaningless phrase. Should one
talk about "persons who exclusively
the TRs and KJVs"

 

Another Gospel! </font>[/QUOTE]The NWT-- like the KJV-- was produced for the benefit of a particular organization.

 

Askjo, That is a ridiculous argument that you have been challenged to substantiate before.

A) I am a Christian person.

B) I use the KJV, NKJV, and NASB routinely in study.

C) As several here can attest, I fully reject naturalism as a premise for arguing origins of nature... and here I will tell you that I reject it for the origin of scripture as well.

D) You attempt to establish a false dichotomy between being rational and being spiritual/faithful. Scripture says what it says... and it does not say what you said in your post.