What do you think?

I don't see that either of those is the most important. I could not even say which of those choices is more important than the other.

I use what I feel to be the most accurate translation of the most trustworthy body of texts that we have available to us.

We must use formal equivalence to translate trustworthy texts. That is what is most important.

 

Neither of those options is the most important thing I look for in a Bible.

That is not "I don't know."

I contend that your question is unanswerable without a third option - neither.

The topic is "What do you think?"

The question is -

"What is the most important thing you look for in a bible?

1. Something traditionally used?

2. Something that is able to be understood easily by the reader?"

My answer is that I don't think either of the options is the most important thing to look for in a Bible.

 

If your question is "Which is MORE important?" I would concede that understanding is more important than tradition.

Your original question was "Which is MOST important?" Readability is not the most important thing to consider. When the only other option presented is tradition than it is more important.

I would like to hear from anyone who thinks that tradition is MORE important that readability - I doubt we will find any in this forum.

 

I realise that Doc is a lot more intellegent and eloquent than I am, but I "think" thats what I said above .

 

Hmmm? I do wonder why the Holy Spirit is somehow LEFT OUT! of the entire conversation when it comes to accuracy, which He IS! the MOST important in being able to understand and comprehend the Scripture though one may be void of the ability to actually read, but very capable of yielding to the Spirit in all matters of life and practice.

Hmmmm?

But then, we are dealing with men, who think themselves to be more wise!

 

Of the two choices, #2 would obviously be more important biblically. 1 Cor 14 deals directly with words that are unknown to the listener.

However I believe neither are scriptural basis for chosing a Bible. C4K says (I paraphrase) that faithfulness to the originals is the most important. I would agree with that perhaps if it were not impossible to verify since we have no autographs.

So my "most important" quality is fruit. I believe this is the Biblical method.


Matthew 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Lacy

 

Faithfulness to that which no longer exists?

 

Do we have the original handwritten copy of the KJV translator's works?

 

Is winning souls really the most important thing in the world? I wouldn't necessarily agree. Obedience to God is.
Let me give you my testimony in part.

I was led to the Lord by a person who used "Good News for Modern Man. Maybe I should say I was led to the Lord in spite of the paraphrase that he used. I recognize now that it isn't even a translation of the Word of God, but only an opinion of what God's Word says--more like a commentary.
Almost immediately after my salvation, I became involved in the Navigator movement which puts an emphasis on Scripture memorization. I was raised a RC, and basically Bible illiterate. I was given a choice to what to memorize from: KJV or RSV. I chose KJV? Why? The answer was silly, but looking back, no doubt providential.
The words "King James Version" sounded authoritative, while the words "Revised' Standard Version" sounded like something had been tampered with or changed. Besides, I was a fan of royalty. It may not have been a good reason. I knew nothing of Bibles; I was Biblically illiterate. I couldn't even find John 3:16 in the Bible. But I began to memorize in the KJV, and have never had a problem with understanding.
Those that have a problem with understanding can always use a dictionary. I did graduate from High School, and did take literature. I did have to study Shakespeare. I really don't know what the problem is. Since High School however, I have had much more education than that. Accuracy is far more important than readability. It is the most important aspect of the Word of God. If one is not true to the Word of God, what is he true to.

Ecclesiastes 6:9 Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.

The same verse in the Living Bible: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Is this accuracy? Does it do justice to the Word of God?
DHK

 

Notice that the scripture (Matt7) says fruits. (Plural) I think souls won is a wonderful indicator of the veracity of the scripture. But personal holiness, purity of the local church, growth & spread of pure churches. advances in doctrine, evidence of a "salted" world, obedience to scripture, etc. are the fruits of a true prophet.

It is indisputable that the fruit (as defined above), during the time when the KJV was the accepted standard (early 1700s-mid 1800s), is overwhelmingly greater than any time before or since. It arguably rivals the fruit of the 1st century church.

Lacy

 

Maybe because we don't believe in latter day revelations/inspiration. God didn't say anything in the Bible about which translation to use. You may have a personal conviction outside of the revelation of scripture but that isn't the position you argue here. A personal conviction should never be thought of as binding on anyone except ourselves.

Are you saying that someone can understand and comprehend the KJV though they are void of the ability to actually read? Can you cite a real life example of this miracle?

Someone can be yield to the "Spirit in all matters of life and practice" and use MV's that they easily understand.

I would submit that it is those willing to be simple and submitted that want God's Word in a form that is plain and understandable to them. It would seem more likely that those tied up in their own wisdom would want others dependent on them to tell them what the Bible means.

 

I would dispute that.

The greatest field of soul winning today is probably China. Thousands are being saved daily.... and they only use Bibles based on the dread CT.

Further, along with the success of the period you defined, there was also born liberalism and naturalism. Many cults including the JW's and Mormons were born.

I wouldn't blame these things on the KJV but neither would I say the KJV should get credit for the successes other than being an accurate version of God's Word. If you are going to be consistent, you can't look at that period blinded by nostalgia without recognizing the roots of some pretty bad things.

One could just as easily argue that the fruit of the KJV weighs against it since the heresies of the JW's and Mormons were born out of reading its text... by men who were ignorant of and without proper respect for the original languages.

God can AND HAS used various accurate translations of His Word.

 

Up pops the head of "guilt by association" again.

Honestly. Why on earth would one resort to "The JW's and the Mormons blah blah blah" when discussing the KJV?

Neither J. Smith not Judge Rutherford new the first thing about the Bible. Nor were either of them a saved man. 1 Cor. 2 tells us plainly that spiritual things cannot be understood by the natural man. So an argument saying that the KJV bore the fruit of JW/Mormon is silly at best.

Now that that is out of my system... I'll address the OP.
It is asked, "What do you think"?
I would say that of the two choices, neither is as important as fidelity to accuracy. I think someone else said it is a false dilema. I agree.

In HIS service;
jim

 

Actually the JW's success is based on their trust in a MV. (The NWT) Scott, do you believe the NWT is better than the KJV? Why or why not?

Mormons added to the cannon and eventually came up with their own MV too.

There always have been and always will be heresies. You left out the Biggest cult of all, The Roman Catholics. What happened to them in the 17th and 18th century? (compared to before and since.)

How can you justify that statement biblically? What does "you will know them by their fruits" mean? I'll take Mormons and JWs over the dark ages and modern hedonistic paganism any day.

He could, if the evidence was not so overwhelming. One really has to dig and strain to come up with little flys in the ointment, (The Bible promises we will always have heresies, and that they are in some ways needed.) to discredit what an honest seeker will see as absolutely irrefutable evidence. Of course, each man must examine, evaluate and decide on his own.

Is there a Biblical precedent for comparing your text to "the originals"? Do we have an appeal to the "original Hebrew" in the NT? Do we have a preacher in the Bible who preaches in one language from available scripture, but who makes sure he tells the audience what the old language "really said"? How about a NT preacher with a Greek OT who doesn't believe that his copy of Scripture is inspired?

If readability is the standard, then I go back to my old argument of what is easier for the common man to read between the KJV (my standard by conviction and preference) and the autographs (other's standard by conviction and prteference)?

I realize these are my personal convictions based on how I interpret scripture. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Lacy