Which translation?

[Rippon]

Lastly:
#3) If you would consider staying with the KJV I'd like to recommend an excellent edition of the KJV that is published by Dr.Donald Waite of the "Bible For Today" ministry of Collingswood,NJ. It is the "Defined King James Bible" and it is an excellent Bible that defines the more "archaic" words

Why not cut-to-the-chase and have a translation with the more modern words rather than the antiquated ones? There's no use going around the mulberrybush.

In English in the text that have fallen out of modern usage as the language of our day has been degraded.

You use modern English in your posts. Would you say your usage of the language is degraded?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Nice Try....

Why not cut-to-the-chase and have a translation with the more modern words rather than the antiquated ones? There's no use going around the mulberrybush.



You use modern English in your posts. Would you say your usage of the language is degraded?

Thanks but no thanks....I've sampled many of the new Bibles and I'm neither comfortable nor happy with them or their many little authority undermining "footnotes" that can be found in most of them.

As for the english I use in my posts it is what it is and I can do no other. The language I use is (hopefully) at least average, if not a little better than average (I hope). Having listened to some of the language or modern "speak" that is being used in the world (and sadly, within the Churches also) I think it IS safe today that it is being degraded more and more. BUT....thanks to the Holy Spirit, a good Dictionary and my personal favorite...a Strong's Concordance....I have very few problems to speak of with understanding the beautiful and majestic older English of my King James Bible. I trust it, I love it, and with God's help I'm trying to faithfully obey it. THAT is the biggest challenge.

I'll stick with what I got and continue recommending it...ONLY.:thumbs:You are, of course, at liberty to do as you will also.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Logos1560]

their many little authority undermining "footnotes" that can be found in most of them.

You skip over the fact that some so-called "authority undermiining" notes were also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV and also in many later KJV editions even in the 1700's and 1800's.

Are you in effect using divers measures to attempt to smear modern translations for the same type notes that were also used in the 1611 KJV?

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be capivated to one, when it may be the other."

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Nope

You skip over the fact that some so-called "authority undermiining" notes were also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV and also in many later KJV editions even in the 1700's and 1800's.

Are you in effect using divers measures to attempt to smear modern translations for the same type notes that were also used in the 1611 KJV?

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be capivated to one, when it may be the other."

Logos...IF..and I do say IF...I am by chance using any "measures" at all to "smear" anything it is inadvertantly. I'm just saying that the editions of the KJV I have used for the last 30+ years have NOT contained, at least to my memory or recollection, any of the type of footnotes that are found in the newer translations that I personally detest. Therefore, I'm NOT "skipping over" anything...at least not intentionally. In my opinion...the footnotes in question call the authority of many passages into question. They are usually based on the suggestions of "scholars" that think they may be smart enough to correct the Word of God and publishers and editors that are quite possibly looking for a lucrative payday with their new "Bibles". Just look at all the advertising that is done to "promote" the newer, more accurate (supposedly) "Bibles". Like I always say...I'm happy with what I have and will continue to recommend it.... exclusively. I do however, appreciate the extensive nature of your knowledge about these matters. It is impressive. Even if I can't agree with all your conclusions. God Bless You.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[glazer1972]

Single column paragraph ESV.

 

[Rippon]

Thanks but no thanks....I've sampled many of the new Bibles and I'm neither comfortable nor happy with them or their many little authority undermining "footnotes" that can be found in most of them.

You didn't give a satisfactory reply to Logos about the face that the KJV had hundreds of notes regarding alternatives and hesitancy regarding what the actual Greek or Hebrew rendering may have been.

So,in other words you can't have it both ways. If the KJV had all those evil foontes undermining the authority of God's Word. (I don't believe that for a second.) The modern versions do exactly thye same thing. you lose big time on that point.

As for the english

Why don't you put the "E" in caps?

I use in my posts it is what it is and I can do no other. The language I use is (hopefully) at least average, if not a little better than average (I hope).

So,is the language you employ debased or not?

 

[Bronconagurski]

Rippon

you posted, "You didn't give a satisfactory reply to Logos about the face that the KJV had hundreds of notes regarding alternatives and hesitancy regarding what the actual Greek or Hebrew rendering may have been.

So,in other words you can't have it both ways. If the KJV had all those evil foontes undermining the authority of God's Word. (I don't believe that for a second.) The modern versions do exactly thye same thing. you lose big time on that point."

I am not KJV only, but I am preferred because I have memorized scripture in the KJV, was led to the Lord by the KJV, and love to the King's English for some reason. It is poetic in places, and the new versions sometimes take that away. But I have plenty of other English versions. The KJV translators were not against updating Engish so the common (or vulgar in their words) man could understand. They said as much in their "Translators to the Readers" that some KJV bibles have, especially those bought in honor of the 400th anniversary. But you can find them online as well if you google KJV translators to the readers.

 

[Yeshua1]

you posted, "You didn't give a satisfactory reply to Logos about the face that the KJV had hundreds of notes regarding alternatives and hesitancy regarding what the actual Greek or Hebrew rendering may have been.

So,in other words you can't have it both ways. If the KJV had all those evil foontes undermining the authority of God's Word. (I don't believe that for a second.) The modern versions do exactly thye same thing. you lose big time on that point."

I am not KJV only, but I am preferred because I have memorized scripture in the KJV, was led to the Lord by the KJV, and love to the King's English for some reason. It is poetic in places, and the new versions sometimes take that away. But I have plenty of other English versions. The KJV translators were not against updating Engish so the common (or vulgar in their words) man could understand. They said as much in their "Translators to the Readers" that some KJV bibles have, especially those bought in honor of the 400th anniversary. But you can find them online as well if you google KJV translators to the readers.

KJV preferred is reasonable, as one can see the greek text as being superior, or else the style of it, unlike KJVO, which has no real leg of support to stand upon!

 

[Bronconagurski]

KJV preferred is reasonable, as one can see the greek text as being superior, or else the style of it, unlike KJVO, which has no real leg of support to stand upon!

I agree, but I have a lot of respect for Gregory Perry and the way he conducts himself on this board. He may be KJVO but he is not arrogant nor judgmental to those who are not. Nor do I condemn him for only using the KJV.

 

[Rippon]

The KJV translators were not against updating Engish so the common (or vulgar in their words) man could understand.

On the contrary,the KJV revisers did not use the contemporary language of their time,but basically English of approximately 60 or so years earlier. They were forced to do so by the strictures placed on them.

Ironically Tyndale's last revision reads in a more modern sense over all in contrast with the KJV of any stripe.

 

[Yeshua1]

On the contrary,the KJV revisers did not use the contemporary language of their time,but basically English of approximately 60 or so years earlier. They were forced to do so by the strictures placed on them.

Ironically Tyndale's last revision reads in a more modern sense over all in contrast with the KJV of any stripe.

that is why the "Bible of the reformers" to large extent was NOT the KJV, but the Geneva Bible...

The KJV translators were mindful to keep down any critical comments towards Kings in the Bible also...

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree, but I have a lot of respect for Gregory Perry and the way he conducts himself on this board. He may be KJVO but he is not arrogant nor judgmental to those who are not. Nor do I condemn him for only using the KJV.

NONE here condemn one for using/favoring the KJV, just comdemn the totaly unsupported case for KJVO!

 

[Bronconagurski]

NONE here condemn one for using/favoring the KJV, just comdemn the totaly unsupported case for KJVO!

I hear you brother, forgive me if I implied that you did.

 

[makahiya117]

I have never read the bible thru in a year, but am thinking about doing it. I have heard one preacher say he does it every year in a different translation. For those of you have done this, which translation did you use and why? Did you use a study bible? Did you use the canonical method (books in order) or the chronological method? Or maybe you used a method that you think is better than those two.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved bibles of all time.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved books of all time.

 

[Yeshua1]

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved bibles of all time.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved books of all time.

yes, but one can read with profit other english versions also!