• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Let's just agree to disagree on this, ok? You keep beating the horse and it's not getting up regardless.

Aw, it was at least two months or so since I last beat that particular horse. Folks just need to be reminded that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The ESV hype machine says it uses beautiful "current literary English" and that "archaic language has been brought to current usage" is bunkum. Also, the claim that the ESV is "essentially literal" is nonsensical. As if the TNIV,their pet whipping boy, is so radically different in actual translational methodology.
 

Friend of God

Active Member
Site Supporter
Do you also appreciate the modern forms of those words which people have used now for more than 200 years?

Should a Bible of any language be understood by the average person -- in other words the equivalent of the ploughboy of Tyndale's time? Or do you think very antiquated phraseology is better?

After reading the above post I felt I should clarify my preference for the KJV.

I agree 100% with the above statement, The Bible should be in a form that is understandable to all. I just happen to prefer the language and my perceived accuracy of the KJV personally.

I am KJV preferred not KJVO. I'm not going to argue with anybody that everybody should only use the KJV. Just because I prefer it, doesn't mean everybody will, nor should. I respect my Brothers and Sisters in Christ too much to question their personal preference in a Bible version.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
After reading the above post I felt I should clarify my preference for the KJV.

I agree 100% with the above statement, The Bible should be in a form that is understandable to all. I just happen to prefer the language and my perceived accuracy of the KJV personally.

I am KJV preferred not KJVO. I'm not going to argue with anybody that everybody should only use the KJV. Just because I prefer it, doesn't mean everybody will, nor should. I respect my Brothers and Sisters in Christ too much to question their personal preference in a Bible version.
:applause::applause: I've said that for years, but still got labeled KJVO, no matter what. Good luck.
 

CoJoJax

New Member
I've switched back and forth from so many versions, it's not even funny.

I like 'em all!

KJV, NIV, NLT .. etc.

I most readily use my NIV Life Application Study Bible though.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
It just does not make much sense to read Koine Greek, read KJV Old English and then deliver the message in modern English. Instead of having a mastery of two languages and cultures, they must have a mastery of three languages and cultures. None of the English translation are literal word for word. Koine Greek does not use britches. The people did not wear them in that day. I would also think that men and women wore the same stlye of clothes too--an inner and outer garment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

puros_bran

Member
I have used the NASB for a little less than a year now, I'm also reading Holman's CSB.... I still catch myself going back to KJV. The NASB is a good workable translation, but my mind still thinks in KJV. IF I didnt need a more middle ground translation for my Sunday School students I'd just grab my KJV again and be happy.
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Do you appreciate :


And in 1611 'hath" was spoken as "has" despite the spelling.


Really? I have heard this before, but haven't seen the proof. It was yrs ago, and actually, whenever I read the KJV aloud, I, most of the time, use the "s" sound for "eth"... it really makes the KJV more readable.

I have done this for a couple yrs now.
 

EdSutton

New Member
:applause::applause: I've said that for years, but still got labeled KJVO, no matter what. Good luck.
Perhaps the reason you have been "labeled KJVO" on the Baptist Board, if such has actually occurred, regardless of how accurate the tag, is because on the BB, virtually every post you have made on this subject has taken a position that the KJV (1769 flavor, usually) rendering is the 'best' one for every discussion you have been involved in, plus your continued 'applause' for seemingly anyone who espouses any 'KJVO' position, regardless of whether or not their offered 'history' and/or purported 'facts' can stand up to objective scrutiny, or your own 'attacks' on other versions, ya' think??

Even some KJVO types (although I don't specifically remember this from you) have had the unmitigated gall to say my own genuine 1967 KJV edition is not really a KJV at all. Others have said they are ONLY supporting the "1611 King James" while citing what appears to be the 1769 text, and often from a 'counterfeit' Americanized edition, at that! I'm pretty sure that neither King James I nor any of the 1611 translators 'Authorized' Drs. Paris and/or Blaney (plus Dr. Scrivener) in their marvelous editing efforts, incidentally, all of which to my mind are a tremendous overall 'improvement' over the original 1611 edition(s).

As to the particular "Why?" you are (or may have been) "labeled KJVO" consider this:

You know the old adage: "When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, eats with the ducks, has feathers like a duck, is always found with the ducks, etc. ..."

Why is one then surprised when another concludes that 'a duck' is what they are observing?

Incidentally, speaking of 'ducks,' when are you going to get around to answer my question directed to you about what Bible version or versions you would consider as "outdated" from some 4 mos. ago, after you deemed it an "attack" when another poster gave his opinion and suggested that the KJV language is, in fact, outdated, and you scathed him for this opinion??

I did ask a "non-confrontational" question about multiple older versions, and exactly what you might consider to be "outdated language" as you may recall.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1366555&postcount=49

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1358424&postcount=59

and you appeared to get mad about my question.
Baptist4life said:
And, Ed, you can add your name as to another one of the reasons I won't post on here any more.
I still would like an answer to the question I initially asked, plus see if you can actually identify, without looking it up, which citing is actually the KJV rendering, as well?

Still wonderin' but I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the response to the question(s).

Ed
 

EdSutton

New Member
Really? I have heard this before, but haven't seen the proof. It was yrs ago, and actually, whenever I read the KJV aloud, I, most of the time, use the "s" sound for "eth"... it really makes the KJV more readable.

I have done this for a couple yrs now.
Really?

Thieth etheemeth to be ethomething I had not heard previouethly, but I ethuggeetht needeth ethome additional documentation before I am placing a great deal of ethock in ethaid ethuggeethtion. ;)

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Perhaps the reason you have been "labeled KJVO" on the Baptist Board, if such has actually occurred, regardless of how accurate the tag, is because on the BB, virtually every post you have made on this subject has taken a position that the KJV (1769 flavor, usually) rendering is the 'best' one for every discussion you have been involved in, plus your continued 'applause' for seemingly anyone who espouses any 'KJVO' position, SHOW ME ANYWHERE I DID THAT!
regardless of whether or not their offered 'history' and/or purported 'facts' can stand up to objective scrutiny, or your own 'attacks' on other versions, ya' think??



As to the particular "Why?" you are (or may have been) "labeled KJVO" consider this:

You know the old adage: "When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, eats with the ducks, has feathers like a duck, is always found with the ducks, etc. ..."

Why is one then surprised when another concludes that 'a duck' is what they are observing?


Ed

And Ed, I would label you as ARROGANT, ARGUMENTATIVE, UN-CHRISTLIKE, and GROUCHY! After all..........

You know the old adage: "When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, eats with the ducks, has feathers like a duck, is always found with the ducks, etc. ..."

Why is one then surprised when another concludes that 'a duck' is what they are observing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How do you equate that with sarcasm? Even Jesus used sarcasm.

If others on here can throw out "labels" I guess I can too. Ed needs a little "humility" it seems to me. I will NOT be ordered to answer his questions, nor do I intend to be made to feel like I'm something I'm not.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
If others on here can throw out "labels" I guess I can too. Ed needs a little "humility" it seems to me. I will NOT be ordered to answer his questions, nor do I intend to be made to feel like I'm something I'm not.
While that may be your opinion, I have not ever taken what he has written as you do.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
While that may be your opinion, I have not ever taken what he has written as you do.
Where's your response to HIM about me? There seems to only be criticism of people who you disagree with, the reason i quit posting before, BTW.
 

Palatka51

New Member
Let's just agree to disagree on this, ok? You keep beating the horse and it's not getting up regardless.

Amen to that suggestion.

Personally I have Always used the KJV and always will. And if anyone of you do not understand why, you will never know even if I told you. (which I have explained in many previous posts on this subject only to become a target after having done so.)
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Where's your response to HIM about me? There seems to only be criticism of people who you disagree with, the reason i quit posting before, BTW.
I just saw it as sarcasm not as personal attack. Suppose it were a personal attack how would Jesus have dealt with that. That is what your approach must be if you believe he has offended you. Mt. 18 outlines the approach that must be taken.
 

sag38

Active Member
B4L, Ed was only pointing out the truth as to your activity on this board. You are overly sensitive when it comes to the KJV issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top