Why do you use the Bible translation you use?

[Jerome]

Do you have one of the editions of it now then?

Is this you, JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1?

 

[AustinC]

Funny, you entered a thread that asked for a reason for your preference and you opt out.

What's funny is that you nitpick peoples chosen version as if your opinion matters.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

What's funny is that you nitpick peoples chosen version as if your opinion matters.

Well, well. You're a bit testy today Austin. My opinion matters as much as the next fella or gal. This is a discussion forum. Opinions are bantered around all the time. Even you have offered a pretty fair dose of them Austin.

George asked why he would not use the KJV. I supplied some reasons. It's a give and take proposition.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Maybe lay out a case before charging the words of the living God with error.

I simply said that the KJV is inaccurate. Are you willing to say that other Bible versions are faithful to the originals and hence God-honoring?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Is this you, JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1?

You're on the money Jerome.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Which is why I love it. And who says that God wants that tone for all generations? .

We are in agreement then. That elevated tone was a mistake and certainly not to be maintained for all generations.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I haven't found a single issue with the words of the KJB yet.

Well then, that means you require further study.

 

[George Antonios]

We are in agreement then. That elevated tone was a mistake and certainly not to be maintained for all generations.

And you or a bunch of humanistic scholars are gonna decide when that ends? I trow not.

 

[George Antonios]

Well then, that means you require further study.

"Keep studying till you're smart enough to find a mistake in your Bible so you can be smart like me".
Classic Genesis 3:1 stuff. No thanks.

I simply said that the KJV is inaccurate.

Yeah, and the serpent simply asked "hath God said?"

 

[JesusFan]

And you or a bunch of humanistic scholars are gonna decide when that ends? I trow not.

Accept the Kjv as a good translation. but not perfect

 

[Conan]

I simply said that the KJV is inaccurate. Are you willing to say that other Bible versions are faithful to the originals and hence God-honoring?

But that does not tell the whole story. There are many times the KJV is more accurate in it's Greek Text than all of the popular Modern Versions. That means despite the disadvantage of archaic modern english, it still has value in it's underlying Greek Text. What to do when an English user of a modern text has an error? He could consult the KJV, which usually has the correct underlying Greek Text. No, the KJV's Text is not always right. It does contain some errors. But most modern translations have more errors in their underlying Greek Text than the KJV does.

Most of the time all three Greek Text's agree. Textus Receptus, Majority Text, Nestle Aland.
The next highest number of agreements is the Textus Receptus, Majority Text.
Then the Majority Text, Nestle Aland.
Then the Textus Receptus, Nestle Aland.

 

[Reynolds]

Do you have one of the editions of it now then?

Yes. I have 2 copies of it.

 

[George Antonios]

Accept the Kjv as a good translation. but not perfect

So name a perfect one.

 

[Jec81]

I am primarily a TR guy so, kjv and nkjv. However, my first four years of college my bible of use for class had to be a niv. I enjoy ESV as well.

 

[Logos1560]

Yeah, and the serpent simply asked "hath God said?"

Invalid comparison.

A believer acknowledging the truth that the KJV has some inaccurate renderings is not at all the same thing as the serpent's question.

 

[AustinC]

I am primarily a TR guy so, kjv and nkjv. However, my first four years of college my bible of use for class had to be a niv. I enjoy ESV as well.

Forgive my ignorance, what is a "TR guy?"

 

[Logos1560]

So name a perfect one.

How are you entitled to command something that you do not demonstrate to be scriptural?

Where do the Scriptures state and teach that there is or has to be an absolutely pure and perfect English Bible translation?

 

[Logos1560]

what is a "TR guy?"

TR would refer to the Textus Receptus.

 

[George Antonios]

How are you entitled to command something that you do not demonstrate to be scriptural?

Where do the Scriptures state and teach that there is or has to be an absolutely pure and perfect English Bible translation?

I did not say "English".

Where do the scriptures teach that the scriptures in people's hand aren't perfect?

This is the world upside down.

 

[Logos1560]

Where do the scriptures teach that the scriptures in people's hand aren't perfect?

According to the Scriptures, the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God involved the prophets and apostles. The exact specific words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God were the words given to the prophets and apostles. No scriptural case has been made that the supernatural process of giving of Scripture by inspiration continued after the completion of the New Testament.

When the Scriptures teach that words added by men are not inspired, that words omitted by men should be restored, and that words changed by men may diminish what God said, it could be understood to be teaching that post-NT Bible translations which add words, omit words, and change words would not be perfect.

Since the Scriptures do not teach that post-NT Bible translations are perfect, perhaps it would suggest that the negative that they are not perfect would be true.