1. 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!

Have you ever changed your view on bible translations?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Dale-c, Mar 6, 2008.

?
  1. I have always been KJVO and still am.

    7.1%
  2. I used to believe modern translations were ok but now I am KJVO.

    2.4%
  3. I have never been KJVO and never intend to be.

    42.9%
  4. I used to be KJVO but have changed after studying the issue.

    31.0%
  5. Show me the results already! :-)

    16.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always thought it amusing myself. This one I know the answer to though. My mother was the 6th child of 14 raised by a Freewill Baptist "preacher" (I was never sure exactly how to apply this to Grandad). The girls didn't wear pants (then again Mother was born in the 30's so pants weren't really around). Unfortunately Grandad either failed to teach the girls to stay on the ground (as in don't climb trees in a dress) or the boys respect (as in don't look up the girls skirts if you come upon them climbing a tree). Not sure which it was, but my mother definately believed that pants were more modest than the dresses. As a matter of fact, she was so obstinate on the issue that I only wore dresses to church events, even when we attended churches that had a dresses only policy for their members. (we never actually joined those churches merely attended) Folks are funny and my folks are funnier than most. :eek: :laugh:


    We were allowed to watch Laurence Welk and Hee Haw. LOL! Those kinds of music wouldn't send you to hell, but they wouldn't encourage you to get there either. I remember my mother remarking once as I practiced the piano "I know that's a waltz and dancing is a sin, but I like that." Okaayy then....

    My first "other version" was a Living Bible I came across somewhere as an adult. I didn't and still don't care for it. I also didn't spend more than a few minutes using it. That one can't begin to compare with the KJV.

    Next up was my NIV study bible. It's still my favorite, though for studying purposes I've begun using a NIV/KJV/NASB/Amplified parallel.

    In the house I also have an NKJV, an ESV, and a copy of the Message. LOL, you can't get far in my house without running into a Bible of some sort! My husband won't come to church with me, but encourages my Bible collection. How's that for a different turn? In case someone wants to know, yep, all these Bibles get used at one point or another including the half dozen or so KJV's we have around here and the equal number of NIVs. I do have 3 kids after all. I'll qualify that to say the Message doesn't get used much. But you know, now that I think about that one might be good for my son who doesn't really like to read (anything, not just the Bible). I may have to go hunt it out.

    See, my belief is that the God who can preserve my soul for all eternity is perfectly capable of perserving His own words through translation and the Holy Spirit is quite capable of pointing out any errors that have occured in translation and turn me toward a better interpretation. If He can't preserve His Word, how can He preserve my soul?

    :laugh: Must be NOT!

    Umm, how best to say this. Without coming right out and stating this as fact, some preachers on our side of the pond allow it to be inferred that King James' "authorization" of the KJV somehow makes it (the KJV) more inspired than the other versions. Less so now than when I was a child/teen.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I missed your post earlier.

    There are American changes to the AV-KJV. American KJVs are NOT the same as the British AV-KJV. But almost all say "authorized version" - but they aren't. And this is the best version in the World? I smell something rotten in Denmark.

    BTW, some companies like 'Zondervan" have two different KJVs they sell.
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was thinking of something more like The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills written in 1956.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nope...Never was One-Version-Only.
     
  5. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Until I was saved, I was NO version only! :laugh:
     
  6. Brother Randall

    Brother Randall New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been using the NKJV and NASB. But, I recently came across the ESV; which also looks appealing.
     
  7. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I downloaded a program called "GnomeSword" for this laptop and it had the ESV. I have liked it so far.
     
  8. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I was in college we had a chapel speaker that said that we used the KJV "because it's the authorized version" I thought that was ridiculous then even though at the time I was KJVO myself. BUt I was only a "level 3", well actually I was a totally tradionalist, i had no study of my own at all on it.

    I think that may have been the same guy that said we are baptist because of John the Baptist.
    I am not sure which one is more absurd.
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The versions made when King James was still around were authorized by King James. After He died, someone else did the 'authorizing'. But the implication, strongly made is: GOD AUTHORIZED THE KJV.

    Sorry, God no more authorzies the KJV than He authorizes the New World Translation (NWT, AKA: JW version).

    However, I believe that the KJVs, like the MVs collectively and individually contain the inerrant Written Word of God in English, preserved for the generation appropriate to them.
     
  10. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bolded a couple of words and I totally agree.
     
  11. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! hey where is C4K should you not have deleated this post. Why is it ok to slam the KJV but not the MVs.:BangHead:


    So God is careless and could careless about his word. "Another Jesus"

    Ehud
     
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point.

    Likewise.

    Ed
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    God preserves His word - He did not authorise any human translation. This version was authoriised by a king. To state the fact that God did not authorise any translation is hardly a slam.

    Feel free to say:
    God did not authorise the NKJV
    God did not authorise the NIV
    God did not authorise the NASV
    God did not authorise the ESV

    I promise not to snip your posts for that statement.
     
    #73 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 8, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2008
  14. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for explaining. "Authorized Version" and "King James Version" are both titles that can lead to misunderstanding. As others have stated, I too have come across people who imagine that it is called the "Authorized Version" because God (rather than King James I) authorized it. I have also met a few people who seem to think that the title "King James Version" was applied because that monarch did the work of translating!
     
  15. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the flawed falacy of the idea that "the KJV alone = The Word of God alone"

    Attacking the bible is a serious offense.

    Ctritiqing the translation of the KJV is no different than a critique of the NIV.
    They all must be held up to the same standard.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The thing is that all here have said that the KJV is indeed the Word of God . Yet , KJV Only proponents will not bring themselves to say the same thing about the NIV , for instance . Or , they will wiggle so badly trying to qualify and restrict their affirmation that the NIV is also the Bible that they end up in a pool of nonsense .
     
  17. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was going to suggest a thread closure because of a shocking post from earlier in the thread:

    But, it seems all's back to normal now, so never mind...:laugh:

    Besides, moving from rbell's to Sal's position...that's too far a trek for any human to make! :D
     
  18. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a good point to make.
    The NIV is a translation of the word of God.
    The KJV is a translation of the word of God.
     
  19. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The reason for this is not a slam on the translation; the reason is the rejection of the textual basis behind the translation. How a CT proponent can admit that the KJV is "indeed the Word of God" and that the NIV is equally the Word of God is hard for me to understand. The textual basis for both of these translations are different to a great degree.

    One must choose between CT based translations and TR based translations. Both cannot be "the Word of God." There are too many omissions (or additions) and too many discrepancies for both texts to be considered the Word of God. One of them has to accurately represent the originals for God's preservation promise to hold true. I, and other KJVOs choose to accept the TR based KJV as God's preserved Word for English speaking people. It's really that simple.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How one who favors the RT cannot admit that the CT is also the Word of God is puzzling to me .The textual differences are marginal -- if by marginal one means 2-5% . There is much more harmony than lack of agreement .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...