Loaded question

Neither do I wish to get into a KJVO discussion, but only to share my preference and why:

I personally use the NASB95 as my primary bible, for study, preaching, etc. I use it for several reasons:

1. I like the translation philosophy behind it (word-for-word concept; though it is not without its shortcomings).

2. I take an expository approach to preaching and teaching and the NASB facilitates that approach easily, because of its faithfulness, though not perfect, to word order and important connectives.

4. It is somewhat contemporary in English and has utilize in some places gender accuracy.

3. Third, though not as important as the others, I like the verse-by-verse layout edition, rather than the paragraph layout. It makes it easier for me to locate stuff.

This is just my taste.:thumbs:

 

I don't think there is a single version that is best for all uses. I like the early KJV versions because the English in them is a more specific language than today's English. But this confuses a lot of people, so it's not always a good idea to quote from these versions. So I prefer to use a version that is more easily understood (such as NKJV, NASB, Holman, etc.) and then go to the Greek/Hebrew to clarify a word that is ambiguous in English. Sure, I could go to the KJV in SOME cases to clarify an ambiguous word (not all cases, but some), but why go to a version that is once removed from the original language when you can simply go to the original language?

 

Our Lord is terrible

I really wish there was a single translation that could be used for everyone...

But I find myself using the KJV with oler people..
The NIV or NKJV with younger people...

I have been using my printed NET for my devotions...

 

I don't think there's a single English translation that is perfect for all uses, either. The CLV is the most accurate translation I've ever seen, and as such, it's good for study, but it's difficult to read at length. At least for me. The NASB is very accurate and is more readable. Rotherham's is a better translation than the NASB, but it's not readily available. The KJV is my preference, mostly because I'm most familiar with it, and I like the way it's written, but you do have to keep abreast of language changes, etc.

I do think it's important to have a common text in a group study, even if you quote other translations, but a good preacher will exposit from the underlying text.

Which reminds me that there are those who exposit from what they perceive the English to be saying, to the point that there is one Baptist splinter group that is founded upon the distinction between the "Holy Spirit" and the "Holy Ghost".

That's why I think that if more people taught from the original languages, particularly the NT, there would be only a fraction of the sects and divisions that we have today. I don't think they would go away entirely, but we wouldn't have 1,000 different Baptist organizations from which to choose, and 1,000 different branches of Christianity.

 

I use the NKJV more than any other, but when evangelizing, I'll use whichever valid version(s) the audience wants. I study'em all, but I generally read the Geneva for close study right now.

 

I use a plethora of Bible study helps, all pointing to the KJB as the final authority for the proof text in English.

For validity in the explanation of the wording, I also use a common dictionary which gives the etymology of the English words and then revert back to the available lexicons to substanciate the words used along with their textual definition.

Need there be any further discussion? Only if you insist.:tonofbricks:

 

Here's one of the "usual suspects" right on cue!

 

The Japanese Shinkaiyaku is best for Japan! It is conservative and a fairly good translation. :thumbs:

 

I agree wholeheartedly! I use it whenever poss....er, nevermind, I speak no Japanese. Sorry, John. :laugh:

 

You noticed that too, I see.

Ed

 

I only use the KJV because of the 4-fold "T" superiority over modern versions, of the accuracy over these modern versions, and of the clearest doctrine than modern versions. The KJV is still alive since almost 400 years. :thumbs:

 

I only use the KJV as well. Apparently the 1769 version.

 

Well, your question is somewhat akin to asking, "Is there one food that is best for all meals- breakfast, lunch, supper, and snacks, and why?"

 

It's hard not to notice when these "usual suspects" show up with their "expert knowledge" on this matter.

:laugh: :sleeping_2: :BangHead:

 

What, no gift of tongues rbell?? :laugh:

 

Jim, I wouldn't use a Bible if I didn't think it was best for all around use. THat is why I use only one. Therefore I did answer your question.

So even if a person uses the KJV and answers a simple question concerning what Bible he uses, he is then "guilty" of something (in reference to use of "usual suspects). Can a person not use the KJV anymore without criticism?

 

Absolutely! Go right ahead and use any legitimate English Bible version you prefer. Tha decision is entirely up to you. That's what much of the discussion here is all about.

It's when people start claiming any particular Bible version is the only word of God in English and when they make the errant claim one of the KJVs is without error of any kind that their erroneous stance is struck down with the truth.

BTW, one of the KJVs is one of the 3 Bible versions I use most frequently, along with the NKJV and the NASB. I am not against the KJVs in any way, shape or form - just the KJVO position.