POLL: KJV Only or Not?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by LP, Mar 6, 2002.

  1. LP

    LP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    The King James Version of the Bible is:
     
  2. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although I voted for the last one, I feel the wording of this poll makes it very biased.
     
  3. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    None of the above. The "choices" on the poll are very poor and fanciful at best.
     
  4. LP

    LP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Suggestions, then?

    I make no bones about that I think the last option is most accurate.

    Too, the first option is forced, if the implications of the KJV Only doctine are to be taken to their logical conclusion.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas Cassidy said:

    None of the above. The "choices" on the poll are very poor and fanciful at best.

    #3 was excellent.
     
  6. LP

    LP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright, I really would like to dialogue with the the person(s) who voted option #1. May we?
     
  7. Bro Ben

    Bro Ben
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    I vote for that the KJV is the WORD of God for the English speaking people. If one were to translate the WORD into French, they should NOT use the KJV, but the originals instead and so on for any other language. Just my 2 cents!

    [ March 07, 2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Bennieboy ]
     
  8. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you conclude that English is the ONLY language into which the "originals" can not be used to develop a new translation?
     
  9. BJ

    BJ
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The originals could be translated into English today. But the point is the KJV is the best english translation of the originals (texus receptus)sp out there right now.
     
  10. Deekay

    Deekay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's hard to believe that anyone is still arguing for the KJV as the only inspired version at this late date. I grew up with the King James Bible being preached at my church, and it was the version I used for years. I have a lot of respect for it, and for the translators. But in the end it's just another English version, beautifully-worded but no more "inspired" than any other translation. We need to get past sentimental attachments and allow fellow believers to use whatever version they please without judgment. Yes, some translations are more accurate than others (I never cared for the original Living Bible) and no perfect English translation exists. Christians should know a little about textual criticism and the theology of the translators of the Bible they are reading (obviously, no one wants the NWT in their churches). But that being said, most versions produced today are true to the Word of God and present Jesus Christ accurately as Savior, Lord, and Son of God. There are no anti-God conspiracies contained in the NIV, NASB or even the NRSV. We can never really know if the TR is truly superior to other textual traditions, and in any case the various text-types do not differ as much as often asserted, at least in important matters of faith and practice. In my opinion, it is dishonoring to our Lord for us to argue about such things, and I have cast my vote accordingly.

    [ March 10, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Deekay ]
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    BJ said:

    The originals could be translated into English today. But the point is the KJV is the best english translation of the originals (texus receptus)sp out there right now.

    So who says someone won't do a better job tomorrow?
     
  12. HeDied4U

    HeDied4U
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    10
    Amen Ransom!

    God Bless!!!

    Adam :cool:
     
  13. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    As with most such straw man arguments, nobody has said that. [​IMG]
     
  14. CorpseNoMore

    CorpseNoMore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    What was wrong with #4?
     
  15. CorpseNoMore

    CorpseNoMore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    CNM: What does best mean?
     
  16. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    "so are many other translations" is too vague for my tastes. I would agree that some of the translations based on the Byzantine textform such as NKJV, 21st Century, 3rd Millenium, KJVII, etc., are pretty good, but "so many other" could include a lot that I vehemently disagree with. [​IMG]
     
  17. CorpseNoMore

    CorpseNoMore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    CNM: Hmm.. a reasoned answer. I suppose "many" might possibly be both too broad and too vague, but I don't take it that way. I take it to mean not all, but more than two. [​IMG]

    [ March 13, 2002, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]
     
  18. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey did you learn polling from politicians? What a slanted twisted poll. It Proves nothing nor gives a correct view of anything

    As for missionaries, we have a missionarie in Africa who translated the NT in the Tswana language, no he didn't use the KJV, but Moffit's Tswana Bible, which was translated from the Textus Receptus and after being read by Twsana pastors they agreed it read like the KJV.

    Ernie
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    How would you like to have seen the questions worded differently?

    Just curious. Does this language have equivalents to "thee, thou, thine, thy, ye, etc."? I have given you a hard time in the past but this is a serious question. One point that Dr. Cassidy makes is that the pronouns used by the KJV make it easier to get the true sense of scripture. I was wondering if the people you refer to were blessed in having a similar advantage in their current language.
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas Cassidy said:

    As with most such straw man arguments,

    Which straw man argument was that, again? I asked a question.
     

Share This Page

Loading...