Prefer the KJV?

So according to your standards anything from 1611 on is the result of "bible correctors"; of course this would include the Alexandrian "bibles" from "older & better" texts that everybody champions on here also,hmmmm..

</font>[/QUOTE]No, read carefully. My comments were about HIS logic. The KJV translators "corrected" the Bibles they already had, thus they are guilty of the very same thing he is accusing others of.

Just like (according to your logic) everything after 1611 including modern versions too.
</font>[/QUOTE]Again, you miss the point.

Absolutly not;
</font>[/QUOTE]Then how did the perfect KJV come from a bunch of Bible-correcting, baby-sprinkling, Baptist-persecuting, anti-premillennial Anglicans?

JYD, do you know what a "double standard" is?

[ January 03, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

When doing any in-depth study, I first turn to the KJV simply because of the wealth of tools available Most concordances, online searches, parallels, interlinears, etc, are based on the KJV, so it makes it easier to do digging. Once I have the tools in use, I then pull out other versions to compare - the NASB, NIV and/or RSV are my most common choices, unless for some reason I want a more TR-based comparison, in which case I usually grab the Geneva and NKJV.

For straight reading, when I want to feel pious I use the KJV. Otherwise, I usually read the NIV.

 

Inspiration!! read Psalms 12:6-7(A.V.) also read 1st Kings 17:4-6(A.V.) Also, look @ the underlying text involved in the A.V.;it is a far cry from the Alexandrian perversions of Origen & co.....

Yes, unfortunatly. I see it on this board more than I can keep up with.(read the Creed of the Alexandrian cult for more details)

[ January 03, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Inspiration!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, I see. Good fruit CAN come from a bad tree. Please make up your mind.

Who told you the KJV was the result of inspiration? Why did it need to be - didn't they have God's preserved word already in 1605?

Yes, unfortunatly. I see it on this board more than I can keep up with.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then stop posting so many of them.

[ January 03, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

You tell me. I already stated & asked WHY did the people 1611 on feel the need to correct what was already here? you know like the 1611 bible correcting translators; that includes todays easier to read claptrap of Alexandrian per-versions.. Remember"double standards" right??

[ January 03, 2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

You guys are so far off topic.

Yes, I prefer the KJV.

 

You tell me. I already stated & asked WHY did the people 1611 on feel the need to correct what was already here?
</font>[/QUOTE]For the same reasons the KJV translators did it.

Yes, you keep providing examples.

I agree, I'm sorry. I posted my answer to the original question a couple of posts back.

 

Boy howdy!!! I also prefer the infallible word of God the A.V.!!!!

 

Neal, I prefer the KJV. I left off using the KJV for a while because of my IFB pastor stating that if one wasn't saved using the KJV (English speaking people), that they had better check on their salvation because God didn't work through the other versions. That's horse puckey, and he knew it...and he knew my wife and I knew it. Many of our friends were saved through the ministering of the Word through the NASB, NIV and the RSV. We left this church as it seemed to become more and more "cultlike" in it's atmosphere and joined a SBC. We were there for six months when the Lord started using our pastor to bring me back to the KJV...not because he supported it, though he does to some extent. He would get up and read a passage from the NIV, and then would state that certain portions of the passage was weak, and would correct it with the KJV. He did this quite often. The Holy Spirit really worked on me through this process. Our pastor in the SBC is a good man, but he couldn't efficiently direct his crowd. We now attend the Franklin Road Baptist Church where the KJV is loved, preached and lived by the staff and the members.

AJL

 

I don't use any single Bible version to the exclusion of all others. I prefer the KJV for the majesty and beauty of the language. I prefer the NASB for its accuracy. I prefer the NKJV or MKJV for their updated language. And I have been recently impressed with the ESV and the Holman Christian Standard Bible New Testament.

It is sad that we can't all agree to let everyone use the Bible they prefer without condemnation. Let everyone choose for themselves, and don't try to force anyone to use a Bible version with which they are not comfortable. The best Bible version for anyone is the one with which the reader feels most comfotaable.

God bless!

 

neal4 said in part: "Actually, I like the thou's and ye's because they let me know singular or plural references very easily."

I think that the Greek of the NT did NOT employ intimate and formal forms and conjugations.
Latin, (which I can muddle thru) did use them.

Dr. Griffin, you know Greek. Is that correct?

 

I have been using the KJV for over 15 years now and I am not about to change.

I do not care for Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger.

Ps. 12:6-7 is not speaking of a version or of God's Word, but rather something other than that. Read the entire psalm for the context.

One thing I do hate is people who say " A better translation or a better reading would be..." Most people who say that are untrained linguistically and do not have the qualifications to do so. They do not realize by saying that, they are planting doubt in the minds of the hearer.

KJV is not that hard to understand, it just takes a little time and work, but in today's society -- work is a dirty word and people want things instantly, kinda like fast food, fax machines, email, and Federal Express!

 

For the simple reasons you gave in your initial post, Neal, is why I prefer the KJV. I used to cringe at the thought of someone reading another version because I heard from the pulpit they were evil. As I matured, both in age and knowledge of Christianity, my opinions have changed somewhat. Now-a-days, I had rather see someone reading "any" version than "no" version.

I now enjoy "comparing" passages in the NKJV, KJV2000, and the ESV to ensure I understand them, but my preference remains the KJV. One final reason being, the older one gets the harder it is to change. Younger folks might not understand that because they haven't been there yet(age).

Jim

 

For your perusal

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Grady/Final_Authority.html

 

I was interested in the background of Dr. Grady. Here is how Chick Publications states his credentials:

I remembered Anchor Baptist Church but didn't remember them having a significant Bible college. They have a school but the faculty totals 6. Two of which have doctorates themselves. One would have to question the resources and rigor of such a doctoral program.

I have been unable to find any information on Baptist International Seminary or School of Theology.

Hyles-Anderson's reputation is known.

There is more than one Calvary Bible Institute. The one in Pa. is a in-church program.

Philadelphia College of Bible is now Philadelphia Biblical University and looks legit.

His qualifications look impressive but don't appear to be very "qualifying".

 

If they were 6 Spirit-filled men of God, I would say that it would be more than sufficient to produce quality theologians. God used Aquila and Priscilla to teach Apollos who was "an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures," Acts 18:24-26

I don't see where the number of faculty is an indicator of the quality of education.

It is never wise to stereotype a man by the college he graduated from. Are you willing to affirm that each graduate of your alma-mater is exactly like you, or that you are exactly like them?

And you are totally unqualified to make this assumption. The Corinthians thought Paul was unqualified to be an Apostle. Boy were they wrong.

 

I'm kjv only,it works well for me.I feel its more accurate.I tried others but they just didn't feel
right .
Jeanne