Which is more common?

Not so at all. Prior to King James, Queen Elizabeth I and King Henry VII also had translations, which, btw, were in plentiful use in the years following the AV1611. A great many English folk did not use the KJV. Also, the pilgrims which set foot on American colonial soil did not use the KJV. The early English speaking Dutch and German settlers did not use the KJV.

The KJV has never been the exclusively used translation that KJVO versionolaters claim.

 

God has provided many translations in many languages, including, but not limited to, the KJV. To make the jump from preservation to KJVO is not in the realm of biblical support. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it sure isn't. Neither is the validity of ANY translation or translation technique, nor the modern principles of textual criticism. But God's promises of preservation sure are!

 

Not so at all. Prior to King James, Queen Elizabeth I and King Henry VII also had translations, which, btw, were in plentiful use in the years following the AV1611. A great many English folk did not use the KJV. Also, the pilgrims which set foot on American colonial soil did not use the KJV. The early English speaking Dutch and German settlers did not use the KJV.

The KJV has never been the exclusively used translation that KJVO versionolaters claim. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it practically was among protestants after 1660 or so. It's also the greatest work of English literature, and was THE bible in English for hundreds of years, with none other even coming close to equaling it in these regards.

As far as "verionolaters" goes, I guess I could probably come up with some witty insult, put you in your place, etc. but why? I'm sick of that sort of thing (usually, heh).

You're a good guy, probably really concerned about our welfare. I've seen the spirit of Christ in your actions here on the board. Often you're so very very wrong but yet so right at the same time. Oh well, pray for us poor deluded folk (seriously), we'll do the same

 

To elevate one specific version or translation over and above all others, even their source text, to to imply that one specific translation or version has authoritative weight over any other, including its source texts, is a form of idolatry. Versionolatry is very real, very heretical, and very dangerous to Christianity.

 

Asserting that only one version is suitable for you personally, is perfectly fine for the Christian. Asserting that only one version is suitable for all of Christianity, to the exclusion of any other, is unbiblical.

Some are better than the KJV, some are worse. SOme are better than the NIV, some are worse. SOme are better than the ASV1901, some are worse. No one argues that point.

Inclusiveness has nothing to do with it. There are personally several translations that I dislike. It would be unbiblical for me to say that no Christian may use those same versions.

Bible versions are not created. They are translated. As language changes, so does the need for an up to date translation. That's true of any language the Bible is translated in.

 

Johnv what are you doing on this board? I quote Dr Bob

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt; Read the highlighted explaination by Murph at the top of the forum. This is a place for the more conservative to discuss WITHOUT constant attack and belittlement by the liberal faction within the Baptist umbrella.

click here

 

To elevate one specific version or translation over and above all others, even their source text, to to imply that one specific translation or version has authoritative weight over any other, including its source texts, is a form of idolatry. Versionolatry is very real, very heretical, and very dangerous to Christianity. </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV is not superior to its source texts, but in everything else, I'm guilty as charged. God has, IMO, providentially elevated the KJV over other English translations. Please let me know how my belief contradicts any Bible teaching, and please be sure to quote specific verses.

Ultimately our assurance of the reliability of the Bible must rest on faith. Yes, evidence can play a part, but it can only take us so far. Ultimately faith is required. I have the word of God that He in his providence has placed in my hands. IMO my position is just as reasonable, nay more reasonable (we can debate it later) and God honoring than our modern "let's try and recover the word of God through rationality" theory behind practically all our modern versions.

Is there chapter and verse for KJVO. No, its just not there. Can we quote chapter and verse for all the foundations and the very need of radical textual critism, or even any textual criticism at all. We can't. It's just not there. But so the modern world constructs the word of God for themselves. No thanks.

 

The Vulgate was THE Latin Bible for well, who knows how long, that does not make it authoritative to me. The KJV was made THE English Bible by men, not by God.

The translation issue is ALL man-made arguments, the only Scriptural guidelines we have are that it was originally inspired verbally by God, and that it would not pass away (In heaven at the very least)

The overwhelming manuscript support, and the quality of the versions available to us in English are evidence of that preservation, to argue that one particular version is evidence of that preservation is spiritualized hocus pocus nonsense.

I know its the Bible cause they printed Holy Bible on the cover, how can you argue with that? No chapter and verse, its just there.

BTW tim, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than the phone book, and I can pretty much guarantee that even my NASB is more accurate than the Yellow Pages, at least in my opinion And it would be great if you would not speak ill of the Word of God, I happen to believe it is true and Holy, and would not dream of speaking in such a disrespectful way about it.

 

Originally posted by superdave:
The Vulgate was THE Latin Bible for well, who knows how long, that does not make it authoritative to me. The KJV was made THE English Bible by men, not by God.

I actually would consider the Vulgate, but it spent most of it's time locked away and unread (even by the clergy!). Being the standard bible that no one reads doesn't count, IMO

 

The KJV was made THE English Bible by men, not by God.

I say the KJV was made THE English Bible by men, and by God, through his providence. IMO it means something when we have a phenomenon like the KJV in our history.

 

Please tell me why I may not be here. In regards to the KJVO stance, a KJVO (or any "O" stance, for that matter), implies liberalism. On that position, I'm most definitely a conservative.

 

You hit the nail on the head. It's your opinion. For you to only use the KJV is perfectlly appropriate. For you to require others to do the same, without biblical support, is wrong.

The burden of proof rests with you to biblically provide support, not me. I simply voice the clear lack of biblical support for the KJV.

I will assume that, by "modern versions", you refer to all non KJV versions. If that's the case, the term "modern version" is incorrect. BTW - I was just blessed with a copy of the Modern King James Version. It's pretty much the KJV updated to contemporary language, plus correction of certain translational errors. Please tell me why my MKJV is not more accurate than the KJV.

 

Originally posted by Johnv:
tim: The KJV is not superior to its source texts, but in everything else, I'm guilty as charged. God has, IMO, providentially elevated the KJV over other English translations.

johnv: You hit the nail on the head. It's your opinion. For you to only use the KJV is perfectlly appropriate. For you to require others to do the same, without biblical support, is wrong.

Who are you talking about, my family? Other than my family I don't require anyone to do anything, I don't have that authority.

BTW - I was just blessed with a copy of the Modern King James Version. It's pretty much the KJV updated to contemporary language, plus correction of certain translational errors. Please tell me why my MKJV is not more accurate than the KJV.

The MKJV is a nice Bible, based on the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts. I have Green's LITV and refer to it (and the Zeola's ALT as well) at times. IMO the MKJV is not so much an updating of the KJV as a blending of his LITV with the KJV.

If the MKJV displaced all other English bibles for 300 years I certainly would consider it as a replacement for the KJV. I trust God's promises and providence in this.

 

Please tell me why I may not be here. In regards to the KJVO stance, a KJVO (or any "O" stance, for that matter), implies liberalism. On that position, I'm most definitely a conservative. </font>[/QUOTE]Sola Scriptura,
Sola Gratia,
Sola Fide,
Soli Deo Gloria.

Or did you just mean in reference to Bible versions?

 

You failed to address my question: Why do you feel I should not be allowed to post here. If a moderator of this thread feels I should not be allowed to post here, I'm sure they will let me know.

 

You failed to address my question: Why do you feel I should not be allowed to post here. If a moderator of this thread feels I should not be allowed to post here, I'm sure they will let me know. </font>[/QUOTE]Some other guy asked that, John. I have no problem with you posting here.

 

Where biblically is there a requirement of displacement for a particular time period? The NIV has outsold the KJV since 1987. The NIV now represents approximately 40% of the Bibles sold in the US. (The KJV represents about 20% of the Bibles sold today.)

Somehow, it seems, to KJVO's, when the KJV is popular, it is considered solely authoritative, but when a non-KJV becomes popular, it is considered a tool of Satan.

 

Oops, sorry