Your personal translation journey

Lame...:sleep: Baptist4life is not whining, he is just making a point.
As he said, everyone else is able to render their judgment on their chosen version, elevating them to the most accurate translation, in their words, then along comes B4L and says the same thing about the KJV and suddenly his opinion is criticized and belittled. Liberals act and argue the same across all lines.

 

From the very first post -

The KJV is not the only version being critiqued here.

 

It's no secret that the KJV used more recent and less reliable manuscripts than the newer translations. And the reason I like the TNIV is that it is by most accounts an improvement over the NIV and a faithful English rendering of the best manuscripts.

 

This remark goes unchallenged far too often. Without the originals we really don't know which manuscripts are more or less reliable. It is an opinion based on limited research and prejudice.

 

I take your point, but don't the older manuscripts agree with each other more often? In the end, all that can be done is to be as faithful as possible with our scholarship.

 

Of course, but that does not mean we can make statements like 'it is no secret that this or that version uses less reliable manuscripts' and still remain credible.

I hope is does not appear that I am picking on you. You just happened to be the guy who posted it when I felt like I needed to remind us all of that truth . It is the same when folks like me, who prefer the traditional text body, make unsubstantiated charges against the critical text body.

 

No, that's okay. I understand.

I guess the fact that what is seemingly the best evangelical scholarship comes to this conclusion is the most convincing argument for me. But the point that we don't know much for anything absolutely sure always casts a shadow of doubt, no matter how small, on the argument.

 

Possibly, though being a sceptic I would have to see the numbers .

Even if, the majority is not always right. How do they know? Have they compared them to the originals? They too are guessing.

 

True.

We could do a poll, but my guess is that the BB would not yield a representative sample.

 

I started out with a KJV. After about 6 months, I switched to the Living Bible (paraphrase of the 70s) but used the KJV and then a RSV as my take to church Bible. After about 3 years of this I switched to the NIV (around 1980) and used the NIV until about 2 years ago. The NKJV is my main study Bible version now.

As a side note:

I have a copy of the MacArthur SB in the NASB and really like this but it is a cloth cover and for reasons not easy to explain I perfer leather. Most leather Bibles today that cost less than $150.00 are really bad workmanship. So, when the MacArthur SB comes out in ESV in August, I plan to buy it and will make it my main study Bible. Why you ask? Because Crossways does a much better job of binding than Nelson or Zondervan. If Nelson would only do a better job binding the NKJV or the NASB I would buy a leather MacArthur today. The ESV, in my opinion is good but not as good as the NASB, in my opinion.

 

My WHOLE POINT is that two people made the EXACT same statement I made (which I made to get your reaction) and NNE challenged what they posted! ONLY the KJV post got responded to! Why wasn't the same response made to them? BTW, I don't call OBVIOUS BIAS being pointed out as "whining". My gosh!

 

True that .

And yes, I confess, 'guess' was a little provocatory .

 

Started out with the NKJV, then went to the NIV [our church uses the NIV], then went to the KJV and have remained there since.

 

I was reading all of the thread and thinking "Am I the only one who started with a MV (NIV) and ended up KJV. Then "WHAM", the last post follows my pattern. FriendOfGod and I are now joined like blood brothers or sumptin'

I was saved in 1983, went to the mall and bought an NIV. Didn't know there were multiple versions. Used it for a few years. Bought a KJV, a NKJ, and finally settled on a Thompson Chain KJ. Have worn it completely out. Some pages are nothing but highliter and underlines, but I never want to start with another, I'll never find anything. I have electronic versions of ESV and NASV that I check from time to time.

Oh, And I think my vesion is the most accurate:smilewinkgrin:

 

My family and I weren't exactly KJVO, but we had always heard bad things about the new translations, especially the NIV and we avoided them like the plague. We were in Greenville, SC and we visited a church that uses the ESV. My mom went to the pastor to ask why he used the ESV, and he advised her to read a book (the name escapes me). And my parents came to the conclusion that the new translations were acceptable. That was two years ago. I kept using the KJV just because that was what I was used to, until my sister bought me an ESV. I read it for a little while but it was to weird reading the bible without all the "thee"s, "thou"s, and "est" endings. Then I lost my King James, so I read from the ESV everyday, and my comprehension of the bible exploded. I have been using the ESV as my main bible for about a year now, and I use others (NASB, NIV, NLT) for comparison.

(BTW, baptist4life, the reason I think your post raised controversy is that you made an absolute statement "The KJV is the most accurate translation!", while others said "I think" or "IMO/IMHO".)

 

No..........read them again....these are their EXACT statements...........