Avid following

It is a sizeable minority . They make a lot of noise . However , in real numbers they do not constitute so many . The group is just a greasy wheel .

In real numbers the NIV has sold much more over the last 30 or so years than the KJV . Yet there is no such thing as a NIVO movement .

Aside from numbers perhaps you mean the intensity or passion of the movement . They may rank #1 there . Although the Latin Vulgate had some rather vocal supporters in the latter 1300's in opposition to Wycliffe's Bibles -- all the way through most of the following 250 years or so .

 

Tomb-like QUIET

The NIV,NASB,etc,etc,crowd will NEVER have a passionate,noisy following even though they may well be in todays majority(mainly because of the promotion of compromised preachers and Madison Avenue marketing gimmicks). The main reason that is true is because narrow is the way...and few there be that find it...particularly in these apostate days we are living in. I liken that crowd to a funeral procession. When was the last time you heard of a noisy,passionate funeral? The KJV crowd ( of which I am thankfully part of) IS noisy and passionate because we KNOW we hold God's PERFECT,PRESERVED HOLY WORD in our hands and in our hearts and that we stand on SOLID ROCK!!!!....not sinking,changing sand. That is my conviction AND my opinion....and I'll live or die by it. God NEVER has shown me even ONE mistake in my KJV.....and I would NOT believe it was Him if I ever supposedly found one. Neither should YOU.....if you are wise!!!

Greg Perry Sr.:saint: :type:

 

Can you please tell us how you really feel GP ?:laugh:

I will just say that I very much disagree with your contentions and leave at that for now . I'll let others chime in .

 

The KJV's translator's were top-notch in the fields of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean.

I agree with Gregory Perry on the authenticity of the KJV.

 

Actually most were more proficient in Latin as I recall . There were a couple of exceptions to this .

 

As you recall??

Were you there? I did not realize you were so old. :laugh:

 

Rippon,

I cast my lot with whatever you have to say. :thumbs:

 

Well , that's quite the endorsement TCG ! Some others on the BB obviously do not have your exceptional discernment .:laugh:

 

Thankfully, God has chosen to preserve His written word for us in more than a single English Bible translation. BTW, Gregory, just which of the various KJVs is it that you deem the perfect one? There is the original 1611 edition, the Cambridge, the Oxford, etc. And since there are differences in the various KJVs, they can't all be perfect, can they? The answer to that question, of course, is an emphatic NO as long as one adheres to the KJVO ideal of preservation. The KJVO group confuses the perfect and inerrant preservation of God's written word with the preservation of a particular set of English words.

The so-called modern versions (the original KJV was one of these in 1611) all accurately and inerrantly preserve the plan of salvation through the cleansing and atoning blood of Jesus Christ. The MVs accurately teach Christ's virgin birth, His sinless life, His death, His burial, His glorious resurrection and His current place on high. The MVs accurately teach of end times and God's ultimate victory over Satan. Looks like if, as KJVO folks often claim, the MVs are from Satan, at least one of the MVs would have Satan winning in the end. But that's not the case at all. The MVs just as accurately convey God's truths to us as the KJVs.

Yes, I know without doubt (praise God!) that whether I hold one of the KJVs, the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV or a host of other English Bible translations in my hand, that I hold the perfectly preserved written word of God. The KJVO sect doubts God's ability to preserve His written word for us in more than a single English Bible version, and therefore the KJVO sect is extremely confused. And of course we know without doubt that this confusion doesn't come from God (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Thank You, Lord, for Your gracious provision for us in preserving Your written word for us in various translations down through the years!

 

Defenders of the Old Latin versions at the time of Jerome (4th century) were tenacious in their opposition to Jerome's new Latin Vulgate translation. Old Latin-only types lost the war because there were several competing OL versions, and the Vulgate was better than them all.

Catholics were (and sometimes are) tenacious in their defense of the Latin Vulgate. (Ironic, isn't it?) The Vulgate was the official Bible of the Catholics for many centuries, despite it's errors (though it was a great translation for its time. Catholic Bibles all over the world have been translated by Vulgate-only Catholics into many different languages.

Here in Japan, the Bungoyaku (Classical Japanese Bible) had its strong defenders when the newfangled Kogoyaku (Colloquial Version, the first ever Bible in modern Japanese) came out in 1956. Unfortunately, the Kogoyaku was a pretty poor translation, so the Bungoyaku-only types had a point. To this day there are die-hard defenders of the Bungoyaku, even though two more main versions of the Bible are out there, one like the NASV and another kind of like the TEV.

In Spanish, you have a mess, with the Reina Valera and it's defenders, plus several revisions of it.

 

There were huge battles in Ireland over this particular. Patrick was severely criticised because we used the Vulgate and was not OLO (Old Latin Only). He did however use the Vulgate at times and even did some Latin paraphrasing.

 

This has not been my personal experience. The only thing I have seen regarding this is from non-native, and at times non-Spanish speakers.

There are a few modern Spanish translations but almost the entire Spanish speaking world uses the Reina-Valera 1960 edition.

In my opinion, most believers here, have no clue about a versions debate an probably would not care if they were told there is one.

 

The bottomline: there are always going to be defenders of certain Bible versions, and even going to the extent of labeling non-confirmists as whatever.

 

Is the Holy Spirit an "it" or is he a real person having intelligence and feeling? The KJV translators made a mistake when they wrote "itself" instead of "himself" in Romans 8:16, 26. In my opinion, referring to the Holy Spirit as "itself" is offensive and I don't believe that God refers to himself as an "it." However, the NKJV and NASB have correctly translated those verses.

Added:

Here is the Bishop's Bible, the Bible that the KJV is a revision of:

Romans 8:16 The same spirite, beareth witnesse to our spirite, that we are ye sonnes of God.

Romans 8:26 Lykewyse, the spirite also helpeth our infirmities. For we knowe not what to desire as we ought: but ye spirite maketh great intercession for vs, with gronynges, which can not be expressed.

The Bishop's Bible translators didn't make that mistake.

The KJV calls the Holy Spirit and "it" also in John 1:32 and in 1 Peter 1:11. The NKJV correctly renders "it" as "He." God the Holy Spirit is just as much in the masculine sense as God the Father, who is also identified as spirit in Scripture. So, if God the Father is a "he" then so is God the Holy Spirit, as is God the Son.

 

Glad to see one on such intimate terms with God, that God makes special relelations to that individual, and one with the discernment to can make procalmations about another's wisdom, at that!

Maybe someday I'll attain the level where I too "can count myself to have arrived".

Ed

 

The gent (or lady) do got a point, here.

Ed

 

Actually, since the Scripture never speaks of the Holy Spirit coming down in human form, "itself" is not a wrong translation.

It is said to descend as a dove in the Gospels. We refer to doves as both it, he, or she.

"itself" in Paul's Epistle to the Romans is a proper translation.

 

Well, you have proven yourself time and time again in these matters, from a historical standpoint, and I would be unwise not to pay attention. :thumbs:

 

Linguistically, "itself" is no more, or no less proper than is "himself" for the word " 'auto ", which can be equally masculine or neuter. However, other Scripture ascribes specifically "He" to the Holy Spirit, at least in the KJV, in Jn. 15:26 and 16:13. Is this correct, and the other also correct, as well, even though they are not saying exactly the same thing? Or is not one to be 'preferred' in translation, even though both are 'permissible'? Even the Douay-Rheims, as did the Bishop's Bible, got Rom. 8:16, 26 (and John 1:32) right with the rendering of "himself".

I Peter 1:11 in the Douay-Rheims? Well, you can't win 'em all.

Ed