On a desert Island

I am not KJVO bit I will happily answer your question.

Yes. If I could not bring my regular KJV (Old Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford edition) I would choose the 1611. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not all that difficult to read.

If I could not have a KJV, the NKJV would be my second choice. I have some problems with how they translated the present participle, but would just do it correctly in my head as I read.

No, sorry. Mrs. Ripplinger may be good at Home Ec but she has demonstrated a deplorable lack of knowledge and research skills. Her book, although it may contain a few grains of truth, is largely myth, conjecture, and misquotes and misunderstandings of those she tries to anathematize.

My Stephen's Greek Interlinear would be nice, but it lacks an Old Testament. I have Green's 4 volume set which includes both testaments. Can I count that as one book?

No. I am not quite as enamored with the ESV as many here seem to be. It is a revision of the RSV. "Can good fruit come from a corrupt tree?"

 

There you go again. Falsely accusing and missing the point. Must I spell it out for you? Your statement "If you don't obey it, you don't believe it" is flawed. A simple example will show you (maybe... I'm not sure you get it). Have you ever exceeded the speed limit when it is 55mph? Let's suppose for the sake of the illustration that you have gone over the speed limit. Now take your statement and apply it in this case. Because you didn't obey it, by your own understanding, you don't believe it. Now are you going to claim "if you don't obey it, you don't believe it?"

In the case of my belief in God's Word (of which you have really taken liberty). I believe it and I do my best to obey it. I come up short, but I believe it nonetheless. So I would that you cease from making false accusations, claiming that I do not believe the Bible, all the while using an analogy that simply doesn't fit.

I am sure that if you looked at yourself, you would find that you miss the mark in one area or another in your walk.

I can say the same for myself. But because I will not subject those beliefs to the scrutiny and "humor" of this thread does not mean that I am in disobedience to God's Word.

I don't recall any "name calling" on my part. I certainly told no lies. So, again, you falsely accuse me.

 

Don't flatter yourselves. Go back and read the posts. The only questions that you could possibly be refering in my case, is the original question from the original post on this particular thread.

Yet you all insist and loosely charge me with "If you could answer, you would answer. The fact that you don't answer is proof that you can't answer." This is a ridiculous statement when you understand that nothing has been asked of me except in the original post about a desert island, which was an open, general question to everyone. Is this the question you think I can't answer?? Please.

The fact of the matter is, I really don't care what version anyone one of you use or don't use. My purpose for replying at all to this thread can be found in my first reply.

 

"If you could answer, you would answer. The fact that you don't answer is proof that you can't answer"

Really? Is that always true? Is that how you weigh and measure out someone? Careful how you answer.

 

Another KJVO blustering and blowing but not able to say one word in defense of his silly position. Typical KJVO. Long on mouth, short on brains.

 

And now you turn to the very thing you accuse me of. You have nothing. And, yet again, you continue to say I cannot defend my position and base that on this thread. You are fantasizing. At least you're consistent.

How about answer from you in regards to your flawed thinking:

"If you could answer, you would answer. The fact that you don't answer is proof that you can't answer"

"If you don't obey it, you don't believe it. "

Is this how you judge?

 

So, TWade, does this mean that you don't have an answer?

 

You gave me pause to think and to answer the question:

The NKJV.

Above and beyond the question: My second choice which you disallowed would be one of the later KJV's (NOT Gothic font).

Next, the ESV.

Next, a TR (Scrivener's).

Next, Gail Riplinger's book to burn to keep warm at night and/or for a signal fire

HankD

 

TWade:It's funny that this is the 'Bible Versions/Translations' forum, yet the overall majority of threads posted here has to do with King James Bible compared to all other translations.

Why? Because there's a particular group we call King James Version Onlyists(KJVOs) who do the vast majority of versions questioning here, while another group, the Multi-version believers(MVBs) know the KJVO doctrine is nothing but a false, man-made myth, opposes them & regularly proves them WRONG.

Neither group is "officially organized", but when a number of people believe and advocate the same doctrines, even if they don't know each other, they can be considered a group.

BTW-To all readers:

Please go to the "prayer request" forum & read "Concerning Jim Ward". My concern for his well-being transcends any versional differences we may have!

 

Yes! That is exactly what he means!

 

You're wrong. Go back and read the posts. You all are full of belly-aching about some "questions" I haven't answered when the only question was the original post asking about a desert island. Talk about no substance. And, like your friend, you "assume" too much.

No thanks, and nor do I care to. I couldn't care less about what version you or anyone else chooses to use.

 

Answer to what? The original post?

 

LOL! He doesn't even know what the question is, let alone the answer!

Typical KJVO. Long on mouth and short on brains!

 

Dude, you starting to get on my nerves. But, considering your lack of intelligence and severely flawed way of reasoning and thinking, of which you've yet to address, I can let it go.

 

And another thing... you continue to include me with the KJVO camp when I have made it clear that I don't care what version any one of you use. Just more idiotic rhetoric on your part.

 

You are either lying intentionally, or your so far slanted in your thinking that you're incapable of even the lowest level of reading comprehension. Go back to the begining and see that I was the 2nd poster excluding the original post. So how is it that you arrive at the conclusion that "We are carrying on a discussion and you come in..."? If you're so intent on answers, why don't you answer that? More gross misrepresentation, just like your buddy.

And if you'd like to know why I "came in belly-aching like I own the place," go and actually read my first reply to this thread.