I prefer the KJV because it is what I grew up with. However, I have and use other versions. Since coming out of the KJVO movement, I like the ESV and the NASB and now the HCSB.
What number are you?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Biblethumper, Nov 26, 2004.
?
-
0-- none of the choices listed in the thread.
73.1% -
1--I prefer the KJV
13.5% -
2--I believe the underlying Greek/Hebrew text of the KJV is best
3.8% -
3-- I believe in the Recieved Text only
9.6% -
4-- I believe the KJV is inspired
0 vote(s)0.0% -
5--I believe the KJV is new relevation
0 vote(s)0.0%
Page 2 of 2
-
-
-
X < bowtie -
Well, at least I don't have a dogs body!
-
LOL...I could just picture him as a little poodle, mini doberman, or a little rat dog ( you know those mexican dogs that no one knows how to spell their name...LOL) ;)
-
Well, really, I'm more of a mutt. Well, no, a mongrel.
-
Why isn't there a scale going into the negatives? I'd be a -3 (I believe that the underlying Hebrew/Greek texts of MV's are more faithful in reflecting the readings of the original manuscripts; the modern form of textual criticism is to be praised for its veracity in determining the text of the OT and NT). I threw out the KJV a long time ago and won't be looking at it again!
-
LRL - We were going with the scale (first thread in this Forum) 1-5. I pushed the envelope with "0" since I agree with the weakness of the Greek.
But throw it out? Harsh, dude, harsh! -
-
Solid 4
Reasons abound but I'll offer just one.
If ALL Scripture is inspired of God, and
The Authorized Version IS Scripture,
then...solid #4
In His servcie;
Jim -
Yours,
Bluefalcon -
Determining the exact reading of the original manuscripts is impossible since we don't have the original manuscripts. Modern forms of textual criticism (and, biblical archaeology to a degree) are to be commended for the work done to restore the original text of the Greek NT. This was a general statement to the effect of giving thanks and praise to those who work with the text of the Greek NT. -
I love the KJV. I love its language and its poetic, romantic style. When I am comparing translations or digging into a particular scripture, I always come back to it, and I remember scripture in the KJV about 95% of the time. I love to just read it.
For study, my favorite modern versions are the ESV, NASB, and HCSB, because they are word for word translations and for their accuracy. And they read well, especially in the Old Testament. Also, for reference I use the ALT, Amplified, ASV, Darby, EMTV, ISV, Literal Translation, MKJV, NKJV, and the 1833 Webster.
I do not like the NIV, Living, and most of the other translations. -
-
What in the world does that passage have to do with Bible versions - "...You cannot serve God and mammon"
Or are you saying that a Bible version is a master - "No man can serve twomasters..."
Is you Bible version your Master? I only have one Master, my Saviour.
????? -
This is, perhaps, a perfect example of archaic translation and eisegesis. (I'm guessing, because Thumper didn't explain what he meant.)
The KJV and the NKJV use "mammon," which means nothing to a modern reader; you have to infer it from the rest of the passage. Other modern versions render it as "money," which is in keeping with the context of the passage: He who loves material possessions and the things of the world more than the things of God cannot know God.
What that has to do with translations can only be guessed and quickly slides into eisegesis (or is it just faulty proof texting?), much as other passages often quoted in favor of a single translation fall. -
Moique,
I was just having a little fun with you by taking you literally, like Gracie Allen (a 40's&50's comedianne)did.Sorry you missed the humor.If you ever get a chance to watch old time american tv watch the Burns&Allen show Gracie was hilarious.
Page 2 of 2