Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

Aw, it was at least two months or so since I last beat that particular horse. Folks just need to be reminded that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The ESV hype machine says it uses beautiful "current literary English" and that "archaic language has been brought to current usage" is bunkum. Also, the claim that the ESV is "essentially literal" is nonsensical. As if the TNIV,their pet whipping boy, is so radically different in actual translational methodology.

 

:applause::applause: I've said that for years, but still got labeled KJVO, no matter what. Good luck.

 

I've switched back and forth from so many versions, it's not even funny.

I like 'em all!

KJV, NIV, NLT .. etc.

I most readily use my NIV Life Application Study Bible though.

 

It just does not make much sense to read Koine Greek, read KJV Old English and then deliver the message in modern English. Instead of having a mastery of two languages and cultures, they must have a mastery of three languages and cultures. None of the English translation are literal word for word. Koine Greek does not use britches. The people did not wear them in that day. I would also think that men and women wore the same stlye of clothes too--an inner and outer garment.

 

I have used the NASB for a little less than a year now, I'm also reading Holman's CSB.... I still catch myself going back to KJV. The NASB is a good workable translation, but my mind still thinks in KJV. IF I didnt need a more middle ground translation for my Sunday School students I'd just grab my KJV again and be happy.

 

Really? I have heard this before, but haven't seen the proof. It was yrs ago, and actually, whenever I read the KJV aloud, I, most of the time, use the "s" sound for "eth"... it really makes the KJV more readable.

I have done this for a couple yrs now.

 

Perhaps the reason you have been "labeled KJVO" on the Baptist Board, if such has actually occurred, regardless of how accurate the tag, is because on the BB, virtually every post you have made on this subject has taken a position that the KJV (1769 flavor, usually) rendering is the 'best' one for every discussion you have been involved in, plus your continued 'applause' for seemingly anyone who espouses any 'KJVO' position, regardless of whether or not their offered 'history' and/or purported 'facts' can stand up to objective scrutiny, or your own 'attacks' on other versions, ya' think??

Even some KJVO types (although I don't specifically remember this from you) have had the unmitigated gall to say my own genuine 1967 KJV edition is not really a KJV at all. Others have said they are ONLY supporting the "1611 King James" while citing what appears to be the 1769 text, and often from a 'counterfeit' Americanized edition, at that! I'm pretty sure that neither King James I nor any of the 1611 translators 'Authorized' Drs. Paris and/or Blaney (plus Dr. Scrivener) in their marvelous editing efforts, incidentally, all of which to my mind are a tremendous overall 'improvement' over the original 1611 edition(s).

As to the particular "Why?" you are (or may have been) "labeled KJVO" consider this:

You know the old adage: "When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, eats with the ducks, has feathers like a duck, is always found with the ducks, etc. ..."

Why is one then surprised when another concludes that 'a duck' is what they are observing?

Incidentally, speaking of 'ducks,' when are you going to get around to answer my question directed to you about what Bible version or versions you would consider as "outdated" from some 4 mos. ago, after you deemed it an "attack" when another poster gave his opinion and suggested that the KJV language is, in fact, outdated, and you scathed him for this opinion??

I did ask a "non-confrontational" question about multiple older versions, and exactly what you might consider to be "outdated language" as you may recall.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1366555&postcount=49

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1358424&postcount=59

and you appeared to get mad about my question.

I still would like an answer to the question I initially asked, plus see if you can actually identify, without looking it up, which citing is actually the KJV rendering, as well?

Still wonderin' but I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the response to the question(s).

Ed

 

Really?

Thieth etheemeth to be ethomething I had not heard previouethly, but I ethuggeetht needeth ethome additional documentation before I am placing a great deal of ethock in ethaid ethuggeethtion.

Ed

 

Too bad more do not do the same, on this point. :tear:

Ed

 

And Ed, I would label you as ARROGANT, ARGUMENTATIVE, UN-CHRISTLIKE, and GROUCHY! After all..........

You know the old adage: "When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, eats with the ducks, has feathers like a duck, is always found with the ducks, etc. ..."

Why is one then surprised when another concludes that 'a duck' is what they are observing?

 

How do you equate that with sarcasm? Even Jesus used sarcasm.

 

If others on here can throw out "labels" I guess I can too. Ed needs a little "humility" it seems to me. I will NOT be ordered to answer his questions, nor do I intend to be made to feel like I'm something I'm not.

 

While that may be your opinion, I have not ever taken what he has written as you do.

 

Where's your response to HIM about me? There seems to only be criticism of people who you disagree with, the reason i quit posting before, BTW.

 

Amen to that suggestion.

Personally I have Always used the KJV and always will. And if anyone of you do not understand why, you will never know even if I told you. (which I have explained in many previous posts on this subject only to become a target after having done so.)

 

I just saw it as sarcasm not as personal attack. Suppose it were a personal attack how would Jesus have dealt with that. That is what your approach must be if you believe he has offended you. Mt. 18 outlines the approach that must be taken.

 

B4L, Ed was only pointing out the truth as to your activity on this board. You are overly sensitive when it comes to the KJV issue.

 

No, Ed has labeled me as KJVO, which I am NOT. Simple as that.

 

And I am NOT ESVO, contrary to rumors yet to be spread about me. :laugh: