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

There's a rumor going around that you will be a NIrVO'er.You'll be laying aside all other versions to devote yourself to the NIrV alone!

 

That'll be the day!! :laugh:

 

Aw, come out of the closet. You know the NIrV is the superior translation.

 

FTR, I have not "labeled" you as KJVO. I generally do not 'label' any BB poster as 'anything' for I am not that fond of labels. I have no control over what any other may do, and I believe you are the one who, in every instance including this one, has first mentioned being 'labeled' as a KJVO.

However, I can see how something I wrote here may have possibly been misconstrued in this manner, after reading it again, and I should have phrased this in a better manner. And I quote myself, here:

I should have phrased this sentence and thought in this manner, since I have re-read this.

I have specifically 'labeled' exactly three individuals as "KJVO" on the Baptist Board:
(1.) robycop3, as a joke with myself as part of the brunt of the joke more than 3 years ago. It should be fairly apparent that this description does not, in any manner, 'fit' robycop3.
(2.) Dr. Gail A. Riplinger, of whom and with many of her conclusions I strongly disagree with, although I would suggest that I show her more respect than do even many of those who do happen to agree with her conclusions, in that I refer to her by the title of "Dr." and have done so probably more than even most 'supporters' of her positions on the Baptist Board.
(3.) And askjo, where once I lumped him in with those who were of a "KJVO type."

That is the sum total of those whom I have thus "labeled" on the Baptist Board.

I did ask this of you, FTR.

A question, not one "labeled" anything. And I was 'suggesting' why you might have been labeled by some others, again, given you are the one who brought up the subject.

Exactly!

Ed

 

FTR, regardless of how one may choose to label me, my post contained no intended sarcasm, but did contain an old adage.

Ed

 

Being as you asked:

(3/22/2009)

(3/13/2009) (Note: The above quoted poster is not here identified, because sadly, he is currently not able to defend himself, on the Baptist Board. - Ed)

Part. 1

 

Neither of those statements meant I/or the person posting them were KJVO. I happen to agree that not ALL versions of Scripture are inspired. In fact ONLY the ORIGINALS were inspired. I just believe that the KJV is one of the best translations currently available, and all the arguments against it are silly. That's NOT KJVO.

 

I'm gonna take a break from posting because there are some (a lot) on here who would argue that the sky was pink if you said it was blue.

 

Part 2, continuing -

(12/17/2008)

FTR, there are multiple historical errors as well as opinions purported to be 'facts' in what Samuel Owen has posted. Also, FTR, Samuel Owens has on more than one occasion inaccurately 'accused' the 1611 edition and versions of similar vintage of having very poor spelling, I believe, refusing to recognize that the spellings in the 1611 edition, GEN, BIS, etc. were consistent with the spellings of their time.

Baptist4life, you asked for an instance of where you 'applauded' the presentation of a position that was consistent with that of a "KJVO" position. I have given three, thus -

I believe I have met your challenges to my own integrity in a fair and factual manner, in my last three posts.

Ed

 

I've never worn out a bible.
The closest I've come is a leather "New" Scofield KJV and an original NAS Reference Bible.
Now I study on my computer and only carry a printed Bible to church and study groups.

I change versions often; currently enjoying a large-print NRSV.
Rob

 

I never said otherwise. What I did say was that the position taken was consistent with that of a KJVO position.

I agree as to the originals, as well. And I would say I happen to agree that not ANY versions of Scripture are inspired, with that being strictly reserved to the autographs. However, at the same time, I fully believe the Bible to be fully inspired and inerrant, and have never once suggested anything that is any different.

As do I, else I would not recommend and use the 1967 KJV edition that I use. In addition, I suggest that the texts which lay behind the KJV and the NKJV are overall the among the very best, if not the very best around, and thus I recommend the NJKV, as well. I do take exception to the idea that there are (or even should be) some limited number of versions available or that one cannot realistically or reasonably acquire or access any 'older' version than the 1769 flavor of the KJV. The latter part was likely fairly accurate when I was in Bible College 40 years ago. It is not an accurate assessment today in 2009, thanks to such sites as studylight.org and Bible Gateway and there is even one thread currently open on this forum where one can receive access to a reported 200 English Bible versions. In addition, one can fairly easily acquire reproductions of many early versions, as well.

Well, since I don't argue 'against' the KJV, I'm not sure what to make of this phrase.

I have offered that there are some places where I believe parts of the underlying texts have little support, as found in the misnamed TR that lies behind the NT, including the Johannine comma and some other verses.

However, I have argued that I fully believe the KJV generally faithfully translates the text behind it. However, at the same time, I will and do offer that there are instances where I believe the renderings are sometimes better in other versions, in various places at various times, and have cited versions from the WYC of 1384 thru versions of the last two years, in support of this, covering a period of more than 625 years.

I submit that it is not "arguing against the KJV" to suggest that there may be better ways of rendering something, any more than it is "arguing" against the MCB or TYN to suggest that the GEN or KJV offered a better rendering than did an earlier version or conversely that the later rendering was not an improvement.

Nor I have ever said or even suggested otherwise, that I can recall.

Ed

 

NO! I asked WHERE I applauded THE KJVO POSITION!!!! NOT "consistent with the KJVO position"! Quit BENDING the truth! You say YOU use a KJV......should I applaud that, and have you use it as "an instance of where you 'applauded' the presentation of a position that was consistent with that of a "KJVO" position"?


Ed, seems like arguing is your "hobby".I prefer NOT to "play" with you anymore. Your "witness" leaves a lot to be desired IMHO. :wavey:

 

The pot is calling the kettle black again.

 

The sky is never only one color. Depending on the time of day, weather conditions, pollution factors, area etc. -- a whole variety of colors are evident. I like sunsets. You won't see much blue then.

 

What do you mean with your phrase "all the arguments against it are silly"? No one here is suggesting that the KJV is not the Word of God. On the other hand very fair criticisms have been made about mistakes within its pages.

To take the position that "all arguments against it are silly" is a zany stance. Try being less categorical with your use of "all".

 

At least be consistant in your posts. In another thread, you ripped the KJV apart for using the word evil in Isaiah 45:7. So, you do not like parts of the KJV, nor the ESV, so tell us, which standard meets your expert opinion.

 

I started with the KJV, then moved to the NIV, but found it sort of like you put it, read like a magazine or newspaper. Since then, I have been reading the NKJV. I will use the NIV and KJV to compare verses at times.

 

Excuse me but your exact quote to my remark was as follows. with the 'red underlining' being your efforts, and the black bold being your challenge. (FTR, I deny that I have bent the truth, in any manner, as the 3 posts I gave as examples were exact copies of your posts.)

The posts I listed were, in fact, 'espoused' by the three posters (two named and one unnamed) and presented 'KJVO' positions. You 'applauded' what was said.

I did not say you personally held any such position, or for that matter that you 'applauded' the KJVO position. Incidentally, I'm fairly sure no "KJVO" of whom I'm aware, is advocating the KJ-1967 over the KJ-1769, unlike my own advocacy, because of the word changes found there.

BTW, I suggest that I am in far closer agreement with the position of the KJV translators, than you appear to be, in this sense. And once again I quote you:

Now I'll quote from the Preface of the KJV.

Personally, I agree with what they said here.

I'm going to add one more tangential thing to this thread. I have never started the first thread in the Bible Versions forum, to my recollection. I have only responded to what some other has posted. I have responded for three reasons, for the most part. One is to correct historical inaccuracies. A second is usually to ask questions when someone makes a statement that is unsupported or unsupportable, IMO. And the third, and what I consider the most important, is to speak up in defense of the Bible (in whatever version) when I see the Bible being attacked.

That said, I do not pick and choose which version I shall elevate above any other, for in accord with what the KJV translators said, I also avow and affirm that the Bible in the 'meanest' version is the written Word of God.

Ed

 

I dunno of anyone who's completely abandoned the KJV in favor of another version(s). As for myself, I started on the NASV, but added more versions to my library as God allowed. However, I did not abandon the NASV; I simply switched to the NKJV as my PRIMARY version.

 

After using the KJV exclusively for almost 30 years, I still think in KJV, but IMHO the MV's usually just say it clearer for our day and age.