Which translation do you use and why?

[PaladinValer]

What does personal piety have to do with determining the value of a translation? Fallacy of False Dichotomy.

 

[AVBunyan]

[T.I.C.]
Where do we see the KJV mentioned in the Bible ??
[/tongue]

It is not - the KJV or AV1611 is just a title but what is contained btween those covers are in the scriptures for it is scripture.

You won't find bathrooms or light bulbs in there either.

God bless

 

[Jon_]

You won't find bathrooms or light bulbs in there either.

Maybe the Amish had it right after all!

 

[Oblio]

It is not - the KJV or AV1611 is just a title but what is contained btween those covers are in the scriptures for it is scripture.

The exact same claim could be made for any other interpretation of Holy Scripture.

 

[CaDan]

Still waiting to hear whether Majority Text or Textus Receptus is theWORD OF GOD.

 

[PaladinValer]

Neither; Jesus is the only true Word of God

 

[CaDan]

Neither; Jesus is the only true Word of God

An unreported bit of dialog overhead on the road to Jericho:

James the Lesser: So, Jesus, are we going to make it into town tonight?
Jesus: Nope, we're gonna stop here for the night. My Colossians are killing me. And I think I strained my Haggai.
Peter: What are you talking about?
Jesus: Don't worry, it will all make sense in about 1800 years.
Peter: Uh, OK . . . . Would you tell Judas to stop calling me rock-head?
Jesus: C'mon you guys, not tonight. I've got a real pain in my Habbakuk, now.

 

[Oblio]

AV,

Just so you know, I don't have a dog in this fight, I regularily read from the KJV (with the Deutercanon ) and as a Reader in the Orthodox Church I Litugically read from it during the Divine services as do all parishes in our diocese by direction of our Bishop.

 

[Freedom&Light]

I prefer the NIV. Mostly because my Bible studies were done using the NIV.

 

[AVBunyan]

The exact same claim could be made for any other interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Is this the word of God?

Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Does Christ have an origin? I thought Christ was eternal?

The above is just one of many that cause me to say the new versions are dangerous.

Let's see what the AV says -

(KJV) Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

There are many more examples of the above.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

Is this the word of God?

AV,

I said the exact same claim could be made of others. The determination of the validity of the translation/interpretation (whether it be KJV or some other) is by definition, subjective. Some are very poor, even heretical (the NSRV for instance) in places, others are better but not perfect (KJV,RSV) but as they are all by necessity translated and interpreted into a (IMO) inferior language (English) none are without blemish.

 

[Oblio]

KJV makes a subtle omission in

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ps 50 (51) is one of the most important penitential prayers in the Church, and the KJV, using the inferior Masoretic text omits the plural in sins which is crucial to our understanding of the nature of sin and our fall from communion with God and subsequent death. Is the KJV the Word of God ?

 

[mrcrow]

For the record, I've grown up on NIV.

first bible was a good news
then i got the NKJV spirit filled hayward edition with lots of notes and word roots
for fast reading semi paraphrased i use a new century
and
i got a NIV from a charity shop as it was new..its for someone sometime
my NKJV suits me for information and a passable concordance...
the internet bibles score the most and i use the blue bible..

 

[AVBunyan]

AV,

I said the exact same claim could be made of others. The determination of the validity of the translation/interpretation (whether it be KJV or some other) is by definition, subjective. Some are very poor, even heretical (the NSRV for instance) in places, others are better but not perfect (KJV,RSV) but as they are all by necessity translated and interpreted into a (IMO) inferior language (English) none are without blemish.

The point I was making is the AV is consistent in it's defense of the deity of Christ and the blood atonement while all other versions are not - and yet many call these versions the word of God - they attack the deity of Christ!

God bless

 

[Oblio]

The point I was making is the AV is consistent in it's defense of the deity of Christ and the blood atonement while all other versions are not.

I don't believe that you or any other KJVophile has proven this, especially considering that the OT texts were taken from a anti-Christian sect of Jews who denied the very thing that you claim the KJV is consistent in. Also the use of the word atonement betrays your Western prejudices in determimining what is a valid interpretation of Scripture.

I respect your personal preference towards the KJV, but I have yet to see anyone with authority to affirm that it is either the best interpretation of the original autographs into Early Modern English, or the most faithful to the message of the Gospel.

 

[mrcrow]

i work in a christian book store...and imho the message is incomplete without a parallel verse inside..
some have this..
i wouldnt recommend the message as a bible

 

[TSIBHOD]

Well, here's the conclusion I'm stuck with. People can be close to God or far from God while they use the KJV. People can also be close to God or far from God while they use another version. I have yet to see some study where masses of people are studied, and the ones that use the KJV are found to be more holy on average. So personal holiness that individuals have seems to be unrelated to which Bible version they use. I think holiness (closeness to God, whatever you want to call it) has little to do with which version you use, but a whole lot to do with how much you pray and seek the Lord.

Where am I wrong here?

AVBunyan, I haven't seen a reply from you about this post of mine. Any comments?

What does personal piety have to do with determining the value of a translation? Fallacy of False Dichotomy.

It has to do with it in that if people can be close to God without the KJV, then obviously the KJV is not the "key" into a good relationship with God. People can be saved without the KJV, and people can be holy without the KJV.

One can present verses that are arguably "better" in the KJV, but if using that KJV doesn't make one holier, doesn't help one get saved any more than any other version would, doesn't help one understand God better, then how is it again that the KJV is better? I see no evidence that people without the KJV have on average worse prayer lives, worse doctrine, or worse--anything. So what is it that makes it better?

 

[AVBunyan]

I respect your personal preference towards the KJV, but I have yet to see anyone with authority to affirm that it is either the best interpretation of the original autographs into Early Modern English, or the most faithful to the message of the Gospel.

Let me be more direct and I trust you will give me a simple yes or no...

Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?

I showed you just one of many available examples.

Is this kind of work aceptable to you?

God bless

 

[TSIBHOD]

Let me be more direct and I trust you will give me a simple yes or no...

Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?

I showed you just one of many available examples.

Is this kind of work aceptable to you?

God bless

Your assumption is that the KJV provides more verses that show Jesus' divinity than do newer versions. I don't agree necessarily, but let's run with that assumption. Suppose I make a new version that, compared to the KJV, has even more verses that express the divinity of Christ, then I claim that your KJV came from manuscripts that omitted these references to Christ's divinity. Would that make the KJV bad?

The newer versions affirm the divinity of Jesus. There's no problem there. KJV-O people say that the other versions undermine Jesus' divinity, but the poeple that use those versions still believe in Jesus as God, so what's up with that? Why don't most NIV users believe that Jesus was just a man? Perhaps because the NIV doesn't lead one to that conclusion?

 

[Oblio]

Is it ok for a version to attack the deity of Jesus Christ and still be called the word of God or a Bible?

Is it OK for a Christian or denomination to attack the term Theotokos and hence the Divinity of Christ ?

It is not just the Bible that is the word of God.