Which translation do you use and why?

[Give'imGlory]

Old King James. Because it is'nt corrupted like all the other versions like the NIV .

 

[Borealis]

1. I could care less who authorized it or sat down and translated it - I trust the providential God of history to run things. God used two murders in the OT to write a good bit of the OT. So, this idea of men running things is a joke and unscriptural. Some of you folks need to look at the providential view of history and quit trusting in churches and committees made up of fallible men. Who authorized your Duoy Reheims but a committee made up of a bunch of men.

Incorrect. The Douay-Rheims is NOT an 'authorized' Bible; only the Vulgate bears that stamp. The Douay-Rheims is an ACCEPTED English translation.

As for churches and committees made up of fallible men, the Holy Spirit guided these men in their decisions; why do you find that so difficult to accept when you make the exact claim for your version?

Why not just compare the fruits of the AV with the fruits ofo the Duoy - history has recorded where the revivals, light, advancements, and liberty have come from.

Irrelevant. The King James Version was more widely spread because England was the dominant power throughout the world; the British Empire stretched across the entire globe. The Catholic Church wasn't doing the 'empire' thing when the Douay-Rheims came out. Not only that, but English-speaking Catholics were persecuted like crazy for a good chunk of those 400 years. The Douay-Rheims wasn't the primary Bible used; the Vulgate was the liturgical text used in all Catholic Churches up until the 1960s.

Many of you have put your trust and have turned over your conscience to mere mortal men and churches - show me from scripture where that was to be God's will. Yes, I know about Peter and the rock, etc. So, I should have never asked the question - retracked. And you are hinting that your authorities are not infallible !

How could God be fallible? Since we're clearly stating that HE is our authority, I'm not sure where this idea of yours is coming from.

Besides, you have put your trust and have turned over your conscience to an inanimate object that you have been told, by mere mortal men and churches, is the infallible Word of God. So essentially, you are arguing against yourself. The only proof you have that God 'authorized' the KJV1611 is from someone telling you. Well, I could do the exact same thing, write a translation and claim that it is the infallible and authentic Word of God, and you would have absolutely no argument except, 'Well, my book is right and yours is wrong.'

Since you brought up the AV being authorized by men then I post this old article:

It's irrelevant; the AV was authorized by a man, King James, who authorized it as the liturgical text for the Anglican Church. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. And this article was basically just a series of misconceptions of what irritates us about KJV-onlyists.

2. Borealis - I wouldn't think you would be the type to bring up such a false misrepresentation of my view. We who believe the AV do not worship a book - we esteem the book but do not worship a book - we worship the God who wrote those words and find God's words most precious and we are thankful to have those precious words that we can read. Do you have them?

Of course I do. I have the NAB, and the Douay-Rheims. And as my Latin improves, I'll have the Vulgate. I'm doing just fine, thanks.

Now - you alluded to me worshipping a book because I place such an emphasis on the book. I could say the same to you in that I could say you worship men for a church and committee is made up of men and it appears that you are putting your trust and confidence in men. But, honestly I don't believe you worship men.

Good, because I'm tired of explaining it to people. As Philip said, the authority for Catholics and Orthodox is Christ and Christ's Church that HE founded. He promised to guide the Church through eternity with truth. Unless you want to say He's a liar, that still stands.

My confidence is in the God behind the men he has used.

So is mine. But you didn't state that; you said, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the Book itself was your authority.

I've said this so much it is even getting old even to me but.....if your final authority is Jesus Christ then good the.....

How do you know what Jesus Christ says?

I can read.

[QUOTEMy final authority is God also but the difference between me and thee is...

I believe God's words are preserved for us today to read and study are found in a King James Bible or any modern versions based upon the King James Bible or the manuscripts it was translated from.

I firmly disagree, because the KJV was written under the auspices of an anti-Catholic English king. So I'll stick to the Douay-Rheims and the NAB.

 

[Oblio]

Why not just compare the fruits of the AV with the fruits ofo the Duoy - history has recorded where the revivals, light, advancements, and liberty have come from.

This is a vacuous argument. How about we compare the fruits of 2000 years of Greek Saints and 1100 years of Slavic Saints and 1700 years of Georgian Saints and so on who have never seen or read the KJV.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Or how about all the protestant fundamentalist Christians in the 1800's that used the KJV to rationalize slavery............that's not great fruit.

 

[AVBunyan]

This is a vacuous argument. How about we compare the fruits of 2000 years of Greek Saints and 1100 years of Slavic Saints and 1700 years of Georgian Saints and so on who have never seen or read the KJV.

Because the question I asked was why not compare the fruits of the AV with the Douy? I didn't ask to compare the fruits of your request.

Oblio - you have a pattern of many times avoiding my questions or topic directly. Just say you don't want to or cannot or don't have the time to, or just not informed on it, etc. I'm easy to get along with.

That is another topic idea so why not start i?

Later

 

[Oblio]

Because the question I asked was why not compare the fruits of the AV with the Douy? I didn't ask to compare the fruits of your request.

My point was to show that comparing KJVophiles fruits with others has no bearing on the validity of the version. It is Christ in us who does the good works, not the Bible that a Christian reads.

 

[AVBunyan]

My point was to show that comparing KJVophiles fruits with others has no bearing on the validity of the version. It is Christ in us who does the good works, not the Bible that a Christian reads.

I agree - Christ is the focal point (Col. 1:18) but Christ and the Spirit uses the words of God. Again, I have shown the Salvation and Bible thread the impact of the word of God on the sinner and saint - I cite two previous example and leave it there:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 Pet 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

God bless

 

[Andyman_1970]

AV, just to place the two passages you cite with reference to "God's Word" in relation to salvation in their correct cultural and historical context - to the author of Hebrews and Peter God's Word was the Old Testament as the Bible as we know it today was not cannonized at the time Peter and the author of Hebrews wrote that letter/epistle.

 

[TSIBHOD]

AVBunyan, answer me a question here. You've been ignoring most of what I've said and answering other people. Are my questions too hard?

Anyway, does reading the KJV make one a better Christian than reading any other version does?

 

[Jec]

NIV is a fine translation but I would liek to have a NKJv though...

 

[AVBunyan]

1. AVBunyan, answer me a question here. You've been ignoring most of what I've said and answering other people. Are my questions too hard?

2. Anyway, does reading the KJV make one a better Christian than reading any other version does?

1. Tsibhod - I apologize if I missed something - if you have noticed I have tried in the past to answer most of what is directed towards me. But if you notice I usually have 4 or 5 folks asking me questions due to my posts and I guess I just miss some - my bad. If I don't have an answer I don't have a problem saying, "Dont' know - you got me!"

And I never said I have all the answers - tough and difficult subject matter to deal with. All my questions do not get answered either so I understand how you feel - not fun.

Please allow me another chance. Ask me the questions again - I may be busy this weekend but will try to get to them if I'm not too swamped tomorrow. Fair enough?

2. Yes, I do believe the KJV is better food can make a better or more grounded saint - sounds hard but I liken this to a diet. Saints can live off of fast foods - but their health is bound to suffer. But, if their diet was from better food and a more nutritional then their growth will be stronger.

Let me explain from another angle.

A carnal saint who realy doesn't believe the KJV to be the word of God takes the KJV and reads it but doesn't really believe it and does not act upon it out of faith - will he get much? I don't think so. Having a KJV only gurantees he has a good meal but it will not profit him too well.

Gotta run.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

A carnal saint who realy doesn't believe the KJV to be the word of God takes the KJV and reads it but doesn't really believe it and does not act upon it out of faith - will he get much?

Come on AV, that is a pile of straw and a variant of the True Scotsman fallacy all rolled into one. I have yet to see anyone here proclaim that the KJV is not Holy Scripture or not really believe it. What we object to is the elitest attitude that it is the only, or best vesrsion of Holy Scripture, for it is neither. It is a version, for English speaking Christians that prefer the prose and style of Early Modern English (never spoken while the KJV was in print BTW).

 

[AVBunyan]

Come on AV, that is a pile of straw and a variant of the True Scotsman fallacy all rolled into one. I have yet to see anyone here proclaim that the KJV is not Holy Scripture or not really believe it. What we object to is the elitest attitude that it is the only, or best vesrsion of Holy Scripture, for it is neither. It is a version, for English speaking Christians that prefer the prose and style of Early Modern English (never spoken while the KJV was in print BTW).

Look Oblio - I was trying to show that there are some folks who read it but it doesn't profit them thus showing even though one has an AV is no gurantee to spirituality. It takes more than just holdinig it in one's hand.

I've taken your remarks concerning the book God has blessed for over 350 years, I've listened to all your reasons why it it isn't God's perfect word (been hearing it now for over 22 years) and have tolerated it but you weary me Oblio - I'm not budging on my stance and you are not either.

Maybe it is best you not respond to me anymroe and I will not respond to you.

 

[Borealis]

I've taken your remarks concerning the book God has blessed for over 350 years, I've listened to all your reasons why it it isn't God's perfect word (been hearing it now for over 22 years) and have tolerated it but you weary me Oblio - I'm not budging on my stance and you are not either.

I'm curious why you would believe that the KJV, written in one of the most awkward languages the human race has yet devised, would be 'perfect.' English is a horribly uncomfortable language, and always has been, for a couple of reasons. One, it's an amalgam of two language groups: Latin (through Norman French) and Anglo-Saxon, which are not really all that compatible together.

Second, its grammatical structure has always been very limited. One word can mean any of a dozen different things, depending on how the listener or reader chooses to intepret them. The proof of this is evident in the multitude of Protestant faiths who all choose to interpret the Bible in their own way, yet insist that their interpretation is the correct one.

So why would God choose this limited, horribly awkward language as the 'perfect' way to reveal His Word to the world? If 'perfection of language' is any basis, then German, Latin or Greek would seem to be far better linguistic vessels, being much clearer in meanings and more structured in its grammar.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Please allow me another chance. Ask me the questions again - I may be busy this weekend but will try to get to them if I'm not too swamped tomorrow. Fair enough?

Yes, fair enough.

2. Yes, I do believe the KJV is better food can make a better or more grounded saint - sounds hard but I liken this to a diet. Saints can live off of fast foods - but their health is bound to suffer. But, if their diet was from better food and a more nutritional then their growth will be stronger.

Let me explain from another angle.

A carnal saint who realy doesn't believe the KJV to be the word of God takes the KJV and reads it but doesn't really believe it and does not act upon it out of faith - will he get much? I don't think so. Having a KJV only gurantees he has a good meal but it will not profit him too well.

Okay. Now, believe me, if I saw that the KJV helped people more than any other version did, then I would believe as you do. However, in my experience, those who use other versions don't seem to have worse spiritual health than do those who use the KJV. How does this look in your experience?

 

[AVBunyan]

So why would God choose this limited, horribly awkward language as the 'perfect' way to reveal His Word to the world?

Regardless of its apparent awkwardness, etc. God used the book in the hands of missionaries, preachers and evangelists for over 300 years and did miraculous works with the Holy Spirit using this one book or foreign translations based on the AV..

The cannibals in the south pacific had no problems with it.
The uneducated coal miners of England and Wales in the 17t and 18th century had no problems with it.
The Chinese during the late 1800's and ealry 1900's seemed to get along ok.
George Whitfield, John Welsey, Sam Jones, DL Moody, CH Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, and others won sinners by the millions - the sinners they preached to had no problems with it.
The Puritans of the late 1600's got a lot writings and boooks published by using that ole archaic language.
John Bunyan was an uneducated tinker and he did ok with it.
My children don't seem to have an issue with it.
William Carey took it to India and had a little success (being sarcastic).

I don't see many revivals where the Douy went - South America, Philiipines, Spain, Italy, Mexico, etc. - still in darkness for the most part except for when a missionary showed up with a King James Bible.

How come so many millions got saved and were raised on that one book and they didn't complain but all you modern, educated folks have such a problem with it? This stuff about archaic and clumsy, etc. is nonsense, excuses and poor at that. God is not fooled.

Look what those old saints did with a KJV in the past and look at what we are producing now with all these modern version? You are not going to tell me saints are more spiritual today than back then are you - have you never read history?

I'll never convince you folks - but maybe someone who is readin but not posting will see the shallowness of your reasoning.

Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

The word of God is for the simple - I guess you folks are fancy so you don't need the book that God used.

1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,

Ya'll have a nice evening now

 

[TSIBHOD]

AV, you've talked about people having better missionary results with the KJV or translations off of it. But must the KJV be the reason? Let us suppose that those who used the KJV have a better track record than those who use other versions. (Keep in mind that you've mentioned some people who have used the KJV, but you didn't mention anyone who didn't use the KJV, so we have no real evidence there yet.) But supposing that, it still might be another cause that makes this effect, correct?

Do you think it's possible for more than one version in a language to be correct?

 

[Theophorus]

How come so many millions got saved and were raised on that one book and they didn't complain but all you modern, educated folks have such a problem with it? This stuff about archaic and clumsy, etc. is nonsense, excuses and poor at that. God is not fooled.

I would agree with you here AV. Though I am not KJV only in my views, one of the reasons I prefer it is because it is not awkward and clumsy. Many of the modern versions seem more so. But again I started with the KJV, so when I pick up say the NASB, I quickly lose my patience. I think I would rather have a root canal than be forced to read that.

 

[JohnJones]

Why should we drop the word of God, as used by Christ and His Apostles [the LXX]. It has been with us for 1800 years rather than the 'ancient' 400 year old KJV.

Correct me if I am wrong, Oblio my dear friend, but it is my understanding that the LXX only exists in two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (and in the Latin Vulgate translation). These two manuscripts were lost from right before the beginning of the 5th century to the 1840s--how is it that they can claim to have "been with us"--no one even knew they existed! But now that they've "appeared" we are supposed to believe that they are right? The Vaticanus copy of the "LXX" and the Sinaiticus "LXX" can't even agree on whether or not Mathusalah outlived the flood by 14 years or not! Yet, we are supposed to trust them? Which one? Vaticanus or Sinaiticus? You may say "Well, what of the Vulgate?" Its just too bad that Latin can't differentiate between the words "his" and "hers" or I might trust it a bit more than I do.

Incorrect. The Douay-Rheims is NOT an 'authorized' Bible; only the Vulgate bears that stamp. The Douay-Rheims is an ACCEPTED English translation.

This is a questionable statement to say the least. A couple of points (1) The NAB usually has printed on the side "Official Catholic Bible" for SOME reason (2) The Catholic church no longer uses the SAME Vulgate--the traditional Vulgate, i.e. the Clementine Vulgate has been replaced by the Nova Vulgate (NEW Vulgate) which is merely a translation into Latin of the UBS 4th or 6th Greek text. In this sense it isn't really a Vulgate at all (since Latin wasn't a "vulgar" language in the 60s when it was made and that's what Vulgate means) and also it can in no wise claim descent from Jerome because it is a NEW translation.

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

Attacking the term Theotokos is NOT an attack on the Deity of Christ. Rather it is an attack on the notion that Mary is the mother of the Father or of the Holy Ghost. I know Catholics who actually think that the Father and Holy Ghost were born of Mary, sadly. The term Mother of the Son of God would be acceptable (I don't know how that would be rendered in Greek [Huiostheoutokos?]) but Mother of God is not. It causes the ignorant1 to be confused into thinking that the Father and Holy Ghost are begotten. (1) ignorant here means "unlearned" not "stupid" and has reference to individuals, not any specific group

 

[Oblio]

Attacking the term Theotokos is NOT an attack on the Deity of Christ. Rather it is an attack on the notion that Mary is the mother of the Father or of the Holy Ghost.
It causes the ignorant to be confused into thinking that the Father and Holy Ghost are begotten.

This shows that you are both ignorant term Theotokos and of Church history and why the term was affirmed in Ecumenical Council.

Correct me if I am wrong, Oblio my dear friend, but it is my understanding that the LXX only exists in two manuscripts,

The Orthodox Church has been using the LXX since she was born on Pentecost 33AD, I was not aware that we have lost the OT during that time.