Textual/version stance

[Salyan]

After reading some of the dialogue on a recent post of Annie's, I'm curious as to where we all stand on the issue of texts or versions. Anyone feel like giving their :2cents?

Thanks to Bakers for the list!

[Revelation3:20]

I picked #2 but I believe #3 is correct as well.

[tired]

I picked #2 but I believe #3 is correct as well.

:thumb

[Guest Guest]

I picked #2 but I believe #3 is correct as well.

:amen:

[Jerry]

I picked #2 but I believe #3 is correct as well.

Ditto! I am not opposed to another English translation - if it was faithful and accurate. Unfortunately, there are none that fit the bill yet (and probably won't be another one before the Lord returns).

[Bakershalfdozen]

#3 is supposed to be someone who believes that the KJV is the only pure English translation and that nothing will ever replace the KJV in English no matter how archaic the 1611 language becomes. Sorry for not making that clearer. There is supposed to be a progression in stances there. :ooops

Edit: salyan, I hope you don't mind but I edited #3 so it is clearer.

[Guest Guest]

Then we better also mention what number three said to begin with or others later will not understand why we thought both were true. Before Bakeshirehalfdozen's edit #3 said: "I believe that the KJV is the only pure translation for English speakers".

[Annie]

My vote for #1 will come as a shock to no one. I do, however, have some points of disagreement with #1: First, I do not necessarily think the KJV is the "best" translation across the board. I am certainly not personally qualified to determine which is the "best" all around...I think that different versions seem to be better translations in different places, as I examine the meaning of the original languages. Another point of disagreement with #1: I do not use (only) the KJV. I like to compare the different versions (think Comparative Study Bible) as I study. I think it is neat that God has preserved His Word in different versions in our language. It's like a smorgasboard: all you can study! I do love the beautiful language of the KJV; it flows naturally in my mind, since that's the version I've studied, memorized, and meditated upon the most during my life. But I like the clarity of the more modern versions, and I must say that certain truths which were obscured (to me) by Elizabethan English have popped out at me as I've compared the different versions. And I've noticed no more apparent "contradictions" between versions than are contained in just the KJV (or the NAS or NKJV) alone. (Please understand that I am not saying that God ever contradicts Himself...hence, my use of the word apparent.)

Have at me! :tum

EDIT, EDIT, EDIT! I changed my vote to the last one. Does that qualify me as doubleminded? :wink

[John81]

Isn't the first option a lot like King James Preferred rather than KJO?

[Bakershalfdozen]

Annie, the list is supposed to be degrees of KJVO, from barely "O" to extreme "O". We do have people on this board who are not KJVO at all. I don't think salyan expected them to vote. Maybe we should add one more option, "I'm not KJVO". :frog

[Jerry]

I can prove contradictions within the NASV, the NIV and other versions - show me one single one in the King James Bible. You cannot. Not liking the wording of something is not the same as proving it wrong.

What good is a smorgasbord, running to different versions here and there - when they don't say the same thing (and you are blinded if you truly think they do!)? The KJV and the MVs ARE different. The KJV is the only Bible in current use that is solely based on the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text - the preserved Bible manuscripts.

One contradiction in the NIV (and other versions):

1 Samuel 17:48-50 (Context clearly shows this is referring to Goliath of Gath (which is what Gittite means) As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

2 Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

This is what the KJV says:

2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

How about one in the NASV:

John 7:8-10 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

This version has Jesus lying to His brothers: I am not going to the feast, then later He is there. This is what the KJV says:
John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

How about another one - this one from the RSV:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Mark 3:5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

This is what the KJV has (important little phrase that some other versions don't):

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Please show us a contradiction or even an irreconcilable difficulty in the KJV. There are none - however, there are various ones in each modern version.

[kevinmiller]

It's just her opinion, I don't think she wants to argue about it.

I joined you at number 1, Annie, though I have some disagreements with how it was worded, too. :frog

[John81]

Dr. John R. Rice, Dr. Lee Roberson and a plethora of other great pastors and evangelists were NOT KJO. Many were KJP, yet they also used other versions to one extent or another, and the Lord worked mightily through these men.

I wish my brain wasn't feeling so tired so I could list off a few more names right now.

[Bakershalfdozen]

The poll has been reworked and for some reason, has come back up with 0 votes. :puzzled: You'll have to vote again.

And WHY is the wording all scrunched up like that on the left side??? BroMatt?

[John81]

Are not the first and last rather similar? The first seems more like KJP than KJO; that being the case, the first and last could be one and the same, per se. :Green