Jordan Kurecki

Well, your statements sure do appeal to emotion. But what about God's word?
I am sorry you had to go through that, and I am glad by the grace and mercy of God he has allowed you to be married to a man who loves the Lord. 
However, just because God has been merciful and gracious to you does not mean he endorses remarriage or divorce. 
I got saved because a guy did drugs with me and witnessed to me, God was gracious and merciful, but the fact that I got saved does not mean God approved of my friends behavior and the way he was living.

Hi Jordan,
I purchased the book that you recommended and read it through.  I found it helpful in the sense that it presented some angles to the issue that I had not heard before.  It didn't change my position but was helpful in understanding some of the contrary positions that are taken.
 
Thank you.

Matt, I have probably spent way too much time researching bibles and I have personally owned many many different bibles over the years. 


For just a preaching bible, I would 100% recommend the Thomas Nelson Preaching Bible, the cover is a durable genuine leather, the paper is premium quality, and the typography and layout are superb. 

https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-preaching-bible-review/

The Maclaren is a slightly cheaper less premium edition of the preaching bible above:

https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-maclaren-series-bible-review/

Also good is the Thomas Nelson Sovereign Collection, this one is smaller, compact, but has an amazing typographical layout. 

https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-sovereign-collection-bible-review/

I really am partial to anything published by Thomas Nelson, in my opinion lately their layouts and typography are incredible. I also really like their cross reference system because it has synonyms for archaic words in the margins. 

I do NOT recommend anything from Local Church Bible Publishers or Church Bible Publishers, the only thing they have going for them is that they use nice leather, but their paper quality is seriously subpar, their bibles usually have bad ghosting, and the typography in my opinion is just ugly and the fonts they use are ugly. Some people like that old classic look but I can’t stand it. 

As for Leather, Typically Genuine Leather/Cowhide and Goatskin are them out durable, Lambskin is super soft but it’s really not that durable. 

If your looking for recommendations for a study Bible, Ryrie is the one I would recommend, he is very balanced and his has a really nice layout where cross references are in the outer margins, he was Baptistic and Dispensational. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdwuDYtWew&t=3s

The other Study Bible I would recommend is the Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible, the genuine leather is high quality, and the notes are from an Independent Baptist perspective (was published by Liberty University in the 70s) The typography and layout is amazing and it has full color pictures, charts, etc. The only negative is it’s pretty large. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT0X2uDD2xs

If your just looking for something to preach from, I recommend the Thomas Nelson Preaching Bible. Or alternatively anything from the Thomas Nelson Premier Collection. Anything in the Thomas Nelson Premier Collection has high quality leather, paper, and typography. Once you start using one of the New Thomas Nelson’s you won’t want to use anything else. 
This bible has Ruckmanite notes in it.

God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. 

God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver. 

I will say that I have known girls who wore dresses and skirts that I would not consider to be sweet and submissive and I have known ladies who have worn pants that were very sweet and submissive. 

There is a big difference between what you personally feel God wants you to do as an individual, and someone claiming an objective fact based on their own “conviction”. 
I suppose the important question is what is ones “conviction” based on. 
Ones “convictions” might not necessarily correlate with reality always. Just because someone has a “conviction” does not make something factually true. 
 
Often peoples “convictions” are based on the current (and sometimes false or misleading) knowledge that we have. There are many people who have “convictions” that are nothing more than them adopting and following the examples they have seen modeled or taught to them by a respected source. These sources may or may not be correct at times. In other words we ought to be careful what we base our convictions on. 
I guess my point is personal convictions have no bearing on what is or is not true. I mean you having a conviction about something has zero binding authority on any one else nor does your conviction necessarily determine reality.
There is a huge difference between having a conviction that you should personally use the KJV and the KJV is perfect. 
You feeling like you should exclusively use the KJV is not making a declaration about truth or reality for others. I have zero problems with that. 
 
Its quite different to assert that the KJV is perfect based on a conviction and to state that conviction as if it has any kind of authority to declare reality or determine truth.

There is a big difference between what you personally feel God wants you to do as an individual, and someone claiming an objective fact based on their own “conviction”. 
I suppose the important question is what is ones “conviction” based on. 
Ones “convictions” might not necessarily correlate with reality always. Just because someone has a “conviction” does not make something factually true. 
 
Often peoples “convictions” are based on the current (and sometimes false or misleading) knowledge that we have. There are many people who have “convictions” that are nothing more than them adopting and following the examples they have seen modeled or taught to them by a respected source. These sources may or may not be correct at times. In other words we ought to be careful what we base our convictions on. 
I guess my point is personal convictions have no bearing on what is or is not true. I mean you having a conviction about something has zero binding authority on any one else nor does your conviction necessarily determine reality.
There is a huge difference between having a conviction that you should personally use the KJV and the KJV is perfect. 
You feeling like you should exclusively use the KJV is not making a declaration about truth or reality for others. I have zero problems with that. 
 
Its quite different to assert that the KJV is perfect based on a conviction and to state that conviction as if it has any kind of authority to declare reality or determine truth.

Also personal revelation would be God in no uncertain way declaring to you infallible truth. Revelation is infalible whereas ones personal convictions can be based on a number of things such as application of scriptural principle, logic, knowledge, etc. Revelation is not fallible while ones convictions certainly are fallible.

I think no.2 you listed is hard to say. What is the difference between conviction  and personal revelation? 

I am convicted that the KJV is the one I should use. God has revealed in my heart that I should turn to his word through the one faucet he has prepared for me… Now I don’t think it’s sin to use another even as I believe God has prepared me a proper version for me, in this day and age.
I suppose a question to you, is it wrong to be convicted in this manner? If so why

God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. 

God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver. 

So then, those who DO believe that God has preserved His Holy Word in and through a given translation need to provide Scriptural support that the Lord our God did indeed promise to preserve His Word through translations.  If this can be done, then a given translation may be presented as fulfilling this divine promise (if it fulfills the Biblical requirements for such).  However, if this cannot be done, then claiming such for any given translation goes beyond the specific doctrine that is taught in God's Holy Word concerning preservation.

While I agree with your statement, I must first find out why a person is obese, is it from gluttony or a medical condition. I'm pretty sure gluttony is what you were referring to in which I agree. 
As part of my message a few weeks back I talked about gluttony, a few comments came from the crowd that said, "Oh, boy...here we go".  It's a sin in the Bible, I'll preach it just as hard as other sins.

I have never understood why tobacco is viewed in the same vain as things like fornication or drunkenness and what not. 

Not that I think smoking is really the best thing for people.

I don't understand why it's acceptable for someone to be 300 pounds and obese and no one says anything, but if someone smokes they are treated as if they are a fornicator. 

 

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating.  You have again revealed your priorities.  
By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy.  (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught  is NOT an argument against this provision.)  This is the manner by which God made it possible for me to learn their importance and meaning.  This is the manner by which God has made it possible for me to teach others concerning their importance and meaning.
You, on the other hand, do not seem to care, but only seem to want to avoid the subject of their accuracy.  (Note: At this point I remain very uncertain that you even know the grammatical significance/meaning of those pronouns.)

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.
My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.
With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

Thanks. Unfortunately, that would not be the proper way to translate to the other language. You would want someone who is a linguist to translate from the original Greek/Hebrew to get the most accurate translation. A lot is lost when you translate from one language to another and it is always best to go back to the original language.

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

That’s not what the Gospel of John says 
John 20:30-31 KJV
[30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
 

So that there is understanding of my own position here - I would agree with the above comment.  There are likely to be many words which some would classify as "archaic" that are viewed as such simply because of societal ignorance.  However, as I stated in my posting above to Brother Young, I am still compelled to acknowledge that there are indeed some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  To give an example - Ending verbs with "th" is now an "archaic" element of the English language.  Do I believe that this "archaic" element hinders understanding overmuch.  No, I do not.  Yet I am still compelled to acknowledge the fact that it is an "archaic" element.  
By the way, I myself do NOT believe that an "update" is of much value in the present day; and I would NOT likely be interested in supporting such an effort or using such a product.  The primary reason is that the controversy over the matter of translations has grown far too large for yet another revision/update attempt.  Even more, this controversy exists because the deception of false translations has grown beyond measure in our time.  I do not see that it is valuable for us to add yet more to the mix, but to remain firmly planted on a foundation of proven ground (even if it requires a little extra effort in Bible study and Bible learning).
So then, why did I even engage the matter of "archaisms"?  I did so because from my perspective the existence of some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation is a FACT.  Even so, (from my perspective) denying or ignoring facts on a subject can only skew a legitimate consideration and understanding of that subject.

I have no interest in discussing something with someone who wants to keep caricaturing my position as being more concerned with catering to the reader than accuracy of word choice. You keep asserting this false either or fallacy and It’s quite annoying.
The whole point of Bible Translation in the first place is to put the words of God from Hebrew and Greek into language understood by the reader. 
 
Not one single person in this thread has advocated for making any changes that would diminish meaning, yet you keep making unfounded accusations that those in favor of any kind of update simply don’t care about accuracy. Just because you keep repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.