I am leaning in an almost total AV direction.

et · #1 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 02:56 PM

For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.

Blueridge Believer · #2 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:02 PM

I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS

et · #3 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS

Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.

CDM · #4 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS

Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.

That's right. The Westminster Confession does.

And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

VirginiaHuguenot · #5 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS

Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.

That's right. The Westminster Confession does.

And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

BTW, Dr. Hills' widow is a member of the Presbyterian Reformed Church (Des Moines, IA congregation).

CDM · #6 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.

That's right. The Westminster Confession does.

And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

BTW, Dr. Hills' widow is a member of the Presbyterian Reformed Church (Des Moines, IA congregation).

I did not know that. Excellent.

et · #7 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS

Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.

That's right. The Westminster Confession does.

And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

Thank you and good points, the lofty English in the AV does under-gird some great Confessions. I like also the fact that it was a Puritan and Anglican effort, this makes it interesting from a Historic perspective.

et · #8 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.

That's right. The Westminster Confession does.

And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

BTW, Dr. Hills' widow is a member of the Presbyterian Reformed Church (Des Moines, IA congregation).

Cool! Hills was amazing! If I am not in error he held degrees from 3 Ivy's!?!

Barnpreacher · #9 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.

What encouraged you to get a hold of Grady's book, if you don't mind me asking? I am familiar with Grady from my dispensational, fundamental days. I heard him speak on a couple of different occasions. He's an interesting fellow. His methods and ways are very much like those of Peter Ruckman's. Which is why you'll find those two in the same circle. With that said, he has a lot of knowledge concerning the modern version issue. I use the AV, but I definitely don't go to the extremes that I used to when I ran around in the Ruckman/Grady circle. When I say I don't go to the extremes I used to I still believe the AV is the preserved Word of God for the english speaking people. What I don't believe that it does is correct the Greek text like some do.

raderag · #10 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.

Just out of curiosity, is he coming at this from a Textus Receptus(TR) point of view?
Does he believe there should be modern translation scholarship?
Is it the existence or the quality of the new ones that he has a problem with?
What about the translations, as obscure as they may be, that use the TR only?

JonathanHunt · #11 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:50 PM

It is certainly my position that the MT/TR are the best texts, I love the AV, but I personally have no problem with using the NKJV, which uses these.

VirginiaHuguenot · #12 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

That's right. The Westminster Confession does.

And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.

BTW, Dr. Hills' widow is a member of the Presbyterian Reformed Church (Des Moines, IA congregation).

Cool! Hills was amazing! If I am not in error he held degrees from 3 Ivy's!?!

Indeed! You can read some biographical and bibliographical information about Hills here and here.

et · #13 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.

What encouraged you to get a hold of Grady's book, if you don't mind me asking? I am familiar with Grady from my dispensational, fundamental days. I heard him speak on a couple of different occasions. He's an interesting fellow. His methods and ways are very much like those of Peter Ruckman's. Which is why you'll find those two in the same circle. With that said, he has a lot of knowledge concerning the modern version issue. I use the AV, but I definitely don't go to the extremes that I used to when I ran around in the Ruckman/Grady circle.

Chuckle, good question (and fair), I really found Grady on Amazon. As I said.......in his Theology I take him with a shaker of salt, in this book he does a nice job in pointing to why the AV should not be lightly abandoned by God's people. As far as Ruckman, I have read and heard old "Pete", I do not find Grady to be as extreme in terms of advanced revelation and things of that nature. I am sort of pulling the meat from the bones with Dr. Grady, when he makes a good poind I mark it, if he goes on a tangent I ignore it. Overall the book has been helpful, I am sure there re better ones.

Blueridge Believer · #14 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 03:58 PM

I use the KJV. However I am currently finishing the OT in the 1599 Geneva and starting the NT again in the same. I really enjoy reading in the Geneva. I have given a few NKJV's to some younger people who have had no experience with the AV since the NT text of the NKJV is the TR.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #15 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 04:05 PM

Here is another great resource. Jay P. Green turned me on to it.

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm

et · #16 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.

Just out of curiosity, is he coming at this from a Textus Receptus(TR) point of view?
Does he believe there should be modern translation scholarship?
Is it the existence or the quality of the new ones that he has a problem with?
What about the translations, as obscure as they may be, that use the TR only?

To be honest I am unsure of Dr. Grady's opinions on some of these things. I have not read all of the book yet ( my wife put on her sleep-mask last night which means "Close the book and go to bed!") I will finish it soon.

Blueridge Believer · #17 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

Here is another great resource. Jay P. Green turned me on to it.

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm

Brother Gary at DTL has some great stuff on his site.

et · #18 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

Here is another great resource. Jay P. Green turned me on to it.

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm

Brother Gary at DTL has some great stuff on his site.

Yes, Gary has some good solid article! I like his site!

et · #19 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:18 PM

I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and ESV are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.

raderag · #20 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and NASB are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.

I can respect that position, but I think new translations are important so that we don't loose the ability as a Church to put Scripture into the vulgar languages. Eventually, the KJV will be in a dead language(it may be now, but I don't know), and the Church will need to translate it into the contemporary ones. Most of the KJVO people ignore this since the world will end tomorrow anyway.

et · #21 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and NASB are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.

I can respect that position, but I think new translations are important so that we don't loose the ability as a Church to put Scripture into the vulgar languages. Eventually, the KJV will be in a dead language(it may be now, but I don't know), and the Church will need to translate it into the contemporary ones. Most of the KJVO people ignore this since the world will end tomorrow anyway.

Those who are not Elect and Chosen and touched with the Holy Spirit will not understand any Bible no matter how common (vulgar) they cannot understand Spiritual things.

raderag · #22 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and NASB are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.

I can respect that position, but I think new translations are important so that we don't loose the ability as a Church to put Scripture into the vulgar languages. Eventually, the KJV will be in a dead language(it may be now, but I don't know), and the Church will need to translate it into the contemporary ones. Most of the KJVO people ignore this since the world will end tomorrow anyway.

Those who are not Elect and Chosen and touched with the Holy Spirit will not understand any Bible no matter how common (vulgar) they cannot understand Spiritual things.

Didn't that totally miss my point?

So, if I read you a Bible in Chinese, you won't understand it why? Because you aren't elect?

et · #23 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

I can respect that position, but I think new translations are important so that we don't loose the ability as a Church to put Scripture into the vulgar languages. Eventually, the KJV will be in a dead language(it may be now, but I don't know), and the Church will need to translate it into the contemporary ones. Most of the KJVO people ignore this since the world will end tomorrow anyway.

Those who are not Elect and Chosen and touched with the Holy Spirit will not understand any Bible no matter how common (vulgar) they cannot understand Spiritual things.

Didn't that totally miss my point?

So, if I read you a Bible in Chinese, you won't understand it why? Because you aren't elect?

Don't be sarcastic! I was being polite, please try to be civil yourself I was speaking in a VERY GENERAL sense in which the people of God hear the words of God.

raderag · #24 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Those who are not Elect and Chosen and touched with the Holy Spirit will not understand any Bible no matter how common (vulgar) they cannot understand Spiritual things.

Didn't that totally miss my point?

So, if I read you a Bible in Chinese, you won't understand it why? Because you aren't elect?

Don't be sarcastic! I was being polite, please try to be civil yourself I was speaking in a VERY GENERAL sense in which the people of God hear the words of God.

Hi There, sorry if I came across as sarcastic, but I was just trying to make a point. I think this is an important enough issue in that it required some amount of sarcasm. Like I said, you totally ignored my point.

et · #25 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Didn't that totally miss my point?

So, if I read you a Bible in Chinese, you won't understand it why? Because you aren't elect?

Don't be sarcastic! I was being polite, please try to be civil yourself I was speaking in a VERY GENERAL sense in which the people of God hear the words of God.

Hi There, sorry if I came across as sarcastic, but I was just trying to make a point. I think this is an important enough issue in that it required some amount of sarcasm. Like I said, you totally ignored my point.

I am sorry as well Brother, we were both trying to make points and it seemed like a collision. I assume your Theology is Reformed or you would not wish to be here. I am sorry to you I did not state my position very well, it is something I think we would agree on. All I was doing was pointing out the fact is unregenerate man cannot TRULY "understand" Holy Writ even if you wrote at the level of USA Today (they might have some fleshly mental grasp, but not a spirital grasp.) I assume you would not argue with that, it is Scritural.

kvanlaan · #26 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 08:03 PM

What I don't get is why Engelsma doesn't touch on the Geneva at all. When looking at the KJV vs. the Geneva, where does the Geneva not measure up?

et · #27 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

What I don't get is why Engelsma doesn't touch on the Geneva at all. When looking at the KJV vs. the Geneva, where does the Geneva not measure up?

The translation work in general and the OT in particular was better done in the AV. That said in a lot of cases there were few changes, but in "general" AV is considered more accurate than the Geneva.

raderag · #28 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Don't be sarcastic! I was being polite, please try to be civil yourself I was speaking in a VERY GENERAL sense in which the people of God hear the words of God.

Hi There, sorry if I came across as sarcastic, but I was just trying to make a point. I think this is an important enough issue in that it required some amount of sarcasm. Like I said, you totally ignored my point.

I am sorry as well Brother, we were both trying to make points and it seemed like a collision. I assume your Theology is Reformed or you would not wish to be here. I am sorry to you I did not state my position very well, it is something I think we would agree on. All I was doing was pointing out the fact is unregenerate man cannot TRULY "understand" Holy Writ even if you wrote at the level of USA Today (they might have some fleshly mental grasp, but not a spirital grasp.) I assume you would not argue with that, it is Scritural.

No problem on this side. I agreed with your statement, but not as an acceptable answer to my question about modern scholarship. BTW, I adhere to the WCF.

et · #29 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Hi There, sorry if I came across as sarcastic, but I was just trying to make a point. I think this is an important enough issue in that it required some amount of sarcasm. Like I said, you totally ignored my point.

I am sorry as well Brother, we were both trying to make points and it seemed like a collision. I assume your Theology is Reformed or you would not wish to be here. I am sorry to you I did not state my position very well, it is something I think we would agree on. All I was doing was pointing out the fact is unregenerate man cannot TRULY "understand" Holy Writ even if you wrote at the level of USA Today (they might have some fleshly mental grasp, but not a spirital grasp.) I assume you would not argue with that, it is Scritural.

No problem on this side. I agreed with your statement, but not as an acceptable answer to my question about modern scholarship. BTW, I adhere to the WCF.

I was struggling with trying to write without any sleep! Not always a good combo on the board! As far as modern scholarship my opinion (humble and tired), would go like this, I truly do feel that the Ben Chayyim OT and the TR are God's word's preserved, now as to a new translation.....it would have to be based upon said texts and it would require the blessings of God. Right now I think only the AV meets this. 7 years from now.....who can say? Is anything to hard for the Lord! He might well indeed bless us with a translation that is all the AV is and is more modern.

raderag · #30 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

I am sorry as well Brother, we were both trying to make points and it seemed like a collision. I assume your Theology is Reformed or you would not wish to be here. I am sorry to you I did not state my position very well, it is something I think we would agree on. All I was doing was pointing out the fact is unregenerate man cannot TRULY "understand" Holy Writ even if you wrote at the level of USA Today (they might have some fleshly mental grasp, but not a spirital grasp.) I assume you would not argue with that, it is Scritural.

No problem on this side. I agreed with your statement, but not as an acceptable answer to my question about modern scholarship. BTW, I adhere to the WCF.

I was struggling with trying to write without any sleep! Not always a good combo on the board! As far as modern scholarship my opinion (humble and tired), would go like this, I truly do feel that the Ben Chayyim OT and the TR are God's word's preserved, now as to a new translation.....it would have to be based upon said texts and it would require the blessings of God. Right now I think only the AV meets this. 7 years from now.....who can say? Is anything to hard for the Lord! He might well indeed bless us with a translation that is all the AV is and is more modern.

I can respect that coming from an Anglican, but is that the only Church that would have the authority to authorize it?

et · #31 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

No problem on this side. I agreed with your statement, but not as an acceptable answer to my question about modern scholarship. BTW, I adhere to the WCF.

I was struggling with trying to write without any sleep! Not always a good combo on the board! As far as modern scholarship my opinion (humble and tired), would go like this, I truly do feel that the Ben Chayyim OT and the TR are God's word's preserved, now as to a new translation.....it would have to be based upon said texts and it would require the blessings of God. Right now I think only the AV meets this. 7 years from now.....who can say? Is anything to hard for the Lord! He might well indeed bless us with a translation that is all the AV is and is more modern.

I can respect that coming from an Anglican, but is that the only Church that would have the authority to authorize it?

Brother, our Shepherd knows his sheep, that is the true Church! I have met Apostate Anglicans and Apostate Presbyterians. I never did say anything about an Anglican Authorization. The AV was an Anglican/ Puritan effort! The seal on it was the blessing of Our God for 400 years. Nothing to sneeze at. I am part of the "true" Church, but it is because I was Baptized into Christ........not Cranmer nor Calvin.

raderag · #32 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

I was struggling with trying to write without any sleep! Not always a good combo on the board! As far as modern scholarship my opinion (humble and tired), would go like this, I truly do feel that the Ben Chayyim OT and the TR are God's word's preserved, now as to a new translation.....it would have to be based upon said texts and it would require the blessings of God. Right now I think only the AV meets this. 7 years from now.....who can say? Is anything to hard for the Lord! He might well indeed bless us with a translation that is all the AV is and is more modern.

I can respect that coming from an Anglican, but is that the only Church that would have the authority to authorize it?

Brother, our Shepherd knows his sheep, that is the true Church! I have met Apostate Anglicans and Apostate Presbyterians. I never did say anything about an Anglican Authorization. The AV was an Anglican/ Puritan effort! The seal on it was the blessing of Our God for 400 years. Nothing to sneeze at. I am part of the "true" Church, but it is because I was Baptized into Christ........not Cranmer nor Calvin.

I agree, although I'm not sure if I think the AV is the only acceptable or even the best version.

et · #33 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

I can respect that coming from an Anglican, but is that the only Church that would have the authority to authorize it?

Brother, our Shepherd knows his sheep, that is the true Church! I have met Apostate Anglicans and Apostate Presbyterians. I never did say anything about an Anglican Authorization. The AV was an Anglican/ Puritan effort! The seal on it was the blessing of Our God for 400 years. Nothing to sneeze at. I am part of the "true" Church, but it is because I was Baptized into Christ........not Cranmer nor Calvin.

I agree, although I'm not sure if I think the AV is the only acceptable or even the best version.

Once again my friend I duly noted in an eary post that I am not part of the KJO lunatic fringe, I never said (nor would I say) it is the only acceptable version. I did call it the best English translation and noted a few reasons why......I would NEVER let my use of the AV be the "tool" by which I would attempt to discern someone's orthodoxy! I hope you (and anyone else reading this) would not take it in such a spirit! I am but a sinner saved by Grace, far be it from me to judge another Christian in such a manner. Pax Vobiscum.

raderag · #34 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Brother, our Shepherd knows his sheep, that is the true Church! I have met Apostate Anglicans and Apostate Presbyterians. I never did say anything about an Anglican Authorization. The AV was an Anglican/ Puritan effort! The seal on it was the blessing of Our God for 400 years. Nothing to sneeze at. I am part of the "true" Church, but it is because I was Baptized into Christ........not Cranmer nor Calvin.

I agree, although I'm not sure if I think the AV is the only acceptable or even the best version.

Once again my friend I duly noted in an eary post that I am not part of the KJO lunatic fringe, I never said (nor would I say) it is the only acceptable version. I did call it the best English translation and noted a few reasons why......I would NEVER let my use of the AV be the "tool" by which I would attempt to discern someone's orthodoxy! I hope you (and anyone else reading this) would not take it in such a spirit! I am but a inner saved by Grace, far be it from me to judge another Christian in such a manner. Pax Vobiscum.

Hey there, no bother. I never thought you were judging anyone. Anyway I agree that the AV is one of the best translations, and that there were very Godly men that worked on it.

Scot · #35 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Yes, Gary has some good solid article! I like his site!

He also has a site called fitness for one and all where he tells of how he overcame fibromyalgia and other health difficulties using natural therapies. You can get to it from his dtl site. He went to a natural doctor that I know personally and has helped me in the past.

raderag · #36 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by raderag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Brother, our Shepherd knows his sheep, that is the true Church! I have met Apostate Anglicans and Apostate Presbyterians. I never did say anything about an Anglican Authorization. The AV was an Anglican/ Puritan effort! The seal on it was the blessing of Our God for 400 years. Nothing to sneeze at. I am part of the "true" Church, but it is because I was Baptized into Christ........not Cranmer nor Calvin.

I agree, although I'm not sure if I think the AV is the only acceptable or even the best version.

Once again my friend I duly noted in an eary post that I am not part of the KJO lunatic fringe, I never said (nor would I say) it is the only acceptable version. I did call it the best English translation and noted a few reasons why......I would NEVER let my use of the AV be the "tool" by which I would attempt to discern someone's orthodoxy! I hope you (and anyone else reading this) would not take it in such a spirit! I am but a inner saved by Grace, far be it from me to judge another Christian in such a manner. Pax Vobiscum.

Hey there, no bother. I never thought you were judging anyone. Anyway I agree that the AV is one of the best translations, and that there were very Godly men that worked on it.

jtbdad · #37 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 11:17 PM

Wow;

This is one of the reasons I joined this board. I truly enjoy how educated most of you are about these issues. I fully admit I only have a basic understanding about the debate of KJOnlyism.

For me it is simple. I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.

AV1611 · #38 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

Wow;

This is one of the reasons I joined this board. I truly enjoy how educated most of you are about these issues. I fully admit I only have a basic understanding about the debate of KJOnlyism.

For me it is simple. I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.

There are some excellent and brief articles produced by the TBS especially:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/grktxt.asp
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/tr-art.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...rdgaveword.asp

et · #39 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

Wow;

This is one of the reasons I joined this board. I truly enjoy how educated most of you are about these issues. I fully admit I only have a basic understanding about the debate of KJOnlyism.

For me it is simple. I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.

There are some excellent and brief articles produced by the TBS especially:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/grktxt.asp
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/tr-art.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...rdgaveword.asp

Hi Richard. Just noted your links. Thank you! Trinitarian is great.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #40 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

Wow;

This is one of the reasons I joined this board. I truly enjoy how educated most of you are about these issues. I fully admit I only have a basic understanding about the debate of KJOnlyism.

For me it is simple. I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.

There are some excellent and brief articles produced by the TBS especially:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/grktxt.asp
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/tr-art.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...rdgaveword.asp

Gotta love the TBS.