I am leaning in an almost total AV direction. - Page 2

etexas · #41 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:00 PM

The Trinitarian links are very good!

jtbdad · #42 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 12:02 AM

Those are some great links

etexas · #43 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 02:02 AM

I think I will make a separate link for those who wish to read the brilliant Presbyterian Dr. E. Hills defense online. A classic!

Wannabee · #44 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

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.

I've been down this road. Some go so far as to claim that the AV corrected the Greek. I've read some of Hills' work. I've also seen the videos put out by Pensacola. There is much to be desired and many facts are skewed by a subjective argument that draws conclusions that are sometimes not well supported. I went full bore KJVO. It's ugly and renders one useless for the kingdom. Be careful.
If one holds to the oldest traditional text then we're stuck with the Vulgate, with all its problems. Many of the challenges in the Vulgate filtered into the TR. While I prefer the MT, the TR has issues that Erasmus couldn't have foreseen. His work was excellent, but limited.
The AV was written for largely political reasons. It's a good translation, and I love it, but they used language more archaic than the Geneva translation, though translated later. I appreciate the clarity that much of the older English gives us. But it's simply an obsolete language for today's English speaking people (except for some hill people in the south that still speak Elizabethan English).
From what I can tell, and what I've read from others, the NKJV is possibly the best OT translation available. In the NT, with all the textual variances, it's more difficult to tell. I prefer the NKJV method of translation and like the way it reads. Of all the translations it seems to carry much of the elegance of the AV, yet in a manner that is easier on today's readers. It's adherence to the TR causes some challenges. But their careful notes showing where they made translation decisions and letting the reader know where there are MT and NU (CT) variances helps us to understand their thinking. This along with italics where they've added words for clarity make it a very responsible translation. As far as I know no other translation provides this much clarity and transparency in their translation decisions.

My

KMK · #45 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee;

299661I went full bore KJVO. It's ugly and renders one useless for the kingdom.

How so?

JM · #46 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 09:44 AM

AV for me, thanks.

etexas · #47 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

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.

I've been down this road. Some go so far as to claim that the AV corrected the Greek. I've read some of Hills' work. I've also seen the videos put out by Pensacola. There is much to be desired and many facts are skewed by a subjective argument that draws conclusions that are sometimes not well supported. I went full bore KJVO. It's ugly and renders one useless for the kingdom. Be careful.
If one holds to the oldest traditional text then we're stuck with the Vulgate, with all its problems. Many of the challenges in the Vulgate filtered into the TR. While I prefer the MT, the TR has issues that Erasmus couldn't have foreseen. His work was excellent, but limited.
The AV was written for largely political reasons. It's a good translation, and I love it, but they used language more archaic than the Geneva translation, though translated later. I appreciate the clarity that much of the older English gives us. But it's simply an obsolete language for today's English speaking people (except for some hill people in the south that still speak Elizabethan English).
From what I can tell, and what I've read from others, the NKJV is possibly the best OT translation available. In the NT, with all the textual variances, it's more difficult to tell. I prefer the NKJV method of translation and like the way it reads. Of all the translations it seems to carry much of the elegance of the AV, yet in a manner that is easier on today's readers. It's adherence to the TR causes some challenges. But their careful notes showing where they made translation decisions and letting the reader know where there are MT and NU (CT) variances helps us to understand their thinking. This along with italics where they've added words for clarity make it a very responsible translation. As far as I know no other translation provides this much clarity and transparency in their translation decisions.

My

You seem to be claiming that the use of the AV makes one useless for the Kingdom. You also throw Ruckman in my face. I had more class. First I made it VERY clear I am not on the KJO Lunatic fringe...I do not think you can use it to correct the Hebrew and Greek (Ruckman advanced revelation),in the second place I also made it VERY clear I do not judge others by their use of translations! Hey, as long as you are not reading the Watchtower version, I think God will speak to you. My answer to whether the AV will make one useless for the Kingdom, well Brother, I can apply that to any version in the sense that you can have any version or versions knocking around your home, unless they by the Holy Ghost enter your heart and mind and plays itself out in one's Christian walk, any version could be relegated to the place of a coaster or door-stop and become useless. My answer to your

.....with change and a smile. Anything else?

Wannabee · #48 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 02:38 AM

Fingolfin
I said nothing of the sort. I said that KJVOnlyism is crippling because it results in one having the wrong focus. I personally became useless for the kingdom because I had become KJVO. I said this from personal experience. It was more of a confession than accusation of any kind. I didn't quote you or refer to anything you said.
Ruckman? I didn't even mention him. I didn't accuse anybody here. I simply put forth my perspective and put up a warning that there is danger if one gets caught up in the subjective argumentation that can lead to an angry defense of the AV. That's what KJVOnlyism is.
Brother, it seems you have a chip on your shoulder. If I've sinned against you then, by all means, show me my error. But your defense leaves me scratching my head in confusion.

Be blessed

Bandguy · #49 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 08:45 AM

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.

Hi there. An honest question: Are you also assuming that you know who the elect are not based on the fact that there is not a translation of the Bible in their language, and therefore, therefore, what is the point of even doing so? If this is your point, I think you might be bordering upon hyper-calvinism, which flies in the face of Biblical Calvinism which commmands to proclaim the Gospel to all nations out of obedience to God. God will decide who is elect (as a matter of fact, he already did a looooooong time ago) and who is not. It is not our job to decide. It is our job to obey God's command and glorify him.

jtbdad · #50 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

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.

I've been down this road. Some go so far as to claim that the AV corrected the Greek. I've read some of Hills' work. I've also seen the videos put out by Pensacola. There is much to be desired and many facts are skewed by a subjective argument that draws conclusions that are sometimes not well supported. I went full bore KJVO. It's ugly and renders one useless for the kingdom. Be careful.
If one holds to the oldest traditional text then we're stuck with the Vulgate, with all its problems. Many of the challenges in the Vulgate filtered into the TR. While I prefer the MT, the TR has issues that Erasmus couldn't have foreseen. His work was excellent, but limited.
The AV was written for largely political reasons. It's a good translation, and I love it, but they used language more archaic than the Geneva translation, though translated later. I appreciate the clarity that much of the older English gives us. But it's simply an obsolete language for today's English speaking people (except for some hill people in the south that still speak Elizabethan English).
From what I can tell, and what I've read from others, the NKJV is possibly the best OT translation available. In the NT, with all the textual variances, it's more difficult to tell. I prefer the NKJV method of translation and like the way it reads. Of all the translations it seems to carry much of the elegance of the AV, yet in a manner that is easier on today's readers. It's adherence to the TR causes some challenges. But their careful notes showing where they made translation decisions and letting the reader know where there are MT and NU (CT) variances helps us to understand their thinking. This along with italics where they've added words for clarity make it a very responsible translation. As far as I know no other translation provides this much clarity and transparency in their translation decisions.

My

I fully admit that my use of the AV is simply preference. I have never made any kind of statement that other versions are deficient. I guess it's really for me just a matter of confidence. I seriously doubt I would ever be entirely KJO simply because I haven't studied the matter and couldn't compose an argument for it.

armourbearer · #51 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 06:37 PM

It may be worth pointing out that an AV-preferred position does not rule out the use of other translations in conjunction with various study tools. It only entails that the AV is recognised as the most reliable translation, and therefore the preferred version when reading the Word of God. Blessings!

bookslover · #52 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God.

Every translation - no paraphrases, please - is the Word of God. To say that only the AV is the Word of God is to say that no other English translation counts. It is also to say that those in other countries who speak other languages do not have the Word of God, since they do not have access to the AV - unless they want to go to the trouble of learning Elizabethan/Jacobian English.

Ivan · #53 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It may be worth pointing out that an AV-preferred position does not rule out the use of other translations in conjunction with various study tools. It only entails that the AV is recognised as the most reliable translation, and therefore the preferred version when reading the Word of God. Blessings!

It's remarkable how this has become a matter of discussion at our little Baptist church. None of us are saying that other translations do not have value. They are all wonderful study tools. I have only used the NKJV since coming to this church. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), it's the only modern translation that is based on the TR. That being said, I think we are heading in the direction of using exclusively the AV in public worship.

dfranks · #54 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 09:38 PM

Where does the English Standard Version (ESV) measure up in all of this. I have been to several reformed OPC and PCA churches and it seems like this is the most used translation.

armourbearer · #55 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivan

It's remarkable how this has become a matter of discussion at our little Baptist church. None of us are saying that other translations do not have value. They are all wonderful study tools. I have only used the NKJV since coming to this church. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), it's the only modern translation that is based on the TR. That being said, I think we are heading in the direction of using exclusively the AV in public worship.

That's encouraging, Ivan.

KMK · #56 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivan

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It may be worth pointing out that an AV-preferred position does not rule out the use of other translations in conjunction with various study tools. It only entails that the AV is recognised as the most reliable translation, and therefore the preferred version when reading the Word of God. Blessings!

It's remarkable how this has become a matter of discussion at our little Baptist church. None of us are saying that other translations do not have value. They are all wonderful study tools. I have only used the NKJV since coming to this church. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), it's the only modern translation that is based on the TR. That being said, I think we are heading in the direction of using exclusively the AV in public worship.

We use KJV mostly in worship. Occasionaly my fellow elder will preach from the NASB because he has practically the whole thing memorized and can't help it. Just today I sent a young woman home with one of our KJV pew Bibles because she did not have one but was struck by its beauty as I was preaching.

Wannabee · #57 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfranks

Where does the English Standard Version (ESV) measure up in all of this. I have been to several reformed OPC and PCA churches and it seems like this is the most used translation.

The ESV is a very good translation using the NU texts. Strengths include literalness and readability. Besides my personal preference for the MT, the only thing I don't like about it is that translation decisions aren't clearly marked as they are in the NKJV. There are no italics to indicate added words and margin notes are not as prevalent. It is very reliable though, along the lines of the NASB. As for the NASB, many would argue for the pre-95 version over the updated, stating that modernization of the text sacrificed accuracy.

jtbdad · #58 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 01:51 PM

I agree that you are probably right. For me it is just a matter of for whatever reason I have confidence in the AV and that is why I am most comfortable using it. I can't really explain why I don't have the same confidence in the other translations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God.

Every translation - no paraphrases, please - is the Word of God. To say that only the AV is the Word of God is to say that no other English translation counts. It is also to say that those in other countries who speak other languages do not have the Word of God, since they do not have access to the AV - unless they want to go to the trouble of learning Elizabethan/Jacobian English.

KMK · #59 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

I agree that you are probably right. For me it is just a matter of for whatever reason I have confidence in the AV and that is why I am most comfortable using it. I can't really explain why I don't have the same confidence in the other translations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God.

Every translation - no paraphrases, please - is the Word of God. To say that only the AV is the Word of God is to say that no other English translation counts. It is also to say that those in other countries who speak other languages do not have the Word of God, since they do not have access to the AV - unless they want to go to the trouble of learning Elizabethan/Jacobian English.

I agree with part of Mr. Zuelch's statement, however, be careful. He likes to sneak in little digs at the AV when he gets the chance.

He implies that it is 'trouble' to learn Elizabethan/Jacobian English. Well, maybe it was 'trouble' for him, but that does not mean that it is 'trouble' for everyone. (I find it much more troubling to learn 'NASB English'.

jtbdad · #60 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtbdad

I agree that you are probably right. For me it is just a matter of for whatever reason I have confidence in the AV and that is why I am most comfortable using it. I can't really explain why I don't have the same confidence in the other translations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Every translation - no paraphrases, please - is the Word of God. To say that only the AV is the Word of God is to say that no other English translation counts. It is also to say that those in other countries who speak other languages do not have the Word of God, since they do not have access to the AV - unless they want to go to the trouble of learning Elizabethan/Jacobian English.

I agree with part of Mr. Zuelch's statement, however, be careful. He likes to sneak in little digs at the AV when he gets the chance.

He implies that it is 'trouble' to learn Elizabethan/Jacobian English. Well, maybe it was 'trouble' for him, but that does not mean that it is 'trouble' for everyone. (I find it much more troubling to learn 'NASB English'.

I caught that and chose to ignore it. I have never said that any other translation is any more or less reliable than the AV. I simply don't have the education to make such an argument. I only intended to point out why I prefer the AV. That being that I am confident in it and for some reason I am not confident in others. The point is that I and others who feel as I do, read the Scriptures and attempt to apply them to our lives. Why would one care if we chose to read and use the AV?