A Poll for AV-Only Advocates

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . .
It is rather confusing to me... I don't know where in the sam hill a scriptural argument could be brought forth to defend the AV. . . ..

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Joshua,

You can find some of those "Scriptural arguments" in the links provided in this post, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/#post388956.

I'm sorry you were cornered by someone whose elevator perhaps didn't go to the top floor, but here at PB we generally try to keep our defenses of the AV scholarly, gracious, and intelligent. It may be there is a difference between how we Reformed folks approach the matter, and how others might. May you see a different style here.

Steve

 

[N. Eshelman]

Which translation does our Confession of Faith use?

 

[Galatians220]

Hello Joshua,

You can find some of those "Scriptural arguments" in the links provided in this post, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/#post388956.

I'm sorry you were cornered by someone whose elevator perhaps didn't go to the top floor, but here at PB we generally try to keep our defenses of the AV scholarly, gracious, and intelligent. It may be there is a difference between how we Reformed folks approach the matter, and how others might. May you see a different style here.

Steve

and

Here's (likely) the article being referred to: Bible Scholar Loses Voice on the John Ankerberg TV Show.

This article was used vociferously against me by an Arminian lawyer friend, who had concluded and then told me that I couldn't be TR-preferent and Reformed. "Reformed" = CT only; "Arminian, free-willers" = KJB, I was told. Never the twain shall meet, she was convinced.

They did, however, in Dr. Edward F. Hills and also more recently, Dr. Theodore Letis.

And I also agree: open this again? Oh, no! I hate when that happens!

Margaret

 

[Gesetveemet]

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.

Thomas Nelson did this so they could get a copyright and hijack the name "King James" and make lots of money.


.

 

[vagabond]

Well, to be honest, there is quite a commercial push behind all of the modern Bible translations. I mean, I'm not attacking the translators, but the publishing houses certainly have profit in mind.

I voted ESV, by the way.

In Ukraine it was refreshing not having a translation controversy. Such a thing gets tiring and inappropriately divisive.

 

[jd.morrison]

Well, to be honest, there is quite a commercial push behind all of the modern Bible translations. I mean, I'm not attacking the translators, but the publishing houses certainly have profit in mind.

I voted ESV, by the way.

In Ukraine it was refreshing not having a translation controversy. Such a thing gets tiring and inappropriately divisive.

Yeah. At Geneva College, in my Biblical Theology Class the question was thrown at Dr. Byron Curtis as to which translation of the bible is the best. His response was:

Well the college officially uses the NIV Student Study Bible, but the best translation I would have to say is the translation you will actually read.

This is , but thought it might be useful insight... maybe...

And it is very interesting... Because for a while I was meeting with Jehovah Witnesses and using their HORRENDOUS New World Translation of Holy Scripture, I was able to provide accurate scriptural information on the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit, Christ's Purpose on the Cross, The Cross, Ect... And their translation was PURPOSEFULLY messed with inorder to line up with their Apostate Doctrine. I would never encourage anyone to use the New World Translation of Holy Scripture but, if I remember correctly there is a member on this board who was saved by reading this translation. David Reed on this board used to be JW...

 

[jd.morrison]

I hate when that happens![/B]

Margaret

I know, I am sorry for my ignorance on the issue Margaret... Please forgive me

 

[jd.morrison]

Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy

Seems that Mr. Hendrie is crazier than Gail Riplinger. From the site Home :

Read the alarming evidence that Israel was behind the 9-11-01 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

Aw man, you mean the modern versions aren't the work of Satan and his minions like that website says? I was just gonna read the chapter on "Who are the Illuminati?"

Have we just entered the PB twilight zone? Why do some of the KJV-Only groups have to be so... so.... so.... weird?

You know that John MacArthur, and his crazy zionism... Yeah, I know I was shocked too, to find out that MacArthur was using an energy weapon to bring down the WTC to help aid the zionists attempt at world domination...

It is sad that this **** gets associated with Christianity in anyway shape or form...

 

[larryjf]

Yeah. At Geneva College, in my Biblical Theology Class the question was thrown at Dr. Byron Curtis as to which translation of the bible is the best. His response was:

Well the college officially uses the NIV Student Study Bible, but the best translation I would have to say is the translation you will actually read.

In my opinion the statement "the best translation is the one you read" is a cop-out. It presumes that there is no objective criteria for what makes a good translation, and that it's all subjective and up to the individual.

 

[Galatians220]

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.

Thomas Nelson did this so they could get a copyright and hijack the name "King James" and make lots of money.


.

It's early in the morning; I'm on my way to work and I missed the irony here when I first read the quoted post... I need to wake up, in more ways than one.



I'm sorry. Carry on...

See you all, in other threads!

Margaret

 

[jd.morrison]

In my opinion the statement "the best translation is the one you read" is a cop-out. It presumes that there is no objective criteria for what makes a good translation, and that it's all subjective and up to the individual.

Yes, I agree that it is a cop-out of sorts and I probably wouldn't have answered it that way, but I think the point is important... If you will only read say the C.E.V. at least you are reading it, and it leaves room for future edification... Perhaps I am wrong, but in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy I think it at this point would be great if they were actually reading their bibles... Because as it stands now a good portion of the church does not read their bibles...

 

[larryjf]

In my opinion the statement "the best translation is the one you read" is a cop-out. It presumes that there is no objective criteria for what makes a good translation, and that it's all subjective and up to the individual.

Yes, I agree that it is a cop-out of sorts and I probably wouldn't have answered it that way, but I think the point is important... If you will only read say the C.E.V. at least you are reading it, and it leaves room for future edification... Perhaps I am wrong, but in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy I think it at this point would be great if they were actually reading their bibles... Because as it stands now a good portion of the church does not read their bibles...

You bring up a good point with biblical illiteracy, but i don't see the vast plethora of versions helping the problem. Rather, it may even be the cause of the problem.

As different versions and different types of versions (men's study, single women's study, teen bible, teens with addictions bible, etc. etc.) flood the marketplace...perhaps it sends the message that there is no absolute Word of God, and if that's so then it's just a book, and if that's so why read it?

 

[jd.morrison]

You bring up a good point with biblical illiteracy, but i don't see the vast plethora of versions helping the problem. Rather, it may even be the cause of the problem.

As different versions and different types of versions (men's study, single women's study, teen bible, teens with addictions bible, etc. etc.) flood the marketplace...perhaps it sends the message that there is no absolute Word of God, and if that's so then it's just a book, and if that's so why read it?

That is another good point...

But should it not be our duty to continually work for the most accurate translation. Because in order to understand the KJV, not only would you have to understand english, but you would need to understand english history, you would also have to know figures of speech and have a knowledge of the Shakespearian language. Not everyone is going to know what a ****** is in KJV they will think of what it means today.

The people who worked on the KJV were the BEST BIBLICAL SCHOLARS of their day, but they were not perfect, an example of this would be the translation of "Dragon" vs. "jackal", they did not know the rule that guides the translation of that word in the context of its sentence.

I would say that Translating the bible is a never ending task of the church because language changes, we make mistakes, and we are learning more and more about those languages. I would put this under the category of Reformed, and ALWAYS reforming".

I think that there are superfluous translations such as the millions of different versions of the NIV (I say this implicating myself, I have a NIV SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE) such as the Teen Study Bible, Student Study bible, Mom..., dad..., parents..., Womans..., mens..., addictions... I would say that those would be great study guides to purchase separately... But I still think that we should always be striving for academic accuracy of the translation...

<<<<< EDIT >>>>>
Not arguing against, just throwing an idea out there...

 

[larryjf]

But should it not be our duty to continually work for the most accurate translation. Because in order to understand the KJV, not only would you have to understand english, but you would need to understand english history, you would also have to know figures of speech and have a knowledge of the Shakespearian language. Not everyone is going to know what a ****** is in KJV they will think of what it means today.

Yes, i agree with this idea. I purposely left out specific versions in my post because i believe "which version" is a separate question from "should there be a common version."

I guess the first question that should be answered by the Church is "which original language texts." Before that question is answered translators wouldn't even know which text to translate. Granted some Church bodies have answered this question, but not all. I would hazard to guess that most Christian denominations don't make any objective conclusion as to which original language texts should be used.

This is going a bit further than i intended to go, so let me just say this...

If the common man in the pew only knew of one Bible, and it wasn't steeped in worldly advertising and marketing, he would not look at the Bible as just another book.

 

[jd.morrison]

If the common man in the pew only knew of one Bible, and it wasn't steeped in worldly advertising and marketing, he would not look at the Bible as just another book.

 

[AThornquist]

Hmm... I am totally new to the whole AV only concept. I knew of KJV onlyists (which I disagree with) but I've not even heard much about the AV. In my sphere of spiritual influence the NASB and/or ESV is usually preferred, which is why my Bible studies involve The Reformation Study Bible (ESV), The MacArthur Study Bible (NASB), and The New Open Bible (NKJV). Is AV onlyism generally a Presbyterian thing?

Pardon my ignorance.

 

[Ivan]

The AV is the KJV. Authorized Version (AV). And I don't think anyone here is really advocating a KJV-only stance here.

 

[AThornquist]

I'm a dork. I thought the AV had some relation to the ASV or was an abbreviated abbreviation. I'll just stop talking now...

 

[nicnap]

I'm a dork. I thought the AV had some relation to the ASV or was an abbreviated abbreviation. I'll just stop talking now...

I often feel like that on here. You haven't done anything until you've stopped a thread...I've done that on several occasions.

 

[Ivan]

It's okay, Andrew. Sometimes I can't find my shoes.

BTW, I like the quote in your sig.