Has anyone else gotten this?
- Thread starter Joseph Scibbe
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've heard it referred to as the 'HIV' Bible.
Mark Hettler
Puritan Board Freshman
I did a fairly in-depth study of this subject for the church I was a member of at the time, about 10 years ago. You can find it here.
Mark Hettler's KJV Paper (requires Microsoft Word)
It's well footnoted with a lot of good resources. Probably the best is the James White book already mentioned.
If you want to hear the "Bibles other than KJV are a conspiracy of Satan" argument first-hand, Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" is probably the "best", if you want to call it that.
Those more scholarly than Riplinger argue that the Greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based (Byzantine manuscripts) are supposedly more reliable than those on which modern versions are based (Alexandrian). To counter that, one of the best resources is Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament."
There is also the argument that if we are going to say that manuscripts discovered relatively recently, and used as basis for modern translations, are more accurate than the ones that have always been known (and on which the KJV is based), then God has not preserved His inspired word down through the centuries. It's actually a more compelling argument than my brief summary of it makes it sound, but I think my above-linked paper responds to it fairly effectively.
Mark Hettler's KJV Paper (requires Microsoft Word)
It's well footnoted with a lot of good resources. Probably the best is the James White book already mentioned.
If you want to hear the "Bibles other than KJV are a conspiracy of Satan" argument first-hand, Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" is probably the "best", if you want to call it that.
Those more scholarly than Riplinger argue that the Greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based (Byzantine manuscripts) are supposedly more reliable than those on which modern versions are based (Alexandrian). To counter that, one of the best resources is Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament."
There is also the argument that if we are going to say that manuscripts discovered relatively recently, and used as basis for modern translations, are more accurate than the ones that have always been known (and on which the KJV is based), then God has not preserved His inspired word down through the centuries. It's actually a more compelling argument than my brief summary of it makes it sound, but I think my above-linked paper responds to it fairly effectively.
Last edited:
William Price
Puritan Board Freshman
You should. My church uses the ESV, and let me tell you, I love it! Matter of fact, I am looking at my ESV Study Bible rat now! Good study Bible, even if I do say so myself, and I do say so myself!
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
May I ask why? What was HIV supposed to stand for?
buggy
Puritan Board Freshman
It's just a KJV-Only Fundamentalist's imagination... NIV rhymes with HIV.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
buggy
Puritan Board Freshman
You know, I recall one Fundamentalist who said to me he only started to understand the Bible clearly after picking up a KJV Bible. And he boasted when a Charismatic leader who got angry, because he was unable to make him speak in tongues, the leader pointed at his KJV Bible, saying, "It must be this!"
Mark Hettler
Puritan Board Freshman
There are probably many more charismatic leaders who use the KJV and would blame a modern translation for a person's inability to speak in tongues.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
The Fundamentalist should have started to speak King James English.
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
John Weathersby
Puritan Board Freshman
Doith thou findeth fault with thus? Methings thoust attitude stinkith!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Username3000
- Translations and Manuscripts
