KJV poll - Which version do you prefer?

[Stomata leontôn]

I found the thread at http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/king-james-only-movement-36217/ interesting and it seems like there are many KJV-enthusiasts around. This poll is meant to compliment that thread.

I found a site by Wilbur Pickering, PhD., that supports the Textus Receptus, upon which the KJV is based, and proposes a scholarly method to fine tune it just a little further: Pickering's Textual Criticism - Authority of the Sacred Text.

If you want to know who Westcott & Hort were, another PB member posted this link in the above thread: http://www.Jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm. I haven't read it yet, so I can't vouch for it yet.

(The earlier poll on this was accidentally deleted, so you may have to it over again here.)

 

[Kim G]

I chose "other version" although I was a bit confused about the wording. Whether I like Wescott and Hort's "ideas" doesn't mean they were incapable of compiling a Greek text. (and no arguments from me.)

My pastor preaches from the ESV. I take my NASB to church since it's a nice big Bible to read from. I read the NASB with my hubbie. I alternate between the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV in my personal readings, depending on the purpose of the reading. I'll also pick up my French Bible on occasion to make my mind carefully think through what I'm reading.

I haven't read the KJV in over six years . . .

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I use the NASB for study (along with my Nestle-Aland NT and BHS OT) and the NKJV in the pulpit.

 

[Seb]

When study I like to use the ESV, NASB, KJV, NASB, and Young's Literal Translation in the Bible Explorer 4 software.

At Church we use NIV (it's a CRC Church, no surprise there)

When I just sit and read I like the ESV (Reformation Study Bible).

 

[BobVigneault]

I like the ESV for reading and the NASV for study. Opposite from Kim, I bring my ESV to church and my pastor uses the NASV.

 

[Kim G]

I'm kind of confused about this question in the poll:

I believe KJV best because its style & agreement w/ 94% Gk. manus. show guidance by Holy Spirit.

Isn't that the argument of double inspiration?

 

[Stomata leontôn]

I'm kind of confused about this question in the poll:

I believe KJV best because its style & agreement w/ 94% Gk. manus. show guidance by Holy Spirit.

Isn't that the argument of double inspiration?

I hope not. But I hope that when my pastor preaches on the Bible, he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kim G]

Isn't that the argument of double inspiration?

I hope not. But I hope that when my pastor preaches on the Bible, he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

If we're talking about Christians being guided by the Holy Spirit in a general way, I figured it was kind of a no-brainer that the KJV translaters were guided (so were translators of other versions--and Christian translators of secular material, while we're at it).

So I thought maybe this was a reference to double inspiration. You know, the whole "Holy Spirit came down and gave those men an EXTRA SPECIAL dose of His Spirit to create the perfectly-translated and 'inspired' version" thing.

I'm always glad to be wrong, though.

 

[CharlieJ]

I chose (2), but I also don't know how much it relates to Westcott & Hort's ideas, since all major textual critics (Metzger, Wallace) acknowledge that their original ideas have been greatly refined.

I use the ESV Literary Study Bible, but also read from KJV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, and NIV. I do most of my cross-study on Bibleworks, where I can read my UBS4, Scrivener, and whatever Hebrew text WTT represents.

 

[DMcFadden]

I chose #2 reluctantly. My assumption is that the CT is the correct one since everybody who ever taught me Greek or NT said so . Jerusalem Blade, however, has given me several things to chew on since my joining the PB. So, my reluctance is based on a few factors:

1. As Dr. Martin suggested, few of us ever studied the issues for ourselves. We simply accepted what our profs told us. Actually, I have never heard a live teacher make a case in class for the TR that was anything other than a straw man set-up for the CT to knock down.

2. Poeple like Pickering (and others) make an interesting and plausible case for their view. Given the intrinsic rationality of their case, it is all the more shocking that so many of us simply accepted on blind faith the WH arguments.

3. It always bothers me to be in agreement with heretics and liberals on ANYthing. WH and the heretics of the Alexandrian tradition do not cause me to rejoice and be completely satisfied with my preference for a CT Bible.

4. While the "preservation" argument can be used to cut both ways, it certainly fits in nicely with the TR/KJV tradition.

5. The fact of the matter is that Erasmus knew of some of the CT mss, and still opted for the text we now know as TR. That robs the CT position of some of its rhetorical power when it speaks of older mss that have been "discovered" since the KJV was translated.

Still, unless you are a scholar with sufficient facility with the Greek to argue your case independently, it is a daunting challenge to stand against virtually ALL of the NT scholars you have ever had (representing those on the left, right, and center).

 

[ADKing]

I use the AV personally and when I preach. I think it is still the best and wish others did too

 

[JohnGill]

I use primarily the AV. Occasionally I'll use the Geneva. I don't use modern versions due to the logical contradictions in so many of them. Then there is the underlying textual issue and the subjective methods used to cobble the MVs underlying text together. I detest subjectivism in any form.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I chose the 4th option (majestic/worshipful style), though I don't believe it's necessarily the best translation. I use MacArthur's NKJV study Bible for my personal study...

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I chose (2), but I also don't know how much it relates to Westcott & Hort's ideas, since all major textual critics (Metzger, Wallace) acknowledge that their original ideas have been greatly refined.

Same here. Those who prefer the Critical NT Text (NA27 or UBS4) do not buy into everything W-H put forth.

While I am sympathetic to some of the arguments for the TR, I use both the NASB and NKJV.

 

[JBaldwin]

I said I like other translations best, but not necessarily because I think that Westcott and Hort's ideas were correct. For me the jury is still out on the controversy.

I like the ESV and the NASB (the one's with notes) because they are easier for me to study. I grew up on the KJV, and in some ways, I know it better than the other translations. When I have a question about something, I put the translations side by side and compare them.

While there was a time when I loved the language and flow of the KJV, I have come to appreciate the ESV and NASB more for their simplicity.

 

[Quickened]

I'll be picking up another KJV. I used to use that and the NASB for slower smaller daily studies.

I use my ESV for personal studies. Which replaced my HCSB.

 

[SolaGratia]

For me is not what I like, at least ,I do not like to think in that way.

To me is what God has used in order to bring HIS Church to Himself. From history we witness, or better yet, from Gods Divine Providence we see how majestically by the power of HIS wisdom He determined to bring back HIS beloved Church to HIS ALMIGHTY WORD. What word did that power came from which God so used? From the CT or the TR?

Therefore, such was the case, that God did so among the Churches of the German , French, Spanish, English, Polish, etc. tongues. All the tongues that had their ears and minds ignorant of the Bible. And that Bible from each of the tongues that God used was the TR.

Who can denied this power from God Almighty and His Divine Providence?

Isaiah 7:14
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

[Grace Alone]

My pastor preaches from the ESV, and I prefer reading the ESV. Before the ESV, we primarily used the NIV. So we really appreciated the opportunity to switch to a more literal translation. My second choice would be NKJV since it is very similar to ESV.

I honestly know nothing other than what I have read on here regarding W & H. I guess I have to have some trust in the men who lead my church, and I cannot imagine that we would be led astray solely due to using the ESV over the KJV.