King James Version only?

[redwing]

KJV:

Mark 12:25 (King James Version)

25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

NIV:

Mark 12:25 (New International Version)

25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Slightly diffrent wording, but the same meaning.

I was raised in the Pentecoastal church. My choice is the KJV but I read other versions as well.

[Sir Gareth]

I respect the KJV, it is a very good translation and the one my Pastor uses.

I personally do not believe it is the only true translation however.

Any translation which passes the test of 1 John 4:2 is good enough for me ('Any spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.')

My personal favorites are the NKJV and the NASB, King is good just hard for me to use during witnessesing as a lot of non-believers or luke warm believers will not take the time to figure out the King's English

[pokemaughan]

I respect the KJV, it is a very good translation and the one my Pastor uses.

I personally do not believe it is the only true translation however.

Any translation which passes the test of 1 John 4:2 is good enough for me ('Any spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.')

My personal favorites are the NKJV and the NASB, King is good just hard for me to use during witnessesing as a lot of non-believers or luke warm believers will not take the time to figure out the King's English

My sentiments exactly

[EricH]

There are several translations that are very good. Since the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original autographs, any discussion of which is "best" really boils down to personal opinion. If there were truly a quantifiable reason why one was better than all the others, we would all be on that version.

[Guest Butero]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

That is absolute tripe. Not only is this comment judgmental, but you are bearing false witness against those who hold to the KJV Bible only. I have seen that so-called Bible you use, which is nothing but a poor excuse for a paraphrase.

One of the arguments in favor of the KJV only is the fact it was translated from the textus receptus, and yes, there is a Spanish version also translated from that same text. Those of us who hold to the KJV Bible believe that is the only reliable manuscripts. It would be better to translate straight from the King James Bible to other languages with a good paraphrase than to use the perverted texts used by modern English translations.

The reason why those of us who hold to the KJV Bible do so is because we don't trust the other translations to be reliable. Just as those on the other side of the argument are not being persuaded, neither am I. I did go back and forth with RG in the soap box debate forum to give my reasons for my position, and he did the same for his side. I didn't persuade him, and he didn't persuade me. Rarely does anyone from either camp change sides.

[pokemaughan]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

That is absolute tripe. Not only is this comment judgmental, but you are bearing false witness against those who hold to the KJV Bible only. I have seen that so-called Bible you use, which is nothing but a poor excuse for a paraphrase.

One of the arguments in favor of the KJV only is the fact it was translated from the textus receptus, and yes, there is a Spanish version also translated from that same text. Those of us who hold to the KJV Bible believe that is the only reliable manuscripts. It would be better to translate straight from the King James Bible to other languages with a good paraphrase than to use the perverted texts used by modern English translations.

The reason why those of us who hold to the KJV Bible do so is because we don't trust the other translations to be reliable. Just as those on the other side of the argument are not being persuaded, neither am I. I did go back and forth with RG in the soap box debate forum to give my reasons for my position, and he did the same for his side. I didn't persuade him, and he didn't persuade me. Rarely does anyone from either camp change sides.

Don't start, Butero. Remember the most important command- love. Someone who trusts in the NIV loves God just as much as you do. Don't need to bash him for it.

[Guest Butero]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

That is absolute tripe. Not only is this comment judgmental, but you are bearing false witness against those who hold to the KJV Bible only. I have seen that so-called Bible you use, which is nothing but a poor excuse for a paraphrase.

One of the arguments in favor of the KJV only is the fact it was translated from the textus receptus, and yes, there is a Spanish version also translated from that same text. Those of us who hold to the KJV Bible believe that is the only reliable manuscripts. It would be better to translate straight from the King James Bible to other languages with a good paraphrase than to use the perverted texts used by modern English translations.

The reason why those of us who hold to the KJV Bible do so is because we don't trust the other translations to be reliable. Just as those on the other side of the argument are not being persuaded, neither am I. I did go back and forth with RG in the soap box debate forum to give my reasons for my position, and he did the same for his side. I didn't persuade him, and he didn't persuade me. Rarely does anyone from either camp change sides.

Don't start, Butero. Remember the most important command- love. Someone who trusts in the NIV loves God just as much as you do. Don't need to bash him for it.

That was not my dissagreement with Floatingaxe. I am dissagreeing with her false accusation that those who hold to the KJV only are worshipping the written Word more than God.

As for the issue itself, I have made my position known more than once. I don't trust any translation that comes from anything but the Textus Receptus manuscripts. I personally don't care if others do or not, but I don't, and when asked about this issue, I will always point people to the King James Version.

[pokemaughan]

That was not my dissagreement with Floatingaxe. I am dissagreeing with her false accusation that those who hold to the KJV only are worshipping the written Word more than God.

As for the issue itself, I have made my position known more than once. I don't trust any translation that comes from anything but the Textus Receptus manuscripts. I personally don't care if others do or not, but I don't, and when asked about this issue, I will always point people to the King James Version.

My apologies. I think I speak for everyone when I say we don't want ANOTHER argument over the issue.

God bless you, Butero.

[Murse32]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

That is absolute tripe. Not only is this comment judgmental, but you are bearing false witness against those who hold to the KJV Bible only. I have seen that so-called Bible you use, which is nothing but a poor excuse for a paraphrase.

One of the arguments in favor of the KJV only is the fact it was translated from the textus receptus, and yes, there is a Spanish version also translated from that same text. Those of us who hold to the KJV Bible believe that is the only reliable manuscripts. It would be better to translate straight from the King James Bible to other languages with a good paraphrase than to use the perverted texts used by modern English translations.

The reason why those of us who hold to the KJV Bible do so is because we don't trust the other translations to be reliable. Just as those on the other side of the argument are not being persuaded, neither am I. I did go back and forth with RG in the soap box debate forum to give my reasons for my position, and he did the same for his side. I didn't persuade him, and he didn't persuade me. Rarely does anyone from either camp change sides.

Dear Butero,

I have read your thread between you and RunningGator. I found it to be interesting yet flip flopped. a constant circle if you will. You point fingers at others being judgemental yet you downgrade the use of other's versions. Is this right? Now you hold so dearly to the KJV, and that's fine if that's your choice...but why is it, everytime someone brings up this topic, we have KJV in one corner and NIV in the other? for your information, I am NOT a KJV only. I love the NKJV. This version, just the same as the KJV was taken from the same textus receptus. The NKJV was not taken from other books. If you disagree with me, that is fine...but please show me how THIS version paraphrases. I will admit, as I have before, there are versions that DO paraphrase and they are not my favorite. But they are wonderful to have for a deeper understanding of scripture. The Holy Spirit will guide us in a better understanding of the scripture, but I feel we must first be able to decipher what exactly it is saying before we can grasp the complexity of the scriptures. Likewise, many other versions exist. many are reliable to the truth that the bible holds. KJV doesn't have some power over others where it can be the only source for the gospel....That is all we are trying to say...we are not trying to sway you into throwing away your KJV and buying another. If that version works for you and you can understand it, Praise GOD!! may you pull much from it. For those that stumble though, and this was the intention of this post, other versions will deliver the same message.

That is all I was trying to say by posting this forum.

With love in Christ.

[Guest Butero]

Now here is the million dollar question. Would you rather someone come to Christ reading a modern version or stay lost due to the King James Version?

That's the point I make---as we are all called to preach the Gospel to every creature, we had better make sure it is plainly understood. The Holy Spirit isn't helped along when we offer archaic language to the unbeliever. We must offer the Gospel in our own language--verbally and written, so that others will be drawn to Christ.

For those who are KJV purists, I rather think they are worshiping the written word rather than the author, and I would ask them how anyone who doesn't even speak English can possibly know Jesus in the first place, seeing as old King James never translated the Scriptures in Latvian or Spanish or Swahili.

That is absolute tripe. Not only is this comment judgmental, but you are bearing false witness against those who hold to the KJV Bible only. I have seen that so-called Bible you use, which is nothing but a poor excuse for a paraphrase.

One of the arguments in favor of the KJV only is the fact it was translated from the textus receptus, and yes, there is a Spanish version also translated from that same text. Those of us who hold to the KJV Bible believe that is the only reliable manuscripts. It would be better to translate straight from the King James Bible to other languages with a good paraphrase than to use the perverted texts used by modern English translations.

The reason why those of us who hold to the KJV Bible do so is because we don't trust the other translations to be reliable. Just as those on the other side of the argument are not being persuaded, neither am I. I did go back and forth with RG in the soap box debate forum to give my reasons for my position, and he did the same for his side. I didn't persuade him, and he didn't persuade me. Rarely does anyone from either camp change sides.

Dear Butero,

I have read your thread between you and RunningGator. I found it to be interesting yet flip flopped. a constant circle if you will. You point fingers at others being judgemental yet you downgrade the use of other's versions. Is this right? Now you hold so dearly to the KJV, and that's fine if that's your choice...but why is it, everytime someone brings up this topic, we have KJV in one corner and NIV in the other? for your information, I am NOT a KJV only. I love the NKJV. This version, just the same as the KJV was taken from the same textus receptus. The NKJV was not taken from other books. If you disagree with me, that is fine...but please show me how THIS version paraphrases. I will admit, as I have before, there are versions that DO paraphrase and they are not my favorite. But they are wonderful to have for a deeper understanding of scripture. The Holy Spirit will guide us in a better understanding of the scripture, but I feel we must first be able to decipher what exactly it is saying before we can grasp the complexity of the scriptures. Likewise, many other versions exist. many are reliable to the truth that the bible holds. KJV doesn't have some power over others where it can be the only source for the gospel....That is all we are trying to say...we are not trying to sway you into throwing away your KJV and buying another. If that version works for you and you can understand it, Praise GOD!! may you pull much from it. For those that stumble though, and this was the intention of this post, other versions will deliver the same message.

That is all I was trying to say by posting this forum.

With love in Christ.

I am not saying the NKJV is a paraphrase. I am saying that Floatingaxe uses a paraphrase called "The Message." I know this because I have seen her use verses from it in the past, and it is a terrible paraphrase. Again, I was addressing something FA said that I found offensive.

If I was going to use something other than the KJV Bible, it would probably be the NKJV Bible, but I want the one I feel is most reliable. That is why I am using the 1611 King James Version. I don't think people that use new translations are less saved than those that use the KJV. I just have my reasons for believing that the KJV is much more reliable, so that is what I use, and that is what I recommend.