what Bible do you read

[ted]

What is completely absent from this thread is a proper answer to the OP from any KJV user. All we have is empty claims, which could therefore all be lies.

'What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?'

Actually, many people have answered the OP's question, as stated in your quote. The problem is, you just don't like the answers.

The OP never asked this:

Can anyone tell us why the 'King James' is closest to the Greek and Hebrew? Or is this notion just a cultic myth?

So, the answer people have given are sufficient to answer the OP. The question was: What Bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?

Whether or not it is closest to the Greek and Hebrew is something you added.

The concept of this thread was simple. Post which Bible you read and why. How these things always turn into "my Bible is better than your Bible"- I'll never know.

Always, and I mean ALWAYS, someone has to come in and start ripping other people's reasons for why they read a particular version instead of simply posting which version they read and give a little reason why.

That's why these threads almost always get canned.

Why don't we try all of this again.....

Simply post which version(s) we read and give the reason why. If possible, please refrain from posting why you think others are idiots for reading that version they have chosen and things will be fine.

t.

[Guest LadyC]

great idea ted.

i read the NIV primarily, for ease of understanding. however, i frequently compare it to the KJV for clarity. occasionally i will compare it to still other versions as well.

i also enjoy reading the message paraphrase, although i never read that one without comparing with more accurate translations.

sometimes if i'm needing a tremendous amount of clarity on the context of something, i'll look up the original greek/hebrew meaning of particular words.

[Christian]

Yes indeed ted

Thank you very much

As I stated in post #109

I will state for the record that I believe that the KJV is the most accurate translation of Scripture which is why I choose to rely on it. (thank you also Butero for your inclusion about the Textus Receptus )

With that being said, each morning I read my MJKV (Modern King James Version...I like the way it reads), right alongside my KJV.

Right next to this is my NIV (New International Version) and my ASV (American Standard Version).

In addition to these I keep an "Oxford Study Edition" and a "Youth Bible" nearby in case I want to check them also.

So yes...there are six Bibles on my table. I enjoy the cross-referencing I am able to do with them and it has helped my comprehension of Scripture immensely.

And for the record...God will not judge us on what version of the bible we read,

we should always remember that.

in His service,

-C-

[pointer]

Can anyone tell us why the 'King James' is closest to the Greek and Hebrew? Or is this notion just a cultic myth?

I will tell you why I am King James Bible Only. It is the only translation that comes exclusively from the Textus Receptus, the manuscripts used by the early church.

Can you show that the TR is composed from 'the' manuscripts used by the early church? Because my question is not answered even a little unless it can be proved.

It is not true that the KJV is the only translation to come from the TR or similar. The 'KJ' was a comparative latecomer. One wonders whether certain religionists are more keen on getting a single, murky version which becomes impotent by inurement than in getting a decent translation.

It is also the case that there is very little difference beween the TR and other text types in terms of what can be proved theologically. Again, one wonders what the true reason is for people deciding to return to the 'KJ'.

All other modern translations come from less reliable manuscripts.

The great majority of scholars does not think so.

New translations often leave portions of verses out.

Or, the KJV adds in parts of verses that should not be there. Personally, I think that the smaller version is more telling and spiritual. Maybe that is why some people like the TR?

New translations often read completely differen't than the KJV.

That may be because scholarship has moved on very considerably from the 17th century, quite independently of the source texts issue. Like everyone else at the time, the KJV team did not even realise that Greek koine existed.

I am finding this to be the case more and more as people debate scripture using modern versions.

People who debate scripture using any translation are simply not found in any academic situation. It would be the ultimate embarrassment to stand up in a learned debate and quote a mere translation, and even Christians might find it hard to keep a straight face. And this happens rarely even on the 'net, to which the barely educated and rogues have access. Most people who quote a translation in a critical matter know that there may be someone around who can cite original languages. (The glaring exception is KJV users, who seem to want to bully people into thinking that their version is reliable!) So I don't know where you have experienced this.

Basically, if you want to prove a point, just hunt long enough and you will find a translation that supports your claims.

It is KJV users who are much the worst offenders in that regard, in my experience. Atheists and other detractors love to quote the 'KJ', too (their arguments quite often depend on the KJV's inaccuracy), and one sometimes wonders whether KJVOers and such people are in league.

There are Bibles being created specifically to change the meaning of a particular verses.

Just as the KJV was; and "No bishops, no king" James was quite candid about that. That is why original languages are the only way to go; even the TR!

[Tribulation]

I will tell you why I am King James Bible Only. It is the only translation that comes exclusively from the Textus Receptus, the manuscripts used by the early church. All other modern translations come from less reliable manuscripts. New translations often leave portions of verses out. They also discredit other verses by saying that the "most reliable manuscripts" don't include them. What they mean is that their tainted manuscripts don't include them. New translations often read completely differen't than the KJV. I am finding this to be the case more and more as people debate scripture using modern versions. Basically, if you want to prove a point, just hunt long enough and you will find a translation that supports your claims.

There are Bibles being created specifically to change the meaning of a particular verses. There is a gender neutral version on the market now put out by the NIV translators, that intentionally takes out all references to God as he and changes it to God to cater to feminists. To me, this discredits the NIV entirely, because it shows they are not in it for God, but for the love of money. I guess if they find a market, they will create one to fit any group. I am waiting for the homosexual friendly one to come out soon. It is only a matter of time.

Then there is the New World Translation created to take away the deity of Christ. This is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no reason to believe such perversions will stop there, or have stopped there. It is my opinion that every denomination will eventually create a translation that will emphasize their beliefs. You will have a Pentecostal Bible to emphasize the gifts of the Spirit, a Baptist Bible that will emphasize unconditional eternal security, a Wesleyan Bible that will emphasize sanctification, a Quaker Bible that will re-write the Old Testament to make pacivism the right way. Bottom line to me, the door to abuse is wide open with the acceptance of new translations. If you go into a Christian Book Store today, you will be amazed how many translations there are, and if you compare them verse by verse they will read differen't. I don't know how many times I have heard ministers create doctrine by jumping from translation to translation to make a point. If you have enough, before long, you can make the Bible say anything you wish. If that is not enough, create your own. There is plenty of money to go around from a gullible public who purchases these things not knowing what they are getting.

This is a free country, and you can read any translation you wish. I am not trying to ban them or anything like that. I am just warning people that you use them at your own peril. If you wish to believe a lie, go right ahead. I will stick with the King James Version.

Amen, brother!

[Tribulation]

'pointer',

I see you're attitude hasn't changed much in this topic. I'm still praying for you.

God Bless!

[Ovedya]

Regarding the OP

I will state for the record that I believe that the KJV is our most accurate translation of Scripture.

So we have it on record that an anonymous poster going under the nick of 'Christian' says he/she thinks that the 'KJ'V is 'our' most accurate translation of Scripture. We do not know whether this person is a Christian or an opposer of Christianity. However, no mature Christian would make such a comment as that without good reason given, and the use of the word 'our' is another indicator of low standards of safeguarding.

Those things in themselves do not mean that the 'KJ'V is not the best translation. However, the many occasions on which this claim is made anonymously, without evidence indicates quite strongly that the 'KJ'V may well be anything but a good translation.

The saame point could be made for anyone who disagrees with said argument.

Anonymity on the internet is not an automatic disqualification of someone's argument.

[rfw]

The best Bible translation is the one you read and apply to your life. There is value in many modern translations and in the many that were in existence before the KJV.

2Ti 2:14 Remind them of these things, solemnly testifying before God not to dispute about words, which is nothing, and leads to the subversion of those hearing.

2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

Messianic Renewed Covenant Version

2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in the things you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you have learned them;

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which have the power to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Yeshua the Messiah.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Messianic Renewed Covenant Version

Notice that "versions" are not mentioned. The God who can preserve His Word through the generations is certainly able to preserve it despite disputes about English translations, and He still makes it live for His own today.

[pointer]

Regarding the OP

I will state for the record that I believe that the KJV is our most accurate translation of Scripture.

So we have it on record that an anonymous poster going under the nick of 'Christian' says he/she thinks that the 'KJ'V is 'our' most accurate translation of Scripture. We do not know whether this person is a Christian or an opposer of Christianity. However, no mature Christian would make such a comment as that without good reason given, and the use of the word 'our' is another indicator of low standards of safeguarding.

Those things in themselves do not mean that the 'KJ'V is not the best translation. However, the many occasions on which this claim is made anonymously, without evidence indicates quite strongly that the 'KJ'V may well be anything but a good translation.

The saame point could be made for anyone who disagrees with said argument.

I think that would count for only one claim, and would be negligible. It is the very frequent unsupported claims of KJVOers that is extremely suspicious, and it has been going on on the 'net for many years now- this thread shows only a microcosm.

Anonymity on the internet is not an automatic disqualification of someone's argument.

It is if the argument is an appeal to personal authority!

[pointer]

I believe the KJV to be completely reliable

Because it is from the TR? Or do you claim that it represents original languages without fault?

and the TR to be the manuscripts used by the early church.

Why do you believe that? Why do I have to ask twice?