King James Version

[Viribus Unitis]

(Anglo-saxons)

First of all, the differences between English Bible versions are quite small, and based on the manuscripts that the translators selected, more than in anything else, with no theological implication, unless, you are actually trying to press them.

It is the only Bible version in English I have ever purchased, for the beauty of its language, but I have also read the BBE, the Message Bible, and the NIV, which I was given. Moreover I have read the Romanian Dumitrescu and the Spanish Reina Valera, Dios Habla Hoy, Casa de la Biblia and N

[Viribus Unitis]

(Anglo-saxons)

First of all, the differences between English Bible versions are quite small, and based on the manuscripts that the translators selected, more than in anything else, with no theological implication, unless, you are actually trying to press them.

It is the only Bible version in English I have ever purchased, for the beauty of its language, but I have also read the BBE, the Message Bible, and the NIV, which I was given. Moreover I have read the Romanian Dumitrescu and the Spanish Reina Valera, Dios Habla Hoy, Casa de la Biblia and N

[EricH]

A wonderful version I have been using lately is the Holeman. It has the word for word literalness of the NASB with the readability of NIV

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal.

The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots.

And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God.

Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it.

But you can use text criticism using the manuscripts we do have to determine what the most likely reading was. The dependability of the current English versions we have is not just a personal opinion as you seem to be implying.

[Viribus Unitis]

A wonderful version I have been using lately is the Holeman. It has the word for word literalness of the NASB with the readability of NIV

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal.

The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots.

And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God.

Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it.

The thing is not if God preserved his word by using the KJV translators, but if the word of God is not preserved in other versions.

[EricH]

(Anglo-saxons)

First of all, the differences between English Bible versions are quite small, and based on the manuscripts that the translators selected, more than in anything else, with no theological implication, unless, you are actually trying to press them.

It is the only Bible version in English I have ever purchased, for the beauty of its language, but I have also read the BBE, the Message Bible, and the NIV, which I was given. Moreover I have read the Romanian Dumitrescu and the Spanish Reina Valera, Dios Habla Hoy, Casa de la Biblia and N

[Viribus Unitis]

(Anglo-saxons)

First of all, the differences between English Bible versions are quite small, and based on the manuscripts that the translators selected, more than in anything else, with no theological implication, unless, you are actually trying to press them.

It is the only Bible version in English I have ever purchased, for the beauty of its language, but I have also read the BBE, the Message Bible, and the NIV, which I was given. Moreover I have read the Romanian Dumitrescu and the Spanish Reina Valera, Dios Habla Hoy, Casa de la Biblia and N

[Viribus Unitis]

A wonderful version I have been using lately is the Holeman. It has the word for word literalness of the NASB with the readability of NIV

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal.

The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots.

And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God.

Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it.

But you can use text criticism using the manuscripts we do have to determine what the most likely reading was. The dependability of the current English versions we have is not just a personal opinion as you seem to be implying.

If that is so, tell me how you can prove that the 66 books of the cannon are the only books that should be included, and that the 66 should all be there, given that this determination was made by men? I believe it is so, but I want proof. Next, you mention text criticism, but that is based on numerous scrolls found in various places. Some include verses that others leave out. All we know is that they are similar, but we have no absolute assurance any were innerant, or that they were the Word of God. We believe that by faith. Unbelievers have told me that they believe they are nothing more than the writings of men, and there is really no way to prove them wrong. I believe they are of God by faith, having read the book for myself.

The books were chosen by consensus, that's the truth of the matter.

[EricH]

A wonderful version I have been using lately is the Holeman. It has the word for word literalness of the NASB with the readability of NIV

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal.

The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots.

And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God.

Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it.

But you can use text criticism using the manuscripts we do have to determine what the most likely reading was. The dependability of the current English versions we have is not just a personal opinion as you seem to be implying.

If that is so, tell me how you can prove that the 66 books of the cannon are the only books that should be included, and that the 66 should all be there, given that this determination was made by men? I believe it is so, but I want proof. Next, you mention text criticism, but that is based on numerous scrolls found in various places. Some include verses that others leave out. All we know is that they are similar, but we have no absolute assurance any were innerant, or that they were the Word of God. We believe that by faith. Unbelievers have told me that they believe they are nothing more than the writings of men, and there is really no way to prove them wrong. I believe they are of God by faith, having read the book for myself.

The method used to determine the canon is a different issue all together. They should not be confused. If you would like to understand how that happened and why we can be sure that the books we have are the true canon, I can recommend some reading for you. It is true that both the issue of canon and inerrancy require faith. But it is not blind faith as you seem to be implying. There are good reasons we can be confident of both the canon, and the translations we have. There are also good reasons we can believe that it was God who inspired them. Text criticism involves musch more than comparing mss from various places. Text criticism groups mss into textual families based on many types of evidence. Then the textual critics apply rules to the families to determine which ones reflect the originals. Many textual discoveries have occured since the release of KJV (both in terms of new mss and also in terms of our understanding of how to group them and evaluate them). Even though it is a faith issue, my faith is based on the evidence I have seen. And that evidence makes me very confident of the canon, the translations and inerrancy. Just as the empty tomb and eye witnesses gave early believers confidence that their faith in Jesus was valid. Faith is not blind.

[EricH]

A wonderful version I have been using lately is the Holeman. It has the word for word literalness of the NASB with the readability of NIV

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal.

The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots.

And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God.

Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it.

But you can use text criticism using the manuscripts we do have to determine what the most likely reading was. The dependability of the current English versions we have is not just a personal opinion as you seem to be implying.

If that is so, tell me how you can prove that the 66 books of the cannon are the only books that should be included, and that the 66 should all be there, given that this determination was made by men? I believe it is so, but I want proof. Next, you mention text criticism, but that is based on numerous scrolls found in various places. Some include verses that others leave out. All we know is that they are similar, but we have no absolute assurance any were innerant, or that they were the Word of God. We believe that by faith. Unbelievers have told me that they believe they are nothing more than the writings of men, and there is really no way to prove them wrong. I believe they are of God by faith, having read the book for myself.

The books were chosen by consensus, that's the truth of the matter.

And the consensus was based on a set of pretty stringent criteria

[G.A.P.]

"Of course we all know that St Paul used the KJV. If it was good enough for him, its good enough for me."

Is there anyone on this thread who understands the biblical canon wasn't even set until 200 plus years after Paul's time, and, seeing as it wasn't published until 1611, the only way Paul COULD have used it was via time travel? Olde English didn't even exist in Paul's time, nor did at least one book (Revelation).

The argument that "the KJV is the Bible that Paul used" is an absolute nonstarter...

The statement is being used sarcasticly. They realize the KJV was not around at that time, that is the point. What so many people either fail to recognize, or choose to forget is that the KJV is a translation and one that is no better or worse than most others. It is not perfect, it is not inspired, it is not the only "allowable" bible. It's an argument that is human-based, carries no weight, and continues to cause division and animosity whenever and wherever it is argued so single-mindedly. The enemy loves it when we argue about stuff like this.

I was not intending for it to be used as an argument. Only as an information tool. A lot of people are using versions that leave out a lot of things and when they leave out Jesus' name then it is not a Bible that a Christian should be using. A Christian should be using a Bible that is a good teacher not one that is watered down and leaves out verses!!!!!!!!!

G.A.P.