# A Poll for AV-Only Advocates



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 29, 2008)

If you had to settle for a translation other than the AV, Geneva or the like and could only use NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, or NLT, which would you choose and why?

Restated for the more dramatic, TV generation X and Y breed:

If you were exiled for life to the the highest room of the tallest tower with only bread and water and a non-AV English translation of your choosing, which would you choose? 


Basically which is the best English translation next to ye olde standards?


----------



## larryjf (Aug 29, 2008)

I'm not AV-only, but i am AV-preferred. I hope you don't mind that i voted.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 29, 2008)

The NKJV has the same NT text as the KJV.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 29, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> The NKJV has the same NT text as the KJV.



You mean as its basis, that is, the TR?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 29, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I'm not AV-only, but i am AV-preferred. I hope you don't mind that i voted.





My statistical sample is now corrupt! 

Now problem brother, which version did you choose?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 29, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> The NKJV has the same NT text as the KJV.



The NKJV does use the TR. They 'consult' other manuscripts, but it is based on the TR. Check the introduction. I thought this as well, until I read the Free Reformed position paper on Bible translations. They showed me the errors of my ways.

(I like the ESV and the NKJV by the way).


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 29, 2008)

I prefer the ASV over any of the other choices.

KJV is my primary bible for reading, but I use the ASV a lot.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 29, 2008)

I don't know if I could use any....I had to vote NKJV just because it's the closest. Sigh. I would climb down the tower and go across the street and buy a KJV with my food money. This is a hard choice because I just can't use anything but my trusty KJV. Good Poll!


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 29, 2008)

I can't vote... I don't think that the NKJV is not so different from any other CT version, really. I'm not a Bible or ancient languages scholar; I'm nobody, really. But I respectfully submit that the KJV is not so much based on the TR as it is on the desire of Thomas Nelson, its publisher, to create a work substantially so different from any other that it qualifies for protection under U. S. copyright laws (which are given full faith and credit by other countries' laws).

I still think that all a person of no academic training can do is compare verses in "God's word" in all available versions and see how they line up with orthodox Christian doctrine. Although I've spent the last ten years doing my own comparisons, here's a sample from another web site. I took out most editorial comments and left just the verse comparisons: 

*Genesis 2:18: *The NKJV, in a nod to women: _"And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper *COMPARABLE TO HIM."* _

*Genesis 22:8:* One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: _"God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" _The NKJV adds that little word _"for:" "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" _And destroys the wonderful promise. 

*Genesis 24:47:* The "old" KJV reads: _"I put the *earring *upon her face"._ But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: _"I put the *nose ring* on her nose." _ _See the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV._ 

*Ezra 8:36: *The KJV reads, _"And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's *lieutenants*. . ."_ The "much clearer" NKJV reads, _"And they delivered the king's orders to the king's *satraps*. . ."_ Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? *The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV. They put in the same "much clearer" word.*

*Psalms 109:6:* removes _"Satan"_. (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV). 

*Matthew 7:14:* change _"*narrow* is the way" _to _"*difficult* is the way"_. There's nothing *"difficult"* about the salvation of Jesus Christ. Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, _"For my yoke is *EASY*, and my burden is light."_ 

*Matthew 12:40:* change _"whale"_ to _"fish"_ (ditto NIV) The Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is _ketos_. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - _*CETOLOGY *_- from the Greek _ketos_ for whale and _logos_ for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - _*CETACEANS*_ - from the Greek _ketos_ for whale! 

*Matthew 18:26* & *Matthew 20:20:* The NKJV removes _"worshipped him"_ (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8:* removes _"Christ"_ (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*John 1:3:* change_ "All things were made BY him;"_ to _"All things were made THROUGH Him"_ (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

*John 4:24:* change _"God is a spirit"_ to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,_"God is spirit"_ (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 

*John 14:2:* (NKJV 1979 edition) change _"mansions"_ to _"dwelling places"_ (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*John 14:16:* change _"comforter"_ to _"helper"_(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

*Acts 4:27, 30:* change _"holy child"_ to _"holy servant"_ (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 

*Acts 12:4:* change _"Easter"_ to _"Passover"_ (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*Acts 17:22:* changes _"superstitious"_ to _"religious"_ (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

*Acts 24:14:* change _"heresy" _to _"sect" _(NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

*Romans 1:18:* change _"hold the truth"_ to_ "suppress the truth" _(NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

*Romans 1:25:* change _"changed the truth"_ to _"exchanged the truth" _(NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 

*Romans 5:8:* change_ "commendeth"_ to_ "demonstrates" _(NIV, NASV)

*Romans 16:18:* change _"good words and fair speeches"_ to _"smooth words and flattering speech"_ (NIV, NASV, NRSV) 

*1 Cor. 1:21:* change _"foolishness of preaching"_ to _"foolishness *of the message* preached"_ (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. _*Unless you're not saved. *_1 Cor. 1:18 says:_ "For the preaching of the cross *is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ."*_ _I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?_

*1 Cor. 1:22:* change _"require" _to _"request"_ (NASV)

*1 Cor. 6:9:* removes_ "effeminate"_ (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

*1 Cor. 9:27:* change _"castaway"_ to _"disqualified"_ (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 

*2 Cor. 2:10:* change _"person of Christ"_ to _"presence of Christ"_ (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

*2 Cor. 2:17:* With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. _*IT DOES!*_ They change, _"For we not as many which *CORRUPT* the word of God"_ to _"For we are not, as so many, *PEDDLING *the word of God"_ (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 

*2 Cor. 5:17:* change _"new creature"_ to _"new creation" _(NIV, NRSV, RSV)

*2 Cor. 10:5:* change _"imaginations"_ to _"arguments"_. Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

*2 Cor. 11:6:* change_ "rude in speech"_ to _"untrained in speech" _(NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*Gal. 2:20:* omit _"nevertheless I live" _(NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

*Phil. 2:6:* (NKJV 1979e.) change _"thought it not robbery to be equal with God"_ to _"did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"_. (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

*Phil. 3:8:* change _"dung"_ to _"rubbish"_ (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

*1 Thess. 5:22* change_ "all appearance of evil"_ to_ "every form of evil" _(NASV, RSV, NSRV)

*1 Timothy 6:5:* The NKJV changes _"gain is godliness"_ to _"godliness is a *MEANS OF* gain"._ There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them. The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV have the phrase.

*1 Timothy 6:10:* The NKJV changes _"For the love of money is the root of all evil:" _to _"For the love of money is a root of all *KINDS OF *evil"_. The words _*"KINDS OF"*_ are found in NO Greek text in the world. 

*1 Tim. 6:20:* change _"science"_ to_ "knowledge"_ (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*Titus 3:10:* change _"heretic"_ to _"divisive man"_ (NIV)

*Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45:* _"Jesus" _is changed to_ "Joshua"_. (NIV, NASV, RSV)

*2 Pet. 2:1:* change _"damnable heresies"_ to _"destructive heresies" _(NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*1 John 3:16:* remove_ "love of God";_ (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*1 John 5:13:* The NKJV reads: _"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may *CONTINUE TO* believe in the name of the Son of God."_ They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever. 

*Rev. 2:13:* change _"Satan's seat"_ to _"Satan's throne" _(NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

*Rev. 6:14:* _"Heaven"_ is changed to _"sky" _in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)


 
_The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times._

The NKJV removes the word God 51 times. 

The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times.

In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2,289 words from the KJV. 

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.


Margaret


----------



## Grymir (Aug 29, 2008)

Oh I know, the thought of using anything other than KJV make me sick, but I wanted to vote on this poll. I couldn't really use anything else and there was no 'I would go without a Bible' option. I would rather put my KJV in a balloon and swallow it and smuggle it into my tower. But, thanks be to God that this is a hypothetical poll, so I would never have to _really_ do it!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 29, 2008)

Grymir said:


> I don't know if I could use any....I had to vote NKJV just because it's the closest. Sigh. I would climb down the tower and go across the street and buy a KJV with my food money. This is a hard choice because I just can't use anything but my trusty KJV. Good Poll!



Not an option. You might as well choose to jump out of the tower/fall on your sword.

Helpful answer nonetheless. So you you like the KJV eh?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 29, 2008)

Thank you Margaret for your helpful post.



Galatians220 said:


> The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.



Does anyone know of a listing of all these word changes?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 29, 2008)

"Ear ring on her face" 

Who puts ear rings on their face? 

As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!


----------



## ADKing (Aug 29, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> "Ear ring on her face"
> 
> Who puts ear rings on their face?
> 
> As Presbyterians we must remember our standard is that the Word of God IS the original Greek and Hebrew. The version that King James authorized (to put out Presbyterianism from England) is not the Bible, but a translation. Therefore, if the NJKV makes 100,000 changes FROM THE KJV- who cares? The KJV is not the standard, the Heb/Grk are the standard!



Yes, brother, it is good to remember. However it is also important to remember that as Presbyerians, our standards also tell us this... 

_The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. _

We are to appeal to the providentially preserved Word and not to some constantly changing, hypothetical reconstruction of what the Word may have been in the "originals" that is the basis for many of the critical versions.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 29, 2008)

ADKing said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > "Ear ring on her face"
> ...



Pastor (Rev.) King: 
I agree. The controversy was over the NKJV though. It is my humble estimation that the Trinitarian Bible Society crowd is way too critical of the NKJV and tends to use the AV as the standard for its criticism, and not the TR!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 29, 2008)

Where can I buy a TR NT?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 29, 2008)

This is what we use at Puritan Sem. It is quite nice. OT and NT. It is the Textus Receptus as well as the Bomberg/Ginsburg Hebrew OT. Both of them are the texts underlying the Geneva Bible, KJV, and NJKV.

Of course... it is Trinitarian Bible Society!


----------



## ADKing (Aug 29, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...




Fair enough.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...



Nathan,

I agree, although as I'm sure you do I appreciate the TBS. Using the AV as the standard for criticism was what is done in the examples given in post 9 of this thread as well. Where they differ often comes down to translational choices instead of a textual variant. But any variation at all from the KJV is often treated as the work of the "Alexandrian Cult" by the KJVO's.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 29, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not AV-only, but i am AV-preferred. I hope you don't mind that i voted.
> ...


The ESV.


----------



## KMK (Aug 29, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> If you had to settle for a translation other than the AV, Geneva or the like and could only use NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, or NLT, which would you choose and why?



I am cool with whatever the English speaking church decides.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 14, 2008)

I am sorry I could not vote because after my research and Edward Hendries free ebook on which bible is the Word of God I see no other.You can do a search Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy and his website should pop up.Beware he has been in a war with 
Steve Van Nattan of blessed quiteness.Steve Van Nattan has labeled Edward Hendrie as a Jew hater which clearly he is not.I have researched the Bible version issue for several years and what really got my attention is technology has allowed the vidicon camera to expose the text behind modern versions that shows the text`s have been altered several times.Also I have to compare the fruits produced since 1881 which has not impressed me one iota.I have the assurance that God keeps His promises and one is to preserve His Words.

God bless.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 14, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I could use any....I had to vote NKJV just because it's the closest. Sigh. I would climb down the tower and go across the street and buy a KJV with my food money. This is a hard choice because I just can't use anything but my trusty KJV. Good Poll!
> ...



Oh yeah! It's the closest to the originals in the english language, plus it's about the only one I can understand. Yes, I would rather fall on my sword. Of course, I could use my replacement bible, rip the pages out, fold a paper chain that would let me down the street. Go to the nearest KJV-only fundamentalist baptist church, tell them my story, and out of mercy they would give me a KJV. Then climb my way back up into the tower. Then put my KJV into whatever cover the other bible had, and live my life away being provided for and reading my Word of God.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy



Seems that Mr. Hendrie is crazier than Gail Riplinger. From the site Home : 



> Read the proof that the plane attacks broadcast by the major media outlets were in fact computer generated graphics.





> Read the evidence that President George W. Bush is a Satanist!





> Read the alarming evidence that Israel was behind the 9-11-01 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!


----------



## Grymir (Sep 15, 2008)

larryjf said:


> brothermiller said:
> 
> 
> > Edward Hendrie Anti-Christ conspiracy
> ...



Aw man, you mean the modern versions aren't the work of Satan and his minions like that website says? I was just gonna read the chapter on "Who are the Illuminati?" 

Have we just entered the PB twilight zone? Why do some of the KJV-Only groups have to be so... so.... so.... weird?


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

*NKJV*

Interesting.

NKJV a deadly Translation.

A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV


----------



## larryjf (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Interesting.
> 
> NKJV a deadly Translation.
> 
> A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV



Some folks on this board have much more honest criticisms of the NKJV so you might want to read through some of the threads in "translations and manuscripts" if you haven't already done so.

Rev. Winzer (armourbearer) brought a few of these items to my attention when he suggested that i compare the NKJV translation of Gen. 4:7; John 17:12; 1 Cor. 1:18, and Heb. 2:16 with the KJV translation of the same verses.


----------



## nicnap (Sep 15, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Where can I buy a TR NT?



The TBS sells them.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 15, 2008)

Moderator's Note

Belief that the KJV is the most faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew is one thing. Impugning the motives of those who have translated the NKJV or any of the other more modern (faithful) translations is quite another. The former position is well within confessional boundaries. The latter is not. I have read and critiqued Gail Riplinger's ridiculous nonsense. In the first 50 pages I found 15 pages worth of nonsense, and deliberate misquoting and distortion of the evidence. This thread is a poll thread. Do not derail this thread into a modern-translation-bashing session.


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 22, 2008)

I use the NIV the most, but I also consult the ESV, NASB, and the Geneva. Could anyone shed some light on the whole AV vs. Others ?

It is rather confusing to me... I don't know where in the sam hill a scriptural argument could be brought forth to defend the AV. I was in a burger king the other day and I got "ambushed" by a good intentioned fellow who spent an hour of my time explaining to me why calvinism is of the devil and that the translators of the NIV is a servant of said devil. Due to the fact that a translator of the NIV during a TV interview lost his voice. He was quite animated and I truly thought near the end that he might be psychotic and kill me...


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 22, 2008)

jd.morrison said:


> . . .
> It is rather confusing to me... I don't know where in the sam hill a scriptural argument could be brought forth to defend the AV. . . ..


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 22, 2008)

Hello Joshua,

You can find some of those "Scriptural arguments" in the links provided in this post, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/#post388956. 

I'm sorry you were cornered by someone whose elevator perhaps didn't go to the top floor, but here at PB we _generally_ try to keep our defenses of the AV scholarly, gracious, and intelligent. It may be there is a difference between how we Reformed folks approach the matter, and how others might. May you see a different style here.

Steve


----------



## N. Eshelman (Sep 22, 2008)

Which translation does our Confession of Faith use?


----------



## Galatians220 (Sep 22, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Joshua,
> 
> You can find some of those "Scriptural arguments" in the links provided in this post, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/#post388956.
> 
> ...


 
 and 

Here's (likely) the article being referred to: Bible Scholar Loses Voice on the John Ankerberg TV Show.

This article was used vociferously against me by an Arminian lawyer friend, who had concluded and then told me that I couldn't be TR-preferent *and* Reformed. "Reformed" = CT only; "Arminian, free-willers" = KJB, I was told. _Never the twain shall meet,_ she was convinced.

They did, however, in Dr. Edward F. Hills and also more recently, Dr. Theodore Letis. 

And I also agree: open this  again? Oh, no! *I hate when that happens!*   

Margaret


----------



## Gesetveemet (Sep 22, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.



Thomas Nelson did this so they could get a copyright and hijack the name "King James" and make lots of money. 


.


----------



## vagabond (Sep 22, 2008)

Well, to be honest, there is quite a commercial push behind all of the modern Bible translations. I mean, I'm not attacking the translators, but the publishing houses certainly have profit in mind. 

I voted ESV, by the way.

In Ukraine it was refreshing not having a translation controversy. Such a thing gets tiring and inappropriately divisive.


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 23, 2008)

vagabond said:


> Well, to be honest, there is quite a commercial push behind all of the modern Bible translations. I mean, I'm not attacking the translators, but the publishing houses certainly have profit in mind.
> 
> I voted ESV, by the way.
> 
> In Ukraine it was refreshing not having a translation controversy. Such a thing gets tiring and inappropriately divisive.



Yeah. At Geneva College, in my Biblical Theology Class the question was thrown at Dr. Byron Curtis as to which translation of the bible is the best. His response was:


> Well the college officially uses the NIV Student Study Bible, but the best translation I would have to say is the translation you will actually read.




This is , but thought it might be useful insight... maybe...

And it is very interesting... Because for a while I was meeting with Jehovah Witnesses and using their HORRENDOUS New World Translation of Holy Scripture, I was able to provide accurate scriptural information on the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit, Christ's Purpose on the Cross, The Cross, Ect... And their translation was PURPOSEFULLY messed with inorder to line up with their Apostate Doctrine. I would never encourage anyone to use the New World Translation of Holy Scripture but, if I remember correctly there is a member on this board who was saved by reading this translation. David Reed on this board used to be JW...


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 23, 2008)

Galatians220;469586 And I also agree: open this :worms: again? Oh said:


> I _hate_ when that happens![/B]
> 
> Margaret



I know, I am sorry for my ignorance on the issue Margaret... Please forgive me


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 23, 2008)

Grymir said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > brothermiller said:
> ...



You know that John MacArthur, and his crazy zionism... Yeah, I know I was shocked too, to find out that MacArthur was using an energy weapon to bring down the WTC to help aid the zionists attempt at world domination...

 It is sad that this **** gets associated with Christianity in anyway shape or form...


----------



## larryjf (Sep 23, 2008)

jd.morrison said:


> Yeah. At Geneva College, in my Biblical Theology Class the question was thrown at Dr. Byron Curtis as to which translation of the bible is the best. His response was:
> 
> 
> > Well the college officially uses the NIV Student Study Bible, but the best translation I would have to say is the translation you will actually read.
> ...


----------



## Galatians220 (Sep 23, 2008)

Gesetveemet said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes.
> ...


 
 It's early in the morning; I'm on my way to work and I missed the irony here when I first read the quoted post... I need to wake up, in more ways than one. 



I'm sorry. Carry on...

See you all, in _other_ threads!    

Margaret


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 23, 2008)

larryjf said:


> In my opinion the statement "the best translation is the one you read" is a cop-out. It presumes that there is no objective criteria for what makes a good translation, and that it's all subjective and up to the individual.



Yes, I agree that it is a cop-out of sorts and I probably wouldn't have answered it that way, but I think the point is important...  If you will only read say the C.E.V. at least you are reading it, and it leaves room for future edification... Perhaps I am wrong, but in an age of increasing biblical illiteracy I think it at this point would be great if they were actually reading their bibles... Because as it stands now a good portion of the church does not read their bibles...


----------



## larryjf (Sep 23, 2008)

jd.morrison said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the statement "the best translation is the one you read" is a cop-out. It presumes that there is no objective criteria for what makes a good translation, and that it's all subjective and up to the individual.
> ...



You bring up a good point with biblical illiteracy, but i don't see the vast plethora of versions helping the problem. Rather, it may even be the cause of the problem.

As different versions and different types of versions (men's study, single women's study, teen bible, teens with addictions bible, etc. etc.) flood the marketplace...perhaps it sends the message that there is no absolute Word of God, and if that's so then it's just a book, and if that's so why read it?


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 23, 2008)

larryjf said:


> You bring up a good point with biblical illiteracy, but i don't see the vast plethora of versions helping the problem. Rather, it may even be the cause of the problem.
> 
> As different versions and different types of versions (men's study, single women's study, teen bible, teens with addictions bible, etc. etc.) flood the marketplace...perhaps it sends the message that there is no absolute Word of God, and if that's so then it's just a book, and if that's so why read it?



That is another good point...

But should it not be our duty to continually work for the most accurate translation. Because in order to understand the KJV, not only would you have to understand english, but you would need to understand english history, you would also have to know figures of speech and have a knowledge of the Shakespearian language. Not everyone is going to know what a ****** is in KJV they will think of what it means today.

The people who worked on the KJV were the BEST BIBLICAL SCHOLARS of their day, but they were not perfect, an example of this would be the translation of "Dragon" vs. "jackal", they did not know the rule that guides the translation of that word in the context of its sentence.

I would say that Translating the bible is a never ending task of the church because language changes, we make mistakes, and we are learning more and more about those languages. I would put this under the category of Reformed, and ALWAYS reforming".

I think that there are superfluous translations such as the millions of different versions of the NIV (I say this implicating myself, I have a NIV SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE) such as the Teen Study Bible, Student Study bible, Mom..., dad..., parents..., Womans..., mens..., addictions... I would say that those would be great study guides to purchase separately... But I still think that we should always be striving for academic accuracy of the translation...

<<<<< EDIT >>>>>
Not arguing against, just throwing an idea out there...


----------



## larryjf (Sep 23, 2008)

jd.morrison said:


> But should it not be our duty to continually work for the most accurate translation. Because in order to understand the KJV, not only would you have to understand english, but you would need to understand english history, you would also have to know figures of speech and have a knowledge of the Shakespearian language. Not everyone is going to know what a ****** is in KJV they will think of what it means today.



Yes, i agree with this idea. I purposely left out specific versions in my post because i believe "which version" is a separate question from "should there be a common version."

I guess the first question that should be answered by the Church is "which original language texts." Before that question is answered translators wouldn't even know which text to translate. Granted some Church bodies have answered this question, but not all. I would hazard to guess that most Christian denominations don't make any objective conclusion as to which original language texts should be used.

This is going a bit further than i intended to go, so let me just say this...

If the common man in the pew only knew of one Bible, and it wasn't steeped in worldly advertising and marketing, he would not look at the Bible as just another book.


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 23, 2008)

larryjf said:


> If the common man in the pew only knew of one Bible, and it wasn't steeped in worldly advertising and marketing, he would not look at the Bible as just another book.


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 23, 2008)

Hmm... I am totally new to the whole AV only concept. I knew of KJV onlyists (which I disagree with) but I've not even heard much about the AV. In my sphere of spiritual influence the NASB and/or ESV is usually preferred, which is why my Bible studies involve The Reformation Study Bible (ESV), The MacArthur Study Bible (NASB), and The New Open Bible (NKJV). Is AV onlyism generally a Presbyterian thing?

Pardon my ignorance.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 23, 2008)

The AV is the KJV. Authorized Version (AV). And I don't think anyone here is really advocating a KJV-only stance here.


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 23, 2008)

I'm a dork. I thought the AV had some relation to the ASV or was an abbreviated abbreviation. I'll just stop talking now...


----------



## nicnap (Sep 23, 2008)

AThornquist said:


> I'm a dork. I thought the AV had some relation to the ASV or was an abbreviated abbreviation. I'll just stop talking now...



 I often feel like that on here. You haven't done anything until you've stopped a thread...I've done that on several occasions.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 23, 2008)

It's okay, Andrew. Sometimes I can't find my shoes.

BTW, I like the quote in your sig.


----------

