# Should We Say Preferred?



## Rich Koster (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm sure most of us have been in a debate about which translation of the Bible we use and why. Would it be helpful to use terminology such as "King James Preferred" rather than "King James Only" to distance ourselves from the Fundy stereotype that is linked to bad sermons and venomous arguments?


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 15, 2012)

What if you're "King-James-and-Old-Geneva-only?" I may be the only one here who's that... If you keep to Reformed doctrine and everyone you come across knows that you're* very *far from being a "venomous fundy," is that okay?

I really, _really_ don't want to engage in even one word of a debate over it anymore.


----------



## JoannaV (Aug 15, 2012)

What you say will depend on each individual conversation. I don't think there's a need to create a camp and name it, unless perhaps you are trying to name a blog. If you're just initiating a conversation surely "I use the King James" is sufficient.
If someone is going to erroneously associate you with a stereotype they will probably do so however you phrase it.


----------



## sevenzedek (Aug 15, 2012)

We do this instinctually: What translation do you prefer?

I would never say, "KJV only."

I am quite certain that most people do not begin a discussion by asking, "What translation do you think everyone else should be using?"

Being sensitive to people as issues are brought up in a conversation is easy. The only other time we might need to label ourselves as "preferred" is when we are addressing the topic is when the KJV issue is instigated in some form of address to people. Even then there is enough room to address sensitivities.


----------



## J. Dean (Aug 15, 2012)

Rich Koster said:


> I'm sure most of us have been in a debate about which translation of the Bible we use and why. Would it be helpful to use terminology such as "King James Preferred" rather than "King James Only" to distance ourselves from the Fundy stereotype that is linked to bad sermons and venomous arguments?



As long as you don't browbeat or look down your nose at somebody who doesn't use the KJV (Not suggesting you do, btw, Rich). 

I would refer to myself as ESV-preferred, but somebody uses an NIV, KJV, NJKV, NASB, or other generally accepted translation I'm not going to go ballistic about it. Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses (including the KJV) and those strengths/weaknesses need to be remembered when reading and comparing versions and possible translations of a particular passage.

Now, if The Message is brought in, I might be a little less inclined to hear it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 15, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Now, if The Message is brought in, I might be a little less inclined to hear it.



Come on now, who isn't inspired by poetic rendering of the Lord's Prayer in the Message?

Our Father in heaven, 
Reveal who you are. 
Set the world right; 
Do what's best— as above, so below. 
Keep us alive with three square meals. 
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. 
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. 
You're in charge! 
You can do anything you want! 
You're ablaze in beauty! 
Yes. Yes. Yes.


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 15, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure most of us have been in a debate about which translation of the Bible we use and why. Would it be helpful to use terminology such as "King James Preferred" rather than "King James Only" to distance ourselves from the Fundy stereotype that is linked to bad sermons and venomous arguments?
> ...



To clarify where I was going with this, I am not KJP . I'm suggesting this merely as an alternative terminology, because of some of the conversations I have had with people who will not join a congregation if their preferred translation is not the "pulpit Bible". I see KJO and KJP (or any other translation you want to single out) as a big difference. I'm all for allowing a preference due to intelligent discussion and reason. I'm against demonizing and/or belittling other valid (non-cult or politically correct driven) translations, such as the rabid KJO independents do. I recall a You Tube posted on here several times about he who pi$$eth against the wall. That's the type of stuff I am trying to create a buffer from. BTW I do read from KJV, NAS, ESV, HCSB, NIV and Geneva, especially for some of the helps.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 15, 2012)

Wow, Bill, what a monstrosity! It's like someone published a satire.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 15, 2012)

Rich Koster said:


> Should We Say Preferred?



If someone decides to state a translation preference when decribing their faith, without being asked, and says it's KJV, I doubt it'll make much difference whether the word "only" or "preferred" is used. Most people are going to assume a quack. It may sound slightly less quacky if they say "preferred," but only slightly.

The topic is better left for a conversation that affords time to give a thorough explanation.


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 15, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > Should We Say Preferred?
> ...




Yes. However, I'm thinking for brevity, such as saying "I'm a Calvinist". We can slowly walk our hearer through the doctrines of grace, or mention a moniker to reveal our intended thoughts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 15, 2012)

Interesting topic, Rich. The churches I am regularly in use the ESV and NIV, and the occasion doesn’t often come up to identify which version I use, except when I am talking with the pastor, a good friend.

The way _I_ say it, if asked, or if I’m writing on the subject, is that I’m King James _priority_, to indicate I’m not “only” – which translates into, “The King James is the only valid Bible”, which is a view I do not hold, neither is it true. 

I’ve recently read – among Fundamental Independent Baptists (IFBs) – statements like, those who appreciate Codex Vaticanus are “apostate ‘scholars’ ” (sure, some have been, and are, but some are godly and learned souls), and the modern versions are “per-versions”. I’m aware that a lot of IFBs read my posts here at PB, and I’ve been thinking lately of addressing them strongly about this. In a nutshell (in the coming thread addressing them I will expand on this theme), I will say to them the same thing I said to their opponent James White (here – about 4-5 paragraphs down), we should – in our discussions and debates regarding people’s Bibles – be careful not to “grievously damage the faith our brothers and sisters have in their Bibles” just because they do not have the view of the issues we have. Shall we tear down the precious faith they have in the word of their God – whether it be the KJV or a modern version – these who are blood-bought children of God Christ suffered and died for?

Lest anyone think that in my old age (not that 70 is so old!) I’ve become mealy-mouthed, let me say the issue of the Bibles is very important, but while I uphold my view I will still respect the Bibles others use. After all, is not the primary issue the matter of individual readings – the variants in some versions – being omitted or changed? Yes, there is the matter of the Reformation Bible being shunted off to the harm of the cohesion of the church; yet we must deal with this graciously, and seek Christ’s way to deal with it. This is an extremely serious issue, especially in the days to come when the saints here in the West will be fiercely persecuted; we will not need contentious disturbers-of-the-peace when we are in fiery crucibles of suffering! But more on this shortly in its proper place.

Sorry, Rich, for the digression!


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 15, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Interesting topic, Rich. The churches I am regularly in use the ESV and NIV, and the occasion doesn’t often come up to identify which version I use, except when I am talking with the pastor, a good friend.
> 
> The way _I_ say it, if asked, or if I’m writing on the subject, is that I’m King James _priority_, to indicate I’m not “only” – which translates into, “The King James is the only valid Bible”, which is a view I do not hold, neither is it true.
> 
> ...



No apology needed. I started this thread to spark discussion and sharing of thoughts. BTW, I like that "priority" moniker too. I also appreciate your sensitivity to not treading on a work of grace.


----------

