# I am leaning in an almost total AV direction.



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS


Thank you for that. Actually a LOT of Reformed Christins embrace the AV one of the best defenders was Dr. Hills.


----------



## CDM (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm inclined to agree with you dear brother. Here is another angle of view from a reformed perspective. MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS
> ...



That's right. The Westminster Confession does.  And, in fact my entire denomination does: Presbyterian Reformed Church.

From the Form of Church Government, para. 17:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. *The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word*, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.​


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2007)

mangum said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > Blueridge Baptist said:
> ...



 BTW, Dr. Hills' widow is a member of the Presbyterian Reformed Church (Des Moines, IA congregation).


----------



## CDM (Aug 23, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



 I did not know that. Excellent.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

mangum said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > Blueridge Baptist said:
> ...


Thank you and good points, the lofty English in the AV does under-gird some great Confessions. I like also the fact that it was a Puritan and Anglican effort, this makes it interesting from a Historic perspective.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...


Cool! Hills was amazing! If I am not in error he held degrees from 3 Ivy's!?!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.



What encouraged you to get a hold of Grady's book, if you don't mind me asking? I am familiar with Grady from my dispensational, fundamental days. I heard him speak on a couple of different occasions. He's an interesting fellow. His methods and ways are very much like those of Peter Ruckman's. Which is why you'll find those two in the same circle. With that said, he has a lot of knowledge concerning the modern version issue. I use the AV, but I definitely don't go to the extremes that I used to when I ran around in the Ruckman/Grady circle. When I say I don't go to the extremes I used to I still believe the AV is the preserved Word of God for the english speaking people. What I don't believe that it does is correct the Greek text like some do.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.



Just out of curiosity, is he coming at this from a Textus Receptus(TR) point of view?
Does he believe there should be modern translation scholarship?
Is it the existence or the quality of the new ones that he has a problem with?
What about the translations, as obscure as they may be, that use the TR only?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 23, 2007)

It is certainly my position that the MT/TR are the best texts, I love the AV, but I personally have no problem with using the NKJV, which uses these.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > mangum said:
> ...



Indeed! You can read some biographical and bibliographical information about Hills here and here.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.
> ...


Chuckle, good question (and fair), I really found Grady on Amazon. As I said.......in his Theology I take him with a shaker of salt, in this book he does a nice job in pointing to why the AV should not be lightly abandoned by God's people. As far as Ruckman, I have read and heard old "Pete", I do not find Grady to be as extreme in terms of advanced revelation and things of that nature. I am sort of pulling the meat from the bones with Dr. Grady, when he makes a good poind I mark it, if he goes on a tangent I ignore it. Overall the book has been helpful, I am sure there re better ones.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 23, 2007)

I use the KJV. However I am currently finishing the OT in the 1599 Geneva and starting the NT again in the same. I really enjoy reading in the Geneva. I have given a few NKJV's to some younger people who have had no experience with the AV since the NT text of the NKJV is the TR.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 23, 2007)

Here is another great resource. Jay P. Green turned me on to it. 

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > For a long time I have felt the AV to be the best English translation, I did use other translations(and will still do so for comparison)....what has really convinced me you might ask? Final Authority by Dr. William P. Grady. He is a Fundamental Baptist, I do not agree with much or even most of his personal Theology. This is rather beside the point, he is not "shrill", he is thoughtful, sober , and sometimes quite funny. He has exposed a lot of lies we have been fed in regard to the Critical Text and many falsehoods fed to us in regard to the Hebrew undergirding the OT sections of the New Translations. I read White and to my shame I became almost knee-jerk against anyone who would dare challenge the New Versions, this has humbled me, it is through scripture we see the Love Letter (Augustine) and revelation of our Lord, why should we not want t to be as "pure" as possible? I challenge one and all to read Final Authority (I am sure you can get inexpensive used copies on Amazon), and read it with an open mind. It has really changed a lot in the way I think of Text-Types and Translation.
> ...


To be honest I am unsure of Dr. Grady's opinions on some of these things. I have not read all of the book yet ( my wife put on her sleep-mask last night which means "Close the book and go to bed!") I will finish it soon.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 23, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> Here is another great resource. Jay P. Green turned me on to it.
> 
> http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm



Brother Gary at DTL has some great stuff on his site.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another great resource. Jay P. Green turned me on to it.
> ...


Yes, Gary has some good solid article! I like his site!


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and ESV are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and NASB are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.



I can respect that position, but I think new translations are important so that we don't loose the ability as a Church to put Scripture into the vulgar languages. Eventually, the KJV will be in a dead language(it may be now, but I don't know), and the Church will need to translate it into the contemporary ones. Most of the KJVO people ignore this since the world will end tomorrow anyway.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to add something I should have put in the first post on my thread, I think the AV to be the best available translation based upon its source texts, the approach of the Translators, and the fact that I feel the best theology emerges from it's pages. I say all that to say I am not lunatic fringe......the AV did not fall as is from the sky, those who ue the NASB and NASB are not going to hell. I am a Reformed man, I do not believe in "chance" I hold to a High view of Our God's Sovereignty, there was a reason the AV played such an important role for almost 400 years, there is a reason it has been the most printed and reprinted book in history. Maybe none of these facts in and of themselves point towards Divine approval but for this Christian at least.......they are things to think about.
> ...


Those who are not Elect and Chosen and touched with the Holy Spirit will not understand any Bible no matter how common (vulgar) they cannot understand Spiritual things.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



Didn't that totally miss my point? 

So, if I read you a Bible in Chinese, you won't understand it why? Because you aren't elect?


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > raderag said:
> ...


Don't be sarcastic! I was being polite, please try to be civil yourself I was speaking in a VERY GENERAL sense in which the people of God hear the words of God.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



Hi There, sorry if I came across as sarcastic, but I was just trying to make a point. I think this is an important enough issue in that it required some amount of sarcasm. Like I said, you totally ignored my point.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > raderag said:
> ...


 I am sorry as well Brother, we were both trying to make points and it seemed like a collision. I assume your Theology is Reformed or you would not wish to be here. I am sorry to you I did not state my position very well, it is something I think we would agree on. All I was doing was pointing out the fact is unregenerate man cannot TRULY "understand" Holy Writ even if you wrote at the level of USA Today (they might have some fleshly mental grasp, but not a spirital grasp.) I assume you would not argue with that, it is Scritural.


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 23, 2007)

What I don't get is why Engelsma doesn't touch on the Geneva at all. When looking at the KJV vs. the Geneva, where does the Geneva not measure up?


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

kvanlaan said:


> What I don't get is why Engelsma doesn't touch on the Geneva at all. When looking at the KJV vs. the Geneva, where does the Geneva not measure up?


The translation work in general and the OT in particular was better done in the AV. That said in a lot of cases there were few changes, but in "general" AV is considered more accurate than the Geneva.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



No problem on this side. I agreed with your statement, but not as an acceptable answer to my question about modern scholarship. BTW, I adhere to the WCF.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > raderag said:
> ...


I was struggling with trying to write without any sleep! Not always a good combo on the board! As far as modern scholarship my opinion (humble and tired), would go like this, I truly do feel that the Ben Chayyim OT and the TR are God's word's preserved, now as to a new translation.....it would have to be based upon said texts and it would require the blessings of God. Right now I think only the AV meets this. 7 years from now.....who can say? Is anything to hard for the Lord! He might well indeed bless us with a translation that is all the AV is and is more modern.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



I can respect that coming from an Anglican, but is that the only Church that would have the authority to authorize it?


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > raderag said:
> ...



Brother, our Shepherd knows his sheep, that is the true Church! I have met Apostate Anglicans and Apostate Presbyterians. I never did say anything about an Anglican Authorization. The AV was an Anglican/ Puritan effort! The seal on it was the blessing of Our God for 400 years. Nothing to sneeze at. I am part of the "true" Church, but it is because I was Baptized into Christ........not Cranmer nor Calvin.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



I agree, although I'm not sure if I think the AV is the only acceptable or even the best version.


----------



## etexas (Aug 23, 2007)

raderag said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > raderag said:
> ...


Once again my friend I duly noted in an eary post that I am not part of the KJO lunatic fringe, I never said (nor would I say) it is the only acceptable version. I did call it the best English translation and noted a few reasons why......I would NEVER let my use of the AV be the "tool" by which I would attempt to discern someone's orthodoxy! I hope you (and anyone else reading this) would not take it in such a spirit! I am but a sinner saved by Grace, far be it from me to judge another Christian in such a manner. Pax Vobiscum.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



Hey there, no bother. I never thought you were judging anyone. Anyway I agree that the AV is one of the best translations, and that there were very Godly men that worked on it.


----------



## Scot (Aug 23, 2007)

> Yes, Gary has some good solid article! I like his site!



He also has a site called fitness for one and all where he tells of how he overcame fibromyalgia and other health difficulties using natural therapies. You can get to it from his dtl site. He went to a natural doctor that I know personally and has helped me in the past.


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



Hey there, no bother. I never thought you were judging anyone. Anyway I agree that the AV is one of the best translations, and that there were very Godly men that worked on it.


----------



## jtbdad (Aug 23, 2007)

Wow;

This is one of the reasons I joined this board. I truly enjoy how educated most of you are about these issues. I fully admit I only have a basic understanding about the debate of KJOnlyism.

For me it is simple. I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 24, 2007)

jtbdad said:


> Wow;
> 
> This is one of the reasons I joined this board. I truly enjoy how educated most of you are about these issues. I fully admit I only have a basic understanding about the debate of KJOnlyism.
> 
> For me it is simple. I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.



There are some excellent and brief articles produced by the TBS especially:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.asp
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.pdf
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lordgaveword.asp


----------



## etexas (Aug 24, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> jtbdad said:
> 
> 
> > Wow;
> ...


Hi Richard. Just noted your links. Thank you! Trinitarian is great.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> jtbdad said:
> 
> 
> > Wow;
> ...



Gotta love the TBS.


----------



## etexas (Aug 24, 2007)

The Trinitarian links are very good!


----------



## jtbdad (Aug 25, 2007)

Those are some great links


----------



## etexas (Aug 25, 2007)

I think I will make a separate link for those who wish to read the brilliant Presbyterian Dr. E. Hills defense online. A classic!


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 25, 2007)

jtbdad said:


> I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.


I've been down this road. Some go so far as to claim that the AV corrected the Greek. I've read some of Hills' work. I've also seen the videos put out by Pensacola. There is much to be desired and many facts are skewed by a subjective argument that draws conclusions that are sometimes not well supported. I went full bore KJVO. It's ugly and renders one useless for the kingdom. Be careful.
If one holds to the oldest traditional text then we're stuck with the Vulgate, with all its problems. Many of the challenges in the Vulgate filtered into the TR. While I prefer the MT, the TR has issues that Erasmus couldn't have foreseen. His work was excellent, but limited.
The AV was written for largely political reasons. It's a good translation, and I love it, but they used language more archaic than the Geneva translation, though translated later. I appreciate the clarity that much of the older English gives us. But it's simply an obsolete language for today's English speaking people (except for some hill people in the south that still speak Elizabethan English). 
From what I can tell, and what I've read from others, the NKJV is possibly the best OT translation available. In the NT, with all the textual variances, it's more difficult to tell. I prefer the NKJV method of translation and like the way it reads. Of all the translations it seems to carry much of the elegance of the AV, yet in a manner that is easier on today's readers. It's adherence to the TR causes some challenges. But their careful notes showing where they made translation decisions and letting the reader know where there are MT and NU (CT) variances helps us to understand their thinking. This along with italics where they've added words for clarity make it a very responsible translation. As far as I know no other translation provides this much clarity and transparency in their translation decisions.

My


----------



## KMK (Aug 25, 2007)

Wannabee; said:


> 299661I went full bore KJVO. It's ugly and renders one useless for the kingdom.



How so?


----------



## JM (Aug 25, 2007)

AV for me, thanks.


----------



## etexas (Aug 25, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> jtbdad said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.
> ...


You seem to be claiming that the use of the AV makes one useless for the Kingdom. You also throw Ruckman in my face. I had more class. First I made it VERY clear I am not on the KJO Lunatic fringe...I do not think you can use it to correct the Hebrew and Greek (Ruckman advanced revelation),in the second place I also made it VERY clear I do not judge others by their use of translations! Hey, as long as you are not reading the Watchtower version, I think God will speak to you. My answer to whether the AV will make one useless for the Kingdom, well Brother, I can apply that to any version in the sense that you can have any version or versions knocking around your home, unless they by the Holy Ghost enter your heart and mind and plays itself out in one's Christian walk, any version could be relegated to the place of a coaster or door-stop and become useless. My answer to your .....with change and a smile. Anything else?


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 26, 2007)

Fingolfin
I said nothing of the sort. I said that KJVOnlyism is crippling because it results in one having the wrong focus. I personally became useless for the kingdom because I had become KJVO. I said this from personal experience. It was more of a confession than accusation of any kind. I didn't quote you or refer to anything you said.
Ruckman? I didn't even mention him. I didn't accuse anybody here. I simply put forth my perspective and put up a warning that there is danger if one gets caught up in the subjective argumentation that can lead to an angry defense of the AV. That's what KJVOnlyism is. 
Brother, it seems you have a chip on your shoulder. If I've sinned against you then, by all means, show me my error. But your defense leaves me scratching my head in confusion.

Be blessed


----------



## Bandguy (Aug 26, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> raderag said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



Hi there. An honest question: Are you also assuming that you know who the elect are not based on the fact that there is not a translation of the Bible in their language, and therefore, therefore, what is the point of even doing so? If this is your point, I think you might be bordering upon hyper-calvinism, which flies in the face of Biblical Calvinism which commmands to proclaim the Gospel to all nations out of obedience to God. God will decide who is elect (as a matter of fact, he already did a looooooong time ago) and who is not. It is not our job to decide. It is our job to obey God's command and glorify him.


----------



## jtbdad (Aug 26, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> jtbdad said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God. I do not have that confidence in more modern translations. They may well be very good translations but my confidence is in the AV and that is why I read it and use it.
> ...




I fully admit that my use of the AV is simply preference. I have never made any kind of statement that other versions are deficient. I guess it's really for me just a matter of confidence. I seriously doubt I would ever be entirely KJO simply because I haven't studied the matter and couldn't compose an argument for it.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2007)

It may be worth pointing out that an AV-preferred position does not rule out the use of other translations in conjunction with various study tools. It only entails that the AV is recognised as the most reliable translation, and therefore the preferred version when reading the Word of God. Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Aug 26, 2007)

jtbdad said:


> I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God.



Every translation - no paraphrases, please - is the Word of God. To say that only the AV is the Word of God is to say that no other English translation counts. It is also to say that those in other countries who speak other languages do not have the Word of God, since they do not have access to the AV - unless they want to go to the trouble of learning Elizabethan/Jacobian English.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 26, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> It may be worth pointing out that an AV-preferred position does not rule out the use of other translations in conjunction with various study tools. It only entails that the AV is recognised as the most reliable translation, and therefore the preferred version when reading the Word of God. Blessings!



It's remarkable how this has become a matter of discussion at our little Baptist church. None of us are saying that other translations do not have value. They are all wonderful study tools. I have only used the NKJV since coming to this church. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), it's the only modern translation that is based on the TR. That being said, I think we are heading in the direction of using exclusively the AV in public worship.


----------



## dfranks (Aug 26, 2007)

Where does the English Standard Version (ESV) measure up in all of this. I have been to several reformed OPC and PCA churches and it seems like this is the most used translation.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2007)

Ivan said:


> It's remarkable how this has become a matter of discussion at our little Baptist church. None of us are saying that other translations do not have value. They are all wonderful study tools. I have only used the NKJV since coming to this church. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), it's the only modern translation that is based on the TR. That being said, I think we are heading in the direction of using exclusively the AV in public worship.



That's encouraging, Ivan.


----------



## KMK (Aug 26, 2007)

Ivan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > It may be worth pointing out that an AV-preferred position does not rule out the use of other translations in conjunction with various study tools. It only entails that the AV is recognised as the most reliable translation, and therefore the preferred version when reading the Word of God. Blessings!
> ...



We use KJV mostly in worship. Occasionaly my fellow elder will preach from the NASB because he has practically the whole thing memorized and can't help it. Just today I sent a young woman home with one of our KJV pew Bibles because she did not have one but was struck by its beauty as I was preaching.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 26, 2007)

dfranks said:


> Where does the English Standard Version (ESV) measure up in all of this. I have been to several reformed OPC and PCA churches and it seems like this is the most used translation.


The ESV is a very good translation using the NU texts. Strengths include literalness and readability. Besides my personal preference for the MT, the only thing I don't like about it is that translation decisions aren't clearly marked as they are in the NKJV. There are no italics to indicate added words and margin notes are not as prevalent. It is very reliable though, along the lines of the NASB. As for the NASB, many would argue for the pre-95 version over the updated, stating that modernization of the text sacrificed accuracy.


----------



## jtbdad (Aug 28, 2007)

I agree that you are probably right. For me it is just a matter of for whatever reason I have confidence in the AV and that is why I am most comfortable using it. I can't really explain why I don't have the same confidence in the other translations. 






bookslover said:


> jtbdad said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure in my mind and my spirit that the AV is the word of God.
> ...


----------



## KMK (Aug 28, 2007)

jtbdad said:


> I agree that you are probably right. For me it is just a matter of for whatever reason I have confidence in the AV and that is why I am most comfortable using it. I can't really explain why I don't have the same confidence in the other translations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with part of Mr. Zuelch's statement, however, be careful. He likes to sneak in little digs at the AV when he gets the chance.  He implies that it is 'trouble' to learn Elizabethan/Jacobian English. Well, maybe it was 'trouble' for him, but that does not mean that it is 'trouble' for everyone. (I find it much more troubling to learn 'NASB English'.


----------



## jtbdad (Aug 31, 2007)

KMK said:


> jtbdad said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that you are probably right. For me it is just a matter of for whatever reason I have confidence in the AV and that is why I am most comfortable using it. I can't really explain why I don't have the same confidence in the other translations.
> ...





I caught that and chose to ignore it. I have never said that any other translation is any more or less reliable than the AV. I simply don't have the education to make such an argument. I only intended to point out why I prefer the AV. That being that I am confident in it and for some reason I am not confident in others. The point is that I and others who feel as I do, read the Scriptures and attempt to apply them to our lives. Why would one care if we chose to read and use the AV?


----------



## JM (Sep 1, 2007)

I have a few works in pdf about the AV, if anyone wants them just send me a pm with your email and I'll send it out to you.


----------



## KMK (Sep 1, 2007)

jtbdad said:


> I caught that and chose to ignore it. I have never said that any other translation is any more or less reliable than the AV. *I simply don't have the education to make such an argument.* I only intended to point out why I prefer the AV. That being that I am confident in it and for some reason I am not confident in others. The point is that I and others who feel as I do, read the Scriptures and attempt to apply them to our lives. Why would one care if we chose to read and use the AV?



Who does? I have no problem allowing the English speaking church to make that decision for me. 

Come to think of it... She did!


----------

