[SirLok]

I chose KJV. Ive tried going NIV, NKJV, and maybe something else...but I kept going back to the KJV.
Also, I never really understood why other translations omit so many scriptures from their versions.

GOD BLESS!!!

[Beau]

Hi. I am but a newborn here. Just wanted to say that NKJV is the text for me...

[Frogfoot]

I choose Other. the Translation I use the most is the Dutch NBG from 1951.

[Salzey]

Personally.... bibles are bibles to me.... as long as it contains the word of God... But i favour NASB ans NIV

[Underhill]

Wow...all these new people here...welcome!

[JESUSWORSHIPPER]

:kcool:
HEY MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST,FAVORITE TRANSLATION IS NLT.LIVE GOD LOUD IS WHAT THE NAME OF THE TRANSLATION MAKES THINK OF.
(CHORUS2 FROM BUCK'S"TRUTH AND LIFE"):
JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY.;HE'S THE ONLY TRUTH AND LIFE,TO A JOY BEYOND COMPARE,OPEN YOUR EARS AND OPEN YOUR HEART.ONLY HE CAN FILL YOUR EMPTY HEART ONLY HE CAN MAKE YOU.JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY,HE'S THE ONLY TRUTH AND LIFE.

[gitRluver]

I use the KJV the only autherized version. Isn't is strange that most people who believe in the KJV will only use the KJV and all others don't care which version they use?
P.S. more to come.

[gitRluver]

I use the KJV because of the background and the time that went into the translation of it. All other bibles don't even use the same text as the KJV. Even the nkjv is translated from a different text. the KJV old testament uses the ben Chayyim text. the nkjv uses the ben Asher text which is corrupted. It uses the name King James to lure people away from the Real King James. People will argue that other versions are easier to read, most other versions are written on a higher reading level. The KJV is written on a 5th grade reading level. Other version exceed this by 1 or more grade levels(Read Dr. Donald Waite's sons study on reading bible reading levels . People will say the thees and thous are out dated. In 1611 no one used thees and thous anymore. As a matter fact they had not used thees and thous for more than 100 year. The older form of Engish was used because it was the best and most correct English of all time. Some one made the comment about the translaters of the KJV and said that people today know more about Greek and Hebrew. I know that the niv is missing several verses as well as the nasb. Some of the newly printed niv’s and nasbs put the verse back in because of the contraversy. They were originally translated without them. Is God's word so unimportant that you can just omit God's word’s. I am sure you would agree that every word of God is important. Don’t take my word for it here some things from people who are a little more educated then me.

(Dr. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean Burgon Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects.

THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS. The second reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior translators.
Let's take a brief look at the superior translators of the KJV. Why do I say that the KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because they ARE superior! I think that there is no question about the expertise and ability of the translators who gave us our KJV. The new version people often say that the KJV translators were rather ignorant and didn't know as much about translating as the "translators/paraphrasers" of today. This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic qualifications are unequaled!
Let's mention Dr. Lancelot Andrews. He was certainly a superior KJV translator. He had mastered fifteen languages. I don't know any of the modern translator who have mastered fifteen languages, do you? Send me their names, if you have proof of this.
How about Dr. William Bedwell? He was famed in Arabic learning. I don't know how many of these new men who are translating for these modern versions and perversions who have studied as much of the Arabic language as he had. In fact, he published in quarto, an edition of the Epistles of St. John in Arabic with a Latin version. I don't know how many men today could do that. Dr. Bedwell left many Arabic manuscripts in the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes and a font of types for printing them. In fact, he wrote an Arabic lexicon, or dictionary, in three volumes. He also began a Persian dictionary which is among Archbishop Laud's manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford today. I don't think anyone among our modern translators of today has done this or could do this! Do you know any of these men who have written an Arabic dictionary and begun a Persian dictionary, or done anything similar in the scholarly world that will even come close to the accomplishments of William Bedwell? If so, send me their names and the proof. We are ignoramuses today compared to the scholars who gave us our KJV!
Look at the acceptability of Dr. Miles Smith. He was an expert in Hebrew, in Chaldee, in Syriac, and in Arabic. They were almost as familiar to him as his native tongue. Dr. Smith went through both the Greek and Latin church Fathers, making annotations on them all.
Sir Henry Saville was proficient in both Greek and mathematics. He became tutor in these two subjects to Queen Elizabeth. I don't know how many queens or kings our modern translators have tutored, do you? Saville translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus and published the same with notes. He published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin against Pelagius, the Writers of English History Subsequent to Bede, and Prelections on the Elements of Euclid. He was the first to edit the complete works of Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He was a profound, and exact scholar.
John Bois was expert in Hebrew as well as Greek. He studied at his father's knee. In fact, at the age of five, he had read the whole Bible IN HEBREW!! At the age of six, John Bois was able to write Hebrew in a clear and elegant style. If you know anything about the Hebrew letters, it's difficult to write in an elegant style, or in any style, for that matter. Much more could be said about John Bois.
The superior translators in general. I liken the KJV translators to the giant Gulliver and the translators of today to tiny Lilliputians. It states in Ge. 6:4: "There were GIANTS in the earth in those days..." It was true also from 1604 to 1611, when these profound scholars gave us our incomparable King James Bible! They had mastered English as well as the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. They also knew the cognate or brother-sister- cousin related languages that shed light on the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek such as the Aramaic, the Arabic, the Persian, the Coptic, the Syriac, and the others. When the modern translators come upon a word they don't understand, they throw up their hands in dismay. The KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. Our modern translators are linguistically illiterate when compared to the men who gave us our KJV. They truly were "GIANTS"!!)

[1. The Mandate began July 22, 1604. King James appointed 54 men to translate an authorized version.
2. The Men - the translators were the greatest scholars alive and their credentials are very impressive. In the book Which Bible, Terence H. Brown lists 47 of the 54 appointed by the King. Let us never forget that the translation of Westcott and Hort in 1870 was a closed door affair, where the corrupt Greek text was placed above the received text. Also, never forget that every "new" translation has followed Westcott and Hort in their modernist, new age teachings.
3. The Method - the translators were organized into six groups, two meeting at Westminister, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. Each scholar made his own translation, then passed it on to each member of his group, and after they had completed their assigned section, it was passed to all other groups. Thus it went through the hands of each of the translators.
4. The Manuscript - what did this cast of great, brilliant scholars choose for their Greek text? The Received text, along with the majority group. We must understand that nearly all of the old manuscripts agree; it is only a very few Greek manuscripts that line up with the RSV, NASV, NIV etc.
5. The Miracle, the King James 1611 authorized version became the greatest Bible ever translated. It has been behind every great revival in History. The Wesley's, Whitfield's, and Spurgeon's all used this Bible with great success. In America, it produced the Great Awakening, under Jonathan Edwards, and the camp meeting movement. God's hand was on this work as no other Bible ever translated. Is there any question as to why Satan hates the King James 1611 Version? The Devil doesn't want people to have a Bible they can believe is without error. The Manuscripts - they used the faulty Alexandrian Greek text preserved by the church of Rome. The two main text used were the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.
1. The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai by the German (higher critic) Tischendorf. This text was in a waste basket waiting to be burned. Dean Burgon, great scholar of Oxford, in the 1840's. points out the fact that if these manuscripts had been considered useful to the early church, then they would have been both worn out and recopied for further study.
2. The Codex Vaticanus - believed to have written around 330 A.D. It is funny that this text was not worn out by those early Christians, if this was the real thing. The Vaticanus was kept in the Vatican Library in Rome since 1481. It is not a complete Greek Text, missing are Philemon, Revelation and part of Hebrews. This is not counting the hundreds of changes from the Received Text. The Vatican conveniently allowed it to be used by Westcott and Hort in 1870 to complete this corruption of God's true Word. (the info in [] was taken from Dr. Steve Harmon, Pastor & Biblebeliever.com)
(The nkjv omits the word "Lord" 66 times, "God" 51 Times, "heaven" 50 times, "repent" 44 times, "blood"23 times, "hell" 22 times, JEHOVAH, dam nation and devils entirely. It ignores the textus Receptus (majority text) over 1200 times. In the niv the following verses are omited all together, Matt 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1st John 5:7. The info in ( ) was taken from G.A.Riplinger pamphlet “nkj omissions”.)

[Alpha_Trooper]

I found NLT the easiest to read, I was having difficulty reading NIV.

[GodBoy809]

Oh... My fave tranzlation is NLT...I like it mainly cus they make it very understandable when you read it and dont use to many big words..heh

[dant]

i did not see the NAB or NSRV posted. interesting. they are probably used in America and around the world by more Christians than any other bible.


Reason?

[WooTang]

I am forced to think that most fundamentalistic KJV-only people are very liberal in their concept of the original manuscripts. In reading all of the posts in this forum, there have been about 4 or 5 references to the use as the original inspired greek and hebrew texts as criteria for the elevated inspiration of the Authorized Version. This, however, can not be. The only truly 100% inspired original biblical texts would be the very texts, or autographs, which are the manuscripts that the original authors personally wrote. Unfortunately, these original autographs no longer exist. Every copy of these manuscripts, however faithful they may be, cannot be viewed as 100% inspired. So the KJV cannot be more inspired than any other translation. Unless, of course, the 54 men that King James had to translate the bible had some sort of special revelation from God. (see Smith, Joseph; Mormonism)

If you desire more confirmation that the KJV is not the most inspired version, look up 1 John 5:7,8 in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and any other translation. These verses are not found in any known Greek manuscript dated before 1600. So why are these supposedly non-inspired verses found in the KJV?

Also, if God Himself authorized the KJV, why were there so many blatant errors in the early editions of the Authorized Version. For example, in a 1631 edition, the word NOT was omited, so that the 7 commandment said," Thou shalt commit adultery." Or 1 Corinthians 6:9, in the 1653 edition said," the unrighteous shall inherit the earth" instead of righteous. Or how about the 1717 edition which stated that Luke 20 contained the Parable of the Vinegar instead of the Parable of the Vineyard. One of the early editions even confused Jesus with Judas in Matthew 26:36.

I could easily explain similar errors in virutally every trusted translation today. But my point is that no version can claim to be more inspired than the other. Here's the deal. God's word is still living and active and sharper than a two edged sword. Any translation that uses the early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and trys to stay faithful to those manuscripts through word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations is a reliable source for God's Word. This includes most modern versions, including the KJV.

[FronzelNeekburm]

Originally posted by phats
I don't think it's worth debating, because foolsih arguements waste time.

AMEN PHATS!!!!!

[Jay42]

Is there some giant website out there linking visitors to this particular thread?

P.S. - To the KJV-only crowd, how did any Christian get inspired before the year 1611?

[Dutch Diddely]

I was wondering if I'd find any other NRSV fans. Boy Howdy!