What is the Worst Bible Translation?

Herein lies the problem:

1. You have given no biblical/scriptural support for why you believe this.
2. You have not yet identified which of the several KJVs you believe to be the Word of God (since things that are different are not the same).
3. You are unable/unwilling to tell us where the Word of God was before 1611 when it was obviously somewhere other than the KJV.
4. You are unable/unwilling to explain where there were multiple "Words" in past generations but now is only one.
5. You are accusing us of not using God's word, when in fact you have nothign but your opinion (probably learned from someone else) to support that.
6. You have not told us why you consider them unfaithful and what standard of comparison you are using.

Why are you so opposed to people having Scripture in the language in which they speak? That is the part I don't understand. We have the incomparable message of life and hope in Jesus Christ yet some dont' want it in the language of the common man. Why?

[ July 15, 2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Herein lies the problem:........ [Pastor Larry]

"Now that you've got all that said, feel better?
And the only problem I have is with satan pushing and pushing and pushing. The Holy Spirit never leads you to disobey the Bible. I use the one that God lead me to a very long time ago and He has never led me to another. ***God leads~satan pushes. God bless you now and always.

[ July 15, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

Excellent summary of the situation, in point form. You must be a pastor or something.

Too bad they were just brushed off (big surprise). Most KJV-only supporters at least *try* to answer simple, direct questions. It is quite rare (but kind of interesting) to meet someone who has such strong beliefs about something, but the only support they can come up with is "because".

And here I thought Christians are supposed to be able to provide answers for their beliefs.

Brian

 

No I don't. Those were invitations for you to help us understand how you reconcile these things.

Here you appear to be implying that Satan is pushing the use of modern versions and therefore we are being influenced by Satan. That type of statement (that you have made several times here) is what becomes so disturbing about this whole trend of KJVOnlyism. Not only will you not defend your position from Scripture, you also accuse those who disagree with you undefended position of being led by Satan. Thus you question our salvation (whether implicitly or explicitly only you know).

God does not lead you to disobey his word. If you can show me from his word where he says that using modern versions is sin, I will gladly obey. Until then, it is improper and unbiblical for you to suggest that we are following Satan or being pushed by Satan.

I am glad you love the KJV and use it. Do not condemn those who do not. Chances are, most of us have very good reasons why we do not and most of us are seeing the blessing of God on our ministries.

 

So, Pastor Larry, you don't consider when one so-called version leaves a verse or several verses out a contradiction?! Never any confusion? Maybe your sheep aren't listening to you... ...just kidding!!! Seriously, I take it that you've never had the congregation read verses in unison out loud. Can you imagine how confusing that would sound if you asked your congregation to read John 4:29 aloud? That's exactly what it "sounds" like in everyone's head as they are reading along with your text scripture...and you really believe there's no confusion?!

 

Why do you assume the verses in question were left out? Do you have the originals?

Of course the point is that you cannot prove that those verses were left out. That is an assumption you have jumped to. It may be right or it may be wrong. However, it is an assumption.

Actually I do have them read out loud. I just ask them to use the pew Bibles when we do. You assume that when people read different versions they are being confused rather than clarified. My experience with people who read multiple versions is that their understanding of Scripture is clarified by multiple versions rather than confused by it.

In the bottom line, my people are not bothered by it, primarily because they have been taught about the issues involved. I love in my ABF class for people with different versions to read them and quite often I ask for them to read them aloud. More than one person's understanding has been enhanced because of it.

However, perhaps you would like to take a stab at the issue pointed out above since your "granny" wouldn't.

 

But the point is, unless you know how the "original manuscripts" read, you cannot know if a reading is "left out" of one version or "added to" the other. Granny'sDaughter, do you think things cannot be added?

When we read in unison in our church, it's usually from the NIV, with the passage to be read printed on a leaflet in the bulletin. This way, we avoid the confusion of not being in unison and the confusion some people get when reading the KJV.

Brian

[ July 15, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Hi Granny's Daughter,

I asked the following question:

To which you responded but did not specifically answer the question.

Another poster said the Latin Vulgate was the material Word of God before the 1611KJV, do you or any other KJVO agree?

HankD

 

regarding the Living Bible...if im not mistaken thats not even a translation but a paraphrase? and does that condensed Readers Digest version of the bible even qualify as a translation? for me i would use the King James or New Kings James Bible for devotion and study. When i was first saved i used the Revised Standard version.