[Sly Fox]

While the debate between KJVO folks and those who prefer and accept other translations is nowhere near as hot today as it was a couple of decades ago. But it remains a topic that generates some heat.

So first off, state your translation preference. And then if you have strong feeling toward one over others, state your case.

[4everfsu]

Well since I started the question on the old folks room, let me say the KJV was the only bible used at LBC while I was there from 1972 to 1975. A lot of the students at the time had discussions over the KJV and other versions, some of the KJV students would say there was the KJV and the others were perversions. Anyway I know the Good News for Modern man was one of the other versions at that time. Needless alot of the KJV advocates were big fans of Peter Ruckman. For those who don't know who Peter Ruckman is, he is a BJ graduate from the time Bob Jones Sr was alive. Peter also has a church in Pensacola and has a bible institue based off the KJV 1611. He is a steadfast KJV believer and supporter and if you ever hear him preach he is unapologetic. He also draws out his sermons.
Needless to say I like and perfer the KJV. I am a little disappointed LU got away from the KVJ but then they didn't ask me what I thought . I have to admit I thought the KJV was difficult to read when I was very young, the thee and thou, etc. But maybe I got smarter, but I doubt that. I have to give the Holy Spirit for opening the words to me. On another subject around that same time I didn't like the older hymns, I liked the new modern christian music at that time. As I have gotten older now I love those older hymns and care less for the new music. Does anyone else have that same experience? Maybe as I get older that is part of growing old in the Lord.
I would like to hear from other alumnis and current students what versions they like or perfer.
So I guess we could have named this topic "Gentlemen choose your weapon" as the word of God is liken to a two edged sword.

[vastrightwinger]

I personally enjoy the New American Standard. I did some research a few years back when I was looking to get a new Bible and my Pastor had told me that he used the NASB. I looked into it and heard from many people (including some profs at LU) that it was the most literal (not necessarily the most acurate) translation. I just enjoy the way it reads and have no complaints.

With that said, I own a Bible in almost every translation. I don't particularly like using the KJV. I don't have anyhting against it I just find the older KJV (especially the 1611) hard to read. I also am not to fond of some of the paraphrases like the Message. I think they water down the Gospel and take away from Scrpiture.

[Sly Fox]

Wow! I didn't expect references to Ruckmanites so quickly.

For the record, I take a NKJV to church with me (yeah, I know it is generally panned). At home, I tend to use an NIV for studying. I know, its pretty old school but I also love a number of the newer translations as well such as the NASB.

As for the KJV 1611, I wonder how many KJVO folks have ever actually seen a true 1611 translation?

As for musical preferences for worship, I think that probably is worthy of its own thread another day.

[PAmedic]

NIV.

I guess my preference arose about the same time I realized Jesus wasn't a member of 17th century British society and DIDN'T SPEAK LIKE THAT.

My feeling is that the archaic verbage turns people off immediately and they never give it a chance- but thats just MHO- no real data to back that up.

And my grandmother has never forgiven me for turning my back on the "real" Bible.

[PastorZack]

My church is KJVO, most people in our church have them...they probably dont' fully understand it though. I like to use the NASB,NIV and even the NKJV (sometimes). Unfortunately, my church dropped support of a missionary because he spoke at our church with an NASB. I still have a hard time with that one. Oh, and believe me, even up here in PA there are the KJVO freaks who think that other versions are "heretical".

[4everfsu]

I would have to say that dropping a missionary because he or she doesn't use the KJV goes a little too far for even me. And I agree that the KJV could be a little hard to read and understand at time. The first time I ever heard Peter Ruckman name mentioned was during those discussion at LBC. I never really payed attention to him until years later.
For those who would like to watch his sermon, yes watch his sermons he does chalk drawings, on direct tv it is channel 321 at 7 pm every Friday. He is the old type preachers, fire and brimstone.

[Purple Haize]

This is always a fun topic, but i have never understood why people get so exercised over it. I personally use the NIV for "everyday"stuff, but if I ever get in the mood to practice my Biblical Hebrew, I switch to the RSV. Of course I had to go through hell and high water to get a copy, and I guard it with my life, but it does use more contemporary source documents then anything else out there. I would use it more, but it is the only copy I have so I use it sparingly.
But really, what is the difference for most folks? If you REALLY wanted the "words of Jesus" why not go full guns and read the original Aramaic? It was written in the 'street language' of the day and would be easy for people to understand. (assuming the reader knew aramaic!!) Why not plop down with a copy of the Septuigent. Now THERE Is some exciting reading!!! Perhaps a few segments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Coptic Gospels anyone?? The point is, we are attempting to put the "divine" into the "Human" As long as translations follow the pretty rigorous standards accepted and don't get off on this He/She text etc, then what ever works.
I guess when it comes to KJVO folks, I am reminded of a quick discussion I had with a guy in Zondervan's once. He wanted a "Real Bible" I was looking at the LIfe Application Bible (Living even, those darn paraphrases!!) He said he didn't need a Bible that had a commentary in it because "Jesus didn't use no commentary and neither did Paul". Was it wrong to laugh directly in his face or should I have waited until I was in the food court with a slice of Sbarro and an Orange Julius!!

[A.G.]

I have never understand the KJV crowd and fanaticism. Why be so beholden to a translation that has been shown to have so many errors. In any translation you get, you get the same exact principles--how to live the godly life.

[phoenix]

I grew up KJVO. It was all I'd ever been taught, and I really didn't know any better. Then my Dad got an NIV study Bible to use for Sunday School (though he always taught with a KJV), and told me it made things a lot clearer. That was when I really started re-evaluating the KJVO position.

I used to love to argue with Onlies, but I realized that it really wasn't profitable. Nobody's going to change their mind through an internet arguement, so I stopped (though it was pretty hard). Though I do occasionally hear a really stupid arguement that needs to be skewered, and I'll jump into a fight for that, but I try not to let myself get carried away. I've got a copy of the 1611 KJV in e-Sword that I like to quote from (original spelling and all) when I'm discussing with an 'only.'

I preach from the NKJV (MacArthur Bible). When I'm doing sermon prep, I use the ESV, the NASV, and occasionally the HCSB. For personal study, I use the ESV.

[Old School D]

I grew up using the KJV and then switched to the NIV when I was a teenager. Whenever the NKJV came out in the MacArthur version I switched to that. Of course, now I use NASB, ESV, and NKJ to study out of. What's the deal with the Message? I'm not a real big fan, anyone know more about what the deal is with that?

[SuperJon]

It's meant to tell the Bible in story form using everyday language. It's good to use as a supplement, but you need another version to go with it.

[Jasmen8182]

I memorized Scripture for Awana and Christian school in KJV; my mom is KJVO- she got a Bible with a pink Precious Moments cover for my daughter at a Women of Faith confer.; when she found out it was NKJV, she brought it to book store and got credit toward a Bible for my nephew (since price was much higher than confer. one) I won a KJV during Neighborhood Bible Time (like Vacation Bible School) and have a NKJV. If verses are read that I have memorized, I prefer KJV, otherwise I'm open to a couple others, but not ones like Message you describe. My husband has a few like NIV and NAS; he told abt. a woman who couldn't understand with KJV used in her church and finally grasped Scripture w/ other. His newest is Holman but he doesn't like it.

[Sly Fox]

Yeah, I too memorized all of those passages in KJV and it sometimes seems a little strange to read those in other translations. But its SOOOOOO much easier to study in more accurate modern language as opposed to the Late 1800s/Early 1900s text from the KJV.

[jimflamesfan]

Dr. Towns told us in seminary that Mr. Ruckman once was at a youth rally and stomped on a NIV Bible, and said, "If you're reading this, then you're not really saved."

What were the early Christians, that had the Greek and Hebrew and Aramiac texts to do before 1611??? LOL.

As far as translations, I believe the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrency does a good job at pointing out the fact that the Bible is without error, to the degree of the accuracy of the translation, and we have a lot of good translations.

I use the NKJV....but I'm okay with people using other versions...KJV, NIV, New Living, God's Word (I like that tranlations as well, but it's not very popular - it's another contomporary translation), etc.

[4everfsu]

One of the discussions we had at LBC versus KJV and other at the time and I may have written this on another thread here. One of the students said, "I got saved thru the Good News for modern men, does that mean my salvation is any less then yours." Even as I am a KJV supporter and believer and most KJV supporters biggest beef with the other versions is they either devalue the birth of Jesus or his blood sacrifice, I will not argue over someone salvation out of another version. I will just pray they see the light, lol

[Libertine]

I actually prefer the NKJV for study. If it's just for reading, I prefer the lyrical quality of the 1611.

[Lemonade]

Personally I like the KJV version. I have found that in many of the more modern translations, the different wording can give different meanings to some verses and passages. Also, in some cases, entire verses are left out without reason. I don't have a problem with reading modern translations for Bible study and such, but I'd do my research on how the translations differ when it comes to that sort of thing.

[PAmedic]

welcome to our place on the web, LEM.

glad you found us

[Lemonade]

well thanks! I'm glad I found y'all too!

[belcherboy]

We deal with this at our church. We were a KJV mostly church, but have recently touched off into other versions. 90% of what we use in the main worship services is KJV, but we have used several other versions, including the message, if we feel it conveys the scripture accurately and more effectively. Our philosophy is why read a passage of scripture in the KJV and then explain it the way that another version would have? I work with the youth and I will use whichever version I find explains the verse the best. As a church, we see some complaints due to this, but most of those complaints are from habitual complainers. The most complaints is when we use it with the children/youth. The majority of the scripture we use for kids is not KJV.

I generally read from the NKJ and the Message. I have always memorized from the KJV. I don't know if I will ever go back to reading the KJV.

My pastor has always said, when you have mastered everything in the "lesser" versions of the bible than you can make your arguement for KJVO.

[kel varson]

I like the NKJV. I memorized everything as kid in the KJV. The NKJV is close, but without the thees and thous, and some other archaic language.

[grm]

Let's see. I have had Peter Ruckman at the church twice for meetings, have played hockey with him (he's done now, but was a decent goalie for a guy who is even older than I) and I like him. He's a great preacher, but some might see him to be somewhat of a social misfit. He calls himself a "junkyard dog."

I also have a single page of 1st edition 1611, and it can be read, although the typeset and spelling can be a bit different.

My question for others is this: Can you pick up a book anywhere that you believe is the preserved and inspired Word of God?... Whatever version that might be. People speak of the Bible, and define it in different ways. I believe God has preserved His Word, not only in the English, but in other languages too.

Then, I take great exception with any version that removes the proper name Lucifer from Isa 14:12, and inserts "Morning Star" (one of the names of Christ). To me, the issue is deeper than "updating the language" and goes right into the so called Western Text.

I usually try to limit my battles to other sections of this site, so I state this as a matter of you knowing someone who believes a certain way. BTW, Coach and I have a bit of difference on this at times, and I guess you know I'll still go to war beside him.