I didn't make an 'evil pronouncement' against John MacArthur. For all I know he's a fine man. I listen to him on the radio many days and he's an excellent preacher. I'm sure he's spent a lifetime studying the Bible and he doubtless knows it very well.

That does, not, however, make it appropriate for him to peddle God's Word with his name on it. When I see his Bible in the bookstore or hear an advertisement for it on the radio, it's not being presented as God's Word. It's being presented as John MacArthur's version of God's Word. I think that's wrong. Writing commentaries or handbooks about the Bible is great but I just don't think men's opinions or insights ought to be included in God's Word (and no doubt sold for substantial profit).

I feel the same way about Ryrie & Scofield. Look at the outright error that has found it's way into the church due to Scofield's radical dispensationalism. Other so-called 'study Bibles' have caused the same kinds of problems.

What do you honestly think the AV translators would have said and done if they had been handed the works of Wescott, Hort, Nestle, Aland & the other so-called scholars to translate from? What would they have thought about the many, many omissions in the NT text which question or eleminate Christ's deity?

Have you read the backgrounds and writings of Wescott or Aland or Bruce Metzger? These men are heretics by anyone's definition. I have no doubt that the AV translators would have thought the same thing. They should not have been and should not now be trusted with God's Word. The 'meanest translations' in 1611 didn't in any way compare to the perversions passed off as Bibles today.

Will Kinney's discussion (which ml referenced below) is excellent. Read some of his other articles while you are there.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=89081137472

Because I use the AV exclusively and believe that all of the newer versions are seriously-and I do mean seriously- flawed to one degree or another doesn't mean that I condemn anyone who uses one. I have a lot of friends who use modern translations. If they ask me or if I feel it's appropriate I will gladly tell them why I don't use one but I certainly don't condemn them for it.

I would love to see everyone using the AV because I believe it's the best by far. I believe churches in general and believers in particular suffer due to it's neglect. I don't, however, condemn anyone who used an NKJV or ESV because that's their business, not mine. If the topic comes up, and it does often here on SA, I will always side with the AV and defend it to the end.

jille,

"The KJV almost amounts to speaking in tongues. It is worse, however. Because there are parts that are in error that people can understand, but are bad translations when read in current English, Webster's Revision of the KJV (1833) As you can see they weren't good even back at the beginning of the 19th century."

If that's the case, why has the AV been so popular and been such a blessing to so many believers for so many years? Why has the level of folk's Biblical literacy dwindled proportionately as the number of 'easy to understand' versions has increased 100 fold? Why do I have no trouble understanding the AV even today? Why do most of the people I know who know their Bibles best use the AV almost exclusively? Ask another Christian to quote you a verse from the NASB. I'll bet they can't.

"The Trin Bible Society is reformed and evangelical and DJC49 would possibly find an infinite difference in their defence of Textus receptus. Have a look at http://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/
for some excellent articles from a sovereign grace ministry. My opinion is that the best evangelical preachers in the UK happen to be convinced KJV men BUT would have little in common with the neo-KJO's."

I was telling my wife this very thing earlier today. Some of the best sermons on SermonAudio are by men in the UK associated with these two organizations (J. Thackway, D. Silversides, M. Watts).

I would encourage anyone who is really interested in the subject of Bible translations to look at both the Trinitarian Bible Society and Bible League Trust websites. These folks know what they are talking about and they both offer some excellent, well researched information. In particular, check out the 'Articles' on the TBS website.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Check this site for a much more comprehensive list:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a100.pdf

1. Believe me when I say I am in no need of any encouragement from you, somewhat or otherwise. What in the world feeds this opinion you have of yourself?

2. I do not make anything re: Bible translations 'a law' for others. As I have explained here to you previously, I do not care what translation MurrayA reads or uses. It's none of my business. I will, however, happily tell anyone why I believe the AV is best and why I believe your NASB to be flawed.

3. I believe the AV and the texts it was translated from are the ones miraculously preserved by God for use by His people. I believe the texts the new translations are based upon are corrupted. Is that heresy? Fine. You keep on thinking that.

4. "It is a Johnny-come-lately doctrine which finds no support e.g. in Miles Smith's "Translators to the Reader".

Talk about a tired old argument. If Wescott & Hort or Nestle & Aland (a pure heretic if there ever was one) or Bruce Metzger had handed the AV translators an Alexandrian (or modern 'eclectic') text base to work from with it's omissions and obvious errors, they would have gotten up and left immediately. All of these KJV discussions wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be one to discuss.

There is simply no comparison. If you can get past the plethora of glaring omissions (I can't) and the marginal notes questioning the validity of some very imprtant texts in the NASB & ESV, the translations themselves are just not good at all. In places they read like someone is writing for no other reason than to be different from the AV. The AV was easier to understand, showed SO much more reverence and respect for the text while at the same time seemed cheerful and reader friendly. The 'happy turns of expression' it's famous for make it a joy to read.

I believe it's because the AV is the most widely read book, both publically and privately, in the history of the Western world (probably the whole world).

It's simple beauty and elegance are how most people who have lived during the past 400 years have become familiar with the language of the era. The AV is a culmination of all that is best of the English language.

Also, it features a clear and pronounced reverence for God that endears it to all those who seek Him. For all of it's perceived "accuracy" you will not find that in the New American Standard Bible.

I also personally believe that the modern church's disrespect for and treatment of God as a 'buddy' can be charged directly to books like The Living Bible and The Message.

This is SHOW BUSINESS. Pride-filled, covetous, lying, self-focused-look-at me-show business.

It's just like most all of the other "Christian" TV preachers, CCM'ers, singers, rockers, comedians, magicians, etc. They are putting on a religious show for money, fame and to glorify THEMSELVES while they line their pockets.

It's a tragedy (and causing many to scoff at Christ) that something as pride-filled and me-centered as show business has become synonymous (even amongst believers!) with our humble Saviour.

Not just lack of revival but the alarming outright apostasy that has overtaken the churches (at least here in the U.S.) since they have become so widely used and accepted.