Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Psalm 12:6 ¶ The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Psalm 12:6 ¶ The words and promises of the LORD are pure words, Like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times. |
Subject: Is the KJV "Supreme"? |
Bible Note: Please know the difference between “KJV only” and those that believe the UNDERLINING TEXT of the KJV (also NKJV, MKJV, and LITV) is closer to the original than some other modern translations. God only wrote one Bible and there are places that are different where we must chose which text is correct (examples: John 7:8, John 8:1-11, Romans 8:1, Acts 8:37, etc.). I would certainly take offense at being called “KJV only” if I chose to go with the KJV on these verses instead of the NASB or NIV. I went to the biblestudy.org web site. I was only there a few minutes and admit I don’t know a lot about them. However, it does not take long for one to know they are far, far, far from being KJV only. They even spoke of those that have the usual KJV only attitude as having a “bigoted fundamentalist” character. The link Nolan supplied is even called “KJV errors”. This would never meet AV1611 standards as “KJV only” by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not saying what you said is wrong, I am only saying it paints a picture of biblestudy.org that is simply not true. Nolan originally asked about biblestudy.org’s statement about one using the KJV as their 'primary' Bible and the use of other translations as a good follow up. I personally believe that biblestudy.org is not giving bad advice here (tho I prefer the NKJV). I have given reasons elsewhere of why I would say this. Almost everyone here would have an answer if someone asked them to recommend a Bible version as their ‘primary’ Bible. Many would say “NASB” because they believe it to be an accurate translation that sticks close to the original underling text, with the emphasis on accurate translation, not interpretation. They might also recommend the use of other translations as a good follow up to the NASB. Would that make them “NASB only”? No way! If someone makes the same recommendation for the KJV, based on the same reasoning, that should not make them “KJV only” either, should it? I have spoke out against KJV only-ism many, many times. I have had KJV only folks slam their Bibles shut in disgust, as a sign of protest against me when they realized I was not reading from the KJV. In response to a KJV question, I once said, “We are to worship the King, I’m glad my King’s name is Jesus, not James!” I understand the difference between what I believe and what the KJV only folks teach. I don’t like it when people confuse the two. I have read the book “The King James Only Controversy” by James White several times, so I also understand and respect that side of the coin. I, as others (maybe even biblestudy.org?), do not like being caught in the cross fire, as we are so many times. Please believe me, I have no problem with anyone speaking out against KJV only-ism. Just make sure the toes being stepped on are the ones that need to be stomped. In Christ Jesus, retxar |