"Unfortunately I fear Obama will be President, once he unites with Hillary Clinton as his running mate. They are running separate just for now to gain there own percentages, then they will unite and win."

I also love McDonald's coffee (but NEVER eat their food). It's my favorite besides Seattle's Best.

"Kenny - only 12 apostles - the pastor is not an apostle."

I agree with Faithful Remnant. In fact, if I could find a sound local church that worshipped with only Psalms, I would go there.

The current state of music utilized in the corporate worship of the Lord is absolutely deplorable. People go to church now to be entertained and to assuage their guilt, not to worship God in the way He desires.

I do very much believe that it's important to stress the fact that Christ spent three nights (no more & no less) in the grave because the OT speaks of it as a future event, Jonah pictures it for us and the NT records it.

If you think about it, if Christians didn't observe Easter every year, it probably would not ever even be a topic of discussion or dispute. If it did not involve the observance of a holiday, what difference would it make?

I guess I just don't have any problem reading the AV. I have read others but I find the AV to be best all around. I don't read any other. I don't trust any other. I know many people who feel the same way.

I'm all for translating the Bible into any and all other languages. I think that should be a priority. I just think there are way too many problems with the new English translations.

If I were going to use one it would be the NASB (because it's the only one left that doesn't incorporate gender neutrality among other things) but it still leaves way too much out. Some of the word and phrase translations are a little bizarre, too.

Bernard wrote:

"Then go the whole hog and learn Hebrew and Greek and read the Masoretic OT & TR."

What in the world is wrong with learning the meaning of those words? I always enjoy learning new words. I have a wide margin Bible that I use to jot brief definitions of some of the not so commonly used words in the AV. For that matter, I have come across words in the NASB and the NIV before that are not commonly used so I've had to look them up. What's the difference?

Do you honestly think that God hid away His true Word from us for centuries? Those books have held the truth about our Saviour and our eternal destiny since they were written. I believe He preserved the Hebrew Masoretic OT text & the Received NT text for us just as He wanted us to have them. Not just the AV but faithful translations up to and including the AV.

Maybe someday someone will produce a new, better version based on the correct texts but who in the world would you trust to do it?

Of course there is no 'special magic' to the old English but it does give God's Word a reverence and dignity that it certainly deserves. One of the things I dislike most is that the NIV and others read like a newspaper. Should God's Word really read like a newspaper? The NLT reads like Dick & Jane. Is that what we need?

Here you go:

I have told you before-I do not care one iota (pun intended) what Bible version you use or don't use. If you prefer the NASB, knock yourself out.

The SA question here is "What version of the Bible do you use?"

I use the AV so that's how I answered. I understand all of the arguments very well. I have probably read literally everything that has ever been written on the topic, both favoring the AV and favoring the modern versions. I have a BA from a local Bible college so I've talked at length with professors and many others who know more than I do about the subject. I am no expert but I do know Greek. I am familiar with most of the major newer translations.

Weighing everything in the balance, I am firmly convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that the AV is BY FAR the best English translation of the Bible in existence. Some of the newer translations may be easier to read in a few places but you lose so much more than you gain. No matter how much you know about the history of some obscure verse somewhere, I believe that overall the textual base of the NIV, NASB, etc. is seriously flawed.

Perhaps you meant to direct your remarks to DJC49 who does appear to appreciate your offerings.

Now I am going upstairs and immerse myself in the most God blessed, time tested & trustworthy translation of God's Word in the English language before I retire for the evening. It's late here.

In fact, I get the impression that everyone who doesn't agree with whatever your position is on a given subject is a fool. I apologize for daring to interfere with your brilliance. (I think this is the point where you are supposed to declare that you are no longer willing to continue a discussion with an obvious intellectual and spiritual midget, take your ball and go home).

"My first impression though, is why not have many English translations? Why shouldn't every Christian strive to learn Hebrew and Greek and create their own translation."

But isn't that exactly what we currently have? Isn't that what is currently causing so many of the problems & divisions Christians argue about?

Many people like to blame the Bible text/translation confusion today on the so-called 'King James only' folks. The fact is, when the newer translations of the Bible first began popping up, they quickly faded from use for the most part because Christians who tried to read and study them soon realized that they were: #1, based on a textual base that denigrated the deity of the Saviour and #2, were no easier to comprehend than the AV.

This was all before the invention of modern mass communication and well funded marketing techniques. Today, Bible translations make big money. We have a major new translation produced by some 'Christian' publishing house at least every year and usually it's translated -if they will list the translators- by people who are of a questionable (at best) theological background. What is gained?

It used to just be just a few like Stanley, Swindoll, Schuller and Dobson spouting this nonsense. Today it's everywhere.

In spite of the feminized preaching and man-centered teaching spewing from pulpits and publishing houses today, it's not about 'religion' nor is it about 'relationship'.

It's about our holy, sovereign, merciful Heavenly Father and our worship, adoration and gratitude toward Him. Our focus in our worship and our day to day lives should be on God and His attributes. Once believers learn to appreciate God for who He is and to worship Him in spirit and in truth, the relationship part will take care of itself. You build a relationship with the Lord by learning to love and adore Him.

Putting the emphasis on 'relationship' puts the focus on man. Self. Pride.

James White did make Dr. Waite look rather weak. White is experienced at debating and he came prepared. Waite did not. Waite was ready for a high level discussion, White wanted to discuss nuts and bolts.

White would pull out an obscure verse/passage/codex/parchment, etc. that in his mind favored the modern texts/translations and Waite had no idea what he was referring to. Waite was caught completely off guard but it made James White look like the scholarly man he presents himself as. It made Waite look uninformed. I have a bunch of lawyers in my family and I'm familiar with the tactic as they use it often. Needless to say, White won the debate. He should have as he was better prepared.