I know some people that won't read anything but the King James Version of the Bible. They don't believe that the different translations say the same thing, and they feel like it takes away from their spirituality for them to read anything else. I personally prefer the Study Bible that has both the KJV and the NIV together to help me study meaning. What are your thoughts on the subject?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
King James Version
- Thread starter nailah783
- Start date
I think everybody should use the Bible version that suits them best, so long as it is faithful to the original languages.
It's great to use multiple versions to be able to see just what the text means. There have been more manuscripts found since the KJV was written and the more current versions use our own language to be able to communicate God's truth to us. I love the KJV for it's poetic ways and it's history but for me to really learn and understand God's Word, I need a more current version.
I used to be like these people.
I have one of these Bibles as well and it's a great study tool.
I've posted this many times, but the King James Translators explained why they translated the bible into English yet again after so many English bible and New Testaments were available.
But it is not my principle bible to read nor study.
- “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one."
- “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
- "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”
But it is not my principle bible to read nor study.
Additional manuscripts, yes. But additional textforms? No. The KJV is based on several variants of the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, which is a variant of the Byzantine textform, via the earlier translation work of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Matthew Parker.
All presently extant Greek textforms follow either the Byzantine text type or the Alexandrian text type, or combinations of the two such as the Caesarean and Western texts.
No new readings for New Testament text types have been discovered since the KJV was published.
I have copies of both Bagster's Hexapla containing Wyclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims, and KJV, as well as Weigle's Octapla including Tyndale, the Great Bible, Rheims, Scrivener's 'Cambridge Paragraph Bible', Geneva, Bishops' Bible, American Standard 1901 and the RSV. Great reading all of them together. I just takes a little longer.
Of course, my final authority is the Greek Byzantine New Testament.
What? You don't have Brian Walton's Polyglot Bible! ;-)
SNIP (violation of this Forum's Rule 9)
International Bible of 1978 [George Orwell's "1984" {Which BTW was the very year that Reagan was re-elected by the largest margin of votes in US history---how'd that happen is one of those never-solved mysteries!} hadn't yet arrived, you see.]
SNIP (violation of this Forum's Rule 9)
As Sister Scarlett posted, the AV 1611 KJV [Don't let it out that even the one that was good enough for the Apostle Paul {with Scofield's notes, mind you! Biggrin} was itself revised in 1769ff!!] is a good devotional Bible (See my signature below.), but now isn't my first go-to choice for a good study Bible. [BTW, in about 5-6 hours from now I hope to pick up my special ordered NLTse thumb-indexed "Illustrated Study Bible" at LifeWay.]
I'd go on about this in this post, but since I've already been up for over two hours posting on BB [Is there a support group for BB Addicts anywhere in Middle TN??] my gut feeling is that "Y'all better ingest some "Grits 'n' Gravy" right soon, boy, or y'all don't even wanna think what I'ma fixin' to do to y'all!!
A'fore that fryin' pan hits me, Rose Publishing has put out a handy Bible Translations Comparison (ISBN - 978-159636-133-1) (c) 2007 & 2011 that at least gives one a good little overview of many of the major English translations from 1611 KJV up to the 2010-2011 CEB. IMHO it's a handy tool to have---as are every resource Rose produces.
73's & DX,
WPE3BQL (Formerly KTN4EG)
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again I'm blessed with another visit by BB's resident repository of all truth Rolleyes.
I appreciate you taking the time out of your excessively busy schedule to admonish me of the many errors of my way.
Too bad that one doesn't recognize what the expression "Tongue-In-Cheek" Eek is.
If some person--won't mention any name here--would ever climb down from his/her own self-constructed tower whose principal element happens to be 99.9999 ... % pure ivory (Not to be confused with the cleansing element of the same name.), there just might be a very remote possibility that said individual might just--unlikely as it may seem--see other mortal human beings in various stages of getting, shall we say, a life.
While I recognize the onus under which some person(s) must bear when his/her job title is that of something similar to "God's gift to the race of homo sapiens," how refreshing it is to, now-and-then, become the recipient of his/her words of admonishment! It must rank a bit higher than that of being bestowed of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
As I've posted a few times in the past [code for "Ye Olde Baptist Board"], I refuse to be numbered in the ranks of the KJVH'ers (Short for King James Version Haters).
If I were a lifetime member of the KJVH:
1) Why would I quote it in my signature below? and,
2) Why would I have sent many hours of my time (and money) acting on the advice of a Ph.D. from Memphis (TN) State University recipient to eventually produce a research paper entitled "'Baptism' in the King James Version" that defends the use of that word in the original 1611 edition? (Note: http://www.firstharrison.org/baptism_in_kjv.htm will provide one with the six-page, sixty-two end-noted documented work [Its right hand margin is cut off a bit too short to capture the final few letters, but one should be able to figure out what was deleted.)?
If I have offended anyone's deeply-held sensibilities regarding the KJV, I ask for their forgiveness.
I don't expect certain omniscient individuals to reciprocate in this matter, but that's fine with me. After all, I wouldn't expect that much from this individual in the first place.
Selah.
I appreciate you taking the time out of your excessively busy schedule to admonish me of the many errors of my way.
Too bad that one doesn't recognize what the expression "Tongue-In-Cheek" Eek is.
If some person--won't mention any name here--would ever climb down from his/her own self-constructed tower whose principal element happens to be 99.9999 ... % pure ivory (Not to be confused with the cleansing element of the same name.), there just might be a very remote possibility that said individual might just--unlikely as it may seem--see other mortal human beings in various stages of getting, shall we say, a life.
While I recognize the onus under which some person(s) must bear when his/her job title is that of something similar to "God's gift to the race of homo sapiens," how refreshing it is to, now-and-then, become the recipient of his/her words of admonishment! It must rank a bit higher than that of being bestowed of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
As I've posted a few times in the past [code for "Ye Olde Baptist Board"], I refuse to be numbered in the ranks of the KJVH'ers (Short for King James Version Haters).
If I were a lifetime member of the KJVH:
1) Why would I quote it in my signature below? and,
2) Why would I have sent many hours of my time (and money) acting on the advice of a Ph.D. from Memphis (TN) State University recipient to eventually produce a research paper entitled "'Baptism' in the King James Version" that defends the use of that word in the original 1611 edition? (Note: http://www.firstharrison.org/baptism_in_kjv.htm will provide one with the six-page, sixty-two end-noted documented work [Its right hand margin is cut off a bit too short to capture the final few letters, but one should be able to figure out what was deleted.)?
If I have offended anyone's deeply-held sensibilities regarding the KJV, I ask for their forgiveness.
I don't expect certain omniscient individuals to reciprocate in this matter, but that's fine with me. After all, I wouldn't expect that much from this individual in the first place.
Selah.
I don't know why you went on and on about what you did. I didn't even know you were addressing me until I read the last part of your post.
I was not referencing anything about the KJV. You have demeaned other translations of God's Word in paragraphs two and three. You have broken the rules and yet want to play the victim.
I was not referencing anything about the KJV. You have demeaned other translations of God's Word in paragraphs two and three. You have broken the rules and yet want to play the victim.
Uh, the icon refers to your post, not to you. Your post was dumb. As so many of your posts are.
The 1611 edition of the KJV was revised before 1769, and it has been revised several times including after 1769.
The twenty to thirty varying editions of the KJV in print today are not the 1769 Oxford edition. Most, but not all of them, are based on the 1769 Oxford edition, but they would have at least around 400 differences compared to an actual 1769 Oxford edition.
Uh, the icon refers to your post, not to you. Your post was dumb. As so many of your posts are.
Thanks for your assessment of my lack of mental capacities.
Bro. C, if the Lord so leads you to do so, I would be very appreciative of reading in this open BB forum the very specific, Biblically-supported reason(s) why your personal assessment(s) of my apparent deficiencies in the mental realm of things somehow just always seem to fall somewhat short of your own personal criteria to which any and all BB members must meet and/or exceed in order not to be placed in your own personal, very specific, and especially thoroughly Biblically-supported criteria.
No, I do not wish for you to resolve this very-burning conflict between two brothers in Christ by means of a PM or any other covert means of electronically-generated delivery platforms.
Since it was you, Bro. C, who chose to openly and publicly demean my lack of mental capacities, I am more than willing to read of your very own personal, very specific, and especially thoroughly Biblically-supported reasons to this overtly and publicly accessible forum on which the two of us Brothers in Christ have---and, hopefully, will continue to exercise our Second Amendment-guaranteed (Which, BTW, FWIW, I freely spent a good 21+% of my life in the uniformed military service of the USA defending.) rights of freedom of speech and/or expression.), it does not bother me one iota to be publicly "counseled" by another Brother in Christ.
I will be awaiting your own personal, very specific, and especially thoroughly Biblically-supported response(s) right here on this very open and publically-accessible thread on which you, my Brother in Christ, chose to overtly and publicly berate my own personal lack of mental capacities.
I don't mind one iota who openly and publicly berates my less-than-acceptable lack of mental capacities.
At least those that do this, do so openly and publicly.
And, therefore, at least I know where they stand vis-a-vie with me, and hopefully the Holy Spirit will then take to heart the way(s) in which my heart of heart needs to be both altered, and more willing to seek the forgiveness of those who I so callously offended--which, God being my helper, I shall willingly do right here in this very overt and publicly-accessible thread.
In fact, right here and now, I DO ask of those whom I've ever offended on BB, even as far back as my very first post of some 20+ years ago, to forgive me for my callous disregard of whatever your sensitive preferences/convictions/"whatever" were/are, and, to that end, let us all, as Blood-bought children of our Father in heaven, seek to continually think, act, and behave in the same spirit of our forefathers in "The Faith" did so as is recorded in Acts 2:1b ff.
Okay?
Since I've already taken way too much of BB's bandwidth for this post, I'll post no more in this particular post, but, just before I sign off, will all of you "out there in 'BB Land' covenant with not only each other, but, more importantly, with the One who created every single electron that unites with other fellow electrons that eventually come together to form the delivery platform that permits things such as BB to continue to exist, in asking Him to constantly search each and every one of our hearts, and to reveal to each and every one of us--as only He can do--the wickednesses that each and every one of us do have in our own hearts, and, moreover, as a result, by His help, continually lead each and every individual among us unto a more closer "walk" with Him, and to the One He too gives all of the glory and praise and most worthy honor (Rev. 5:12) for all that He has, is, and will continue to do for us throughout all eternity so that His/Our Father ultimately receives all the credit for, before the entire universe was ever formed, chose to redeem us through His Son (Why? I'll never know!).
Amen (In the spirit of Rev. 5:14)!