The "only" version?

This would be referring to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13.

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in most KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse?

 

It doesn't, but the Holy Spirit should never be called an It, and what about Titus 2:13 and 2 peter 1:1-2, Kjv seems to see it as being the father and Jesus, Nas as being Jesus called both God and Savior!

 

The Nas correctly renders this as being a re3ference to jesus as being God and Savior, while the Kjv seemed to have 2 Persons in mind!

 

So, you ignore such glaring goofs in the KJV, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, among others?

And remember - THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALSO HIMSELF GOD. What can He not do?

 

But there's not one quark orf SCRIPTURE supporting the KJVO myth. That doctrine is entirely man-made without any support from GOD whatsoever. Therefore, it's a myth and false.

Given the many, MANY meanings in English for a great number of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words, it's best to heed the words of the AV translators found in their preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611:

"Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."

 

They did not see their version as being perfect, as they were awaiting future believers to build upon theri work for a better transaltion, just as they upon prior versions!

 

At least they did not use either Unicorn or easter!

 

I scanned BibleGateway and couldn't find that in any of the translations. What version has that phrase?

Yes, quite a few translations have that word.

You mean Esther. I found it in the ESV. Perhaps you would prefer feldspar as an alternative.

Your examples are not proving your case. And who has said that modern versions never use words that are unknown to readers?

In the grand scheme of things your examples are picayune. To make your case you have to have a greater degree of substance.

 

Of course KJV is the only real bible. See i got a book here says BIBLE and I open it and whataya know. Its the King James. So every other bible is false.

You can also confirm KJV is the only bible and opening up the to exact same page where it says the bible is the only authority, its the verse right below it.

 

Is that right above Hanukkah 12:96 which says, "Thou shalt have cardinals amongst ye; they shalt appoint a pope from their number who shalt speak for Me. Thou shalt obey him as if he were Me."

 

Well, they certainly don't use "conversation" for 'lifestyle' not "target" for 'small shield', nor "ouches" for 'brooch or precious stone setting'.

 

I thought I heard terms like that in Charismatic churches when people were "prophezing"

 

The term "modern version" needs to be defined. Does it mean at the very least the early 20th century? Does it mean since the mid-20th century, late 20th century, the turn of the 21st century?

The RSV's heyday was 70 years ago, hardly a modern version in my view.

 

I see - so a woman with an ouch around her neck doesn't necessarily need Excedrin to improve her conversation? And divers places don't sell SCUBA gear?

 

The examples you used were pitifully picayune.

Common sense will tell anyone that preaching from the KJV, of any stripe, will require a lot more explaining of the old English text than a more modern version. But I realize that common sense isn't that common in some parts.

As I indicated : there is no comparison.

 

Some people define the KJV's English as "modern". I reckon those same people would define the Model T as a :"modern" auto.

I once drove a 1912 Model T from Portsmouth OH to Cincy. Once the excitement & novelty of driving a 100-er-old car wore off, it was a tedious task driving it on 4-lane roads with a 70 MPH speed limit. It felt like it had crowbars for shocks, & had to use fuel additive when filling up. (It was made to run on LEADED gasoline.) And I almost got pistol-whipped by the crank starter once cuz I held the crank a split second after the engine started. Had to double-clutch to shift gears in town driving. Windshiwld wipers, which I had to use for about 5 minutes were hand-operated.