Featured My Thoughts on the KJV

Actually, contained within that conciseness is a slam toward those who seemingly condescend down when make their postings from the estimation of their own 'magificiance', and specifically those who appear to be attempting to display and add to their own personal 'magnificiance', by never missing a chance to take a swipe at the KJV, which does exude genuine magnificence and the Divine imprimatur.

I left those things out, because I generally endeavour to discourage people from feeling sorry for themselves, whenever possible, and those comments would have been too hot for most to handle.

You just have to look closer.

Thanks though.

 

Wow...Sounds like you are the pot calling the kettle black....Go figure.

 

That is an interesting way to put it. I agree with your reasoning.

 

Thank you, for your cliche. Three of them, really.

Have anything to say?

 

Other. I believe the best Bible Translation is to use several versions. Where they agree, accept that the translation is likely very accurate. And where they differ determine if the difference is substantial. If the differ enough that it truly matters, then study up on it going to the original language, etc and see for yourself which version seems best. Even then, if they differ, consider the fact that that passage may just be one where the individual needs to relay on the quickening of the Holy Spirit to understand it. AND. . . realize that your understanding can deepen over time as you learn more Scripture for often the Scripture interprets Scripture.

Where the KJV excels is in its flow. Memorizing Scripture is just easier when you memorize the KJV because of the rhythm of the older English dialects.

 

The whole KJV contraversy begin with Westtcott and Hort edition of their Greek New Testament 1881 which lead to editing which removed texts from the KJV New Testament.

 

Why do we have so many threads beating KJVOism around and around again. Why not discuss how best to understand the bible, and it is not to look only at one version, or one text, or one cult.

Why not study to show ourselves approved, rightly handing the word of truth? Note it does not say to rely on the "experts" with the most credentials.

 

Aye. They were supposed to make the Bible more accurate, but they did the opposite. Their theories were all wrong, and so for every error they fixed they made many more errors in exchange.

 

Throughout my Christian life (>30 years), I have been alternately reading the Bible through in the KJV and the NASB/NAU. I have also read through the NKJ and the NIV. I have read the Bible through 2x in Spanish and 2x in biblical Greek (all the canonical books in the Septuagint & the Greek NT).

I love the KJV and the NASB/NAU, but I also study the Bible intensively in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek, but I have not studied Aramaic).

For me, the KJV is as good as any other version.

 

When I first read this post of yours I thought it was a parody. How could you be serious?

 

You wouldn't be so defensive if it weren't true...guess my point was proven by your response...I think I said it correctly. Have a nice day.

 

Because it is true. Here you have thousand's of witnesses, Greek Manuscripts, other manuscripts in other early languages from the Greek, and early Church Father's quotations. Yet a couple of editor's will go with two or three manuscripts against all the other's. Just like KJVOnlys idolize the KJV, so do a few editors idolize a tiny one or two manuscripts.

 

You're magnificence is all about it all.

And, yes, you're guessing; you know that; that's why you are disappointed in yourself.

 

I know how you cut through the seemingly 500' deep wave of deception accompanying these modern versions IMHO

...and I praise God for it.

Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you IMHO.

 

Thank you! I was under that 500' deep wave for quite awhile.

 

Wow...now we know that Alan is infatuated with himself and is continuing to bloviate to try to make himself look "high and mighty." Care to try again, Alan?

 

No, you took long enough to try to come up with something.

You're boring me.

 

Unlike you, I do have a life away from social media. You're boring the whole forum. But, I digress....Grow up, please.

 

"In light of the manifold criticisms of WH's opinions regarding the transmission of the text, it is astonishing that their text is so good still today. This is on the hand primarily due to the fact that their basic result, to follow B wherever possible, is not so bad as it is normally accepted today, and on the other hand, that their opinions regarding the textual history are, with some qualifications, probably also basically correct." Wieland Willker