For those of you who use the King James Version (KJV) as your primary translation ...

[37818]

New Psalm 12
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Verse 6 is about the word of God. Verse 7 has a footnote in the 1611 edition of the KJV. I have been using the KJV since 1962 as my primary personal Bible of choice.

". . . preserve them from . . . ." The footnote is on the Hebrew translated as "them" is literally "him."

 

[Salty]

Verse 6 is about the word of God. Verse 7 has a footnote in the 1611 edition of the KJV. I have been using the KJV since 1962 as my primary personal Bible of choice.

". . . preserve them from . . . ." The footnote is on the Hebrew translated as "them" is literally "him."

37818 Did you read post # 20!

 

[Reformed1689]

What in the world was negative about my response??? Are you against missionary Bible translators or something???

Nothing

 

[Salty]

LET ME TRY THIS ONE LAST TIME!

LETS DEAL WITH ONLY THE OP!
And YES I KNOW I AM USING ALL CAPS

For those of you who use the King James Version (KJV) as your primary Bible translation ...
Do you use it due to familiarity, or for other reasons?
(And, by the way, I ask this out of genuine curiosity, and with the utmost respect.)


And for the record - I am not KJO

 

[SovereignGrace]

Familiarity, I've read othersNASB and the NKJV and have always come back to the AV1611.

Serious question…1611 or 1769?

 

[Dave G]

For those of you who use the King James Version (KJV) as your primary Bible translation ...

Do you use it due to familiarity, or for other reasons?

Solely for what I believe to be its adherence to the correct preserved Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, as well as its accuracy to the English of its time.
I know of no other English translation that I trust more, than the so-called "King James Version".

For the record, I tend to prefer the 1769 or something close to it.

 

[37818]

37818 Did you read post # 20!

Yes. My first post in this thread was post #19

 

[alexander284]

Solely for what I believe to be its adherence to the correct preserved Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, as well as its accuracy to the English of its time.
I know of no other English translation that I trust more, than the so-called "King James Version".

For the record, I tend to prefer the 1769 or something close to it.

I appreciate your response. And I certainly respect your opinion, sir. Thank you.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

For those of you who use the King James Version (KJV) as your primary Bible translation ...

Do you use it due to familiarity, or for other reasons?

(And, by the way, I ask this out of genuine curiosity, and with the utmost respect.)

I use KJV primarily.

My primary reason I use it is I find its language to be more expressive simply because our English language had better depth in the past. There's better words that express ideas better in other words.

I also like that it's not a modern translation so I don't have to worry about if it's been "toned down" or "converted" to be "less offensive".

 

[Squire Robertsson]

1769 edition

Serious question…1611 or 1769?

 

[Logos1560]

1769 edition

Do you read a reprint edition of the 1769 Oxford edition or do you read a post-1900 present KJV edition with its over 400 differences from the 1769?

Post-1900 KJV editions are not identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Along with some good changes, the 1769 Oxford edition also introduced some new errors into the KJV, and some of them remained in KJV editions for several years (one remained uncorrected for 100 years) but they are not in typical post-1900 KJV editions.

 

[alexander284]

I use KJV primarily.

My primary reason I use it is I find its language to be more expressive simply because our English language had better depth in the past. There's better words that express ideas better in other words.

I also like that it's not a modern translation so I don't have to worry about if it's been "toned down" or "converted" to be "less offensive".

Thank you for sharing your point of view with us (and not turning this into a personal attack, sir.)

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A post-1900. My oldest is an Old Scofield that I read from the top down and not from the bottom up (IOW, I pretty much ignore the notes).

 

[alexander284]

Do you read a reprint edition of the 1769 Oxford edition or do you read a post-1900 present KJV edition with its over 400 differences from the 1769?

Post-1900 KJV editions are not identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Along with some good changes, the 1769 Oxford edition also introduced some new errors into the KJV, and some of them remained in KJV editions for several years (one remained uncorrected for 100 years) but they are not in typical post-1900 KJV editions.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us, sir.

 

[robycop3]

Psalm 12
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

He promised to preserve His Word to all generations. To assume He is unable to translate His Word makes no sense at all. He must be able to translate it in order to preserve it.

I don't want to be the one trying to decide what He meant by each word of the book. I much prefer to assume that each word is preserved and that He said what He meant, and meant what He said.

King James only for me.

( Admin snipped portion not related to OP )


Older long-time Christians use the KJV from familiarity, as it was almost the only English version around in their younger days. My dad used the ASV, then, the NASV when it came out.

Some use the KJV because, as it's not in our everyday languages, it's easier to memorize from.

 

[alexander284]

( Admin snipped portion not related to OP )


Older long-time Christians use the KJV from familiarity, as it was almost the only English version around in their younger days. My dad used the ASV, then, the NASV when it came out.

Some use the KJV because, as it's not in our everyday languages, it's easier to memorize from.

Yes, and it isn't as if an Evangelical Christian during the 1950s was going to switch from the KJV to the RSV, eh?

 

[alexander284]

I read from the KJV and use it as my main version. Love it! Grew up with it, have compared much of it to the original languages and verified its accuracy. You just have to remember that it's a 17th century British translation.

Wow! You've got me wanting to spend some time in the KJV now!

 

[Jec81]

I am a TR man. Many reasons for it. Familiarity is on my list as to why.
It's what I learned as a child, and it hasn't changed. when I went to university where they were solely niv. I hated it, but I did what I needed to do to get through it. I went to seminary at a TR school and felt more comfortable. Do I own other translations... yes. Do I disparage any other translation (other than the message)... no. I currently preach from a NKJV Bible, though I quote KJV.

 

[alexander284]

I am a TR man. Many reasons for it. Familiarity is on my list as to why.
It's what I learned as a child, and it hasn't changed. when I went to university where they were solely niv. I hated it, but I did what I needed to do to get through it. I went to seminary at a TR school and felt more comfortable. Do I own other translations... yes. Do I disparage any other translation (other than the message)... no. I currently preach from a NKJV Bible, though I quote KJV.

I really appreciate your post, sir! You are "a breath of fresh air!"

 

[alexander284]

Starting today, I have begun the process of reacquainting myself with the King James Version of the Bible.

And it is, indeed, proving to be a great blessing to me!

I thank you for your edifying posts as to why you continue to prefer the KJV, along with the NKJV.

May those of you who comment, without being devisive, continue to be blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ!