King James Bible Companion

[Mexdeaf]

That makes no sense. If the KJV is a bible you endorse, then why would you ALSO endorse other versions that have 1,000's of word changes (I am not referring to archaic words either) and omissions, and which came from different texts than the KJV?

Its interesting that you call the KJV "lovely." It is much more than that. Its the very Word of God which we should live by. You say it should not be the be-all- to-end-all translations, and yet which version/bible is? Can you even answer that? Do you really believe God had wanted all these different versions of His Holy Word? Either we accept ONE Bible as true or we accept them all even though they differ one from another, not just in words but in meaning and doctrine. We have bibles that omit Jesus' name in some verses or even demote him. How about gender neutral bibles. Where do we draw the line?

King James gave assent that a translation be made of the whole Bible," as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches." This is what it should be. ONE HOLY BIBLE for God's people because there is only ONE word of God which He promised to preserve. All these mass produced, money-making bibles show that they don't believe God kept His promise or failed to somehow and that He needs man's help in "improving" His Word! Where and when does it end? If there's nothing wrong with the KJV except for its archaic language then why not just update only those words and leave the rest alone? Why do we need a zillion different versions in English and all the churches are using different versions that a stranger cannot walk in and know if the Bible he brought with him is the one that pastor and churches uses!

If we had remained true to ONE Holy Scriptures,, there would be none of this squabbling about bible versions and all the dissensions it has caused.

If we had remained true to the ONE Holy Scriptures, we would all be studying Greek and Hebrew instead of arguing about English versions.

As Deacon suggested, you would benefit from reading the 'Preface to the Reader' from the 1611 version of the KJV. No one reading it with an honest and open mind would conclude that the very men who translated the KJV would have any agreement with those who put them and their work upon a throne today.

Here is a link to the Preface:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm

 

[Johathan01]

As most of you know, I currently read four English translations: NLT 2007, NRSV, NIV 1984, and KJB. I consistently find the Holy Spirit speaks to me through these translations--and probably would speak to me through other translations if I were to read them. Of the four that I read, I prefer the KJB for many reasons. I am finding that I am reading the KJB more and the other translations less and less.


...Bob

Amen Bob, One can get saved through reading most any bible version. No matter how many changes are made or diluted God's word gets as we see more and more bibles meeting the needs of feminists, gays, new agers, etc. etc God still can get through and reach any heart that is open.

 

[Rippon]

Over at the Baptist 1611 forum, Mongol Servant has given a good post: Why all of the fuss over the King James Bible?

I agree with much of what is said in that post.

Yeah,I especially like the line from David Daniell.:"Sometimes the translation is wrong,or clumsy or baffling."

 

[David Lamb]

Then please tell me why the NKJV omits key words critical to salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ? Is that similar to the KJV? Or is it subtly deceptive?


Many of the word changes between the KJV and the NKJV are not just changing the archaisms. Instead, many are changes which clearly show the NKJV translators departed from the KJV and the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions, (including the JW's NWT), translated from corrupted Greek texts.

The NKJV claims to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, but in , actuality it is a hybrid text which has many changes identical with or similar to the modern Bible versions which emanate from the Alexandrian stream. The NKJV even matches the Jehovah Witnesses Version in quite a few instances.


Sorry David, but the King James Bible stands alone.

Sorry, Jacob, you keep repeating that it (the NKJV) omits things, relies on texts other than the TR, butyou seem reluctant to post examples.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am a member at that forum where this article came from and have not run across a single member there that endorses any of the Modern Versions. Nor the NKJV. If any do, they are not posting.

If you agree with that article,then why do you keep asking in what way has the NKJV deviated from the TR. You would get clobbered at the Baptist 1611 forum.

I love the KJV and who can argue it's impact on society?

You keep posting differences in translation choices between the KJV and the NKJV but you have yet to show that even one of them is a deviation for the TR. It would be simple to do. Find the deviation, show it in both the CT and the TR as well as the KJV and NKJV so we can see where those chose the CT rendering. Easy enough if there are indeed over 1200 places where they deviated.

Since the site is called Baptist 1611 I assume that they don't think the words 'of God' should appear in 1 John 5v12 since they were not in the 1611 edition of the KJV? Also of interest is the fact that the Baptist of 1611 opposed the modern version - they were happy with their Geneva Bible until the king forbade its printing.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Did King James write or translate any Bible?

.

It was claimed that King James was the first KJV onlyist - of course he would be - he commissioned it and only the government publishers could print it, thereby lining his pockets!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If we had remained true to ONE Holy Scriptures,, there would be none of this squabbling about bible versions and all the dissensions it has caused.

And there would also be no king's translation - the Geneva Bible would have been enough. I am glad that they were not opposed to a modern version and gave us this marvelous translation that is celebrating 400 years this year!

 

[BobinKy]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Another mulberry bush thread has run its course - pop goes the weasel.