King James Version

[TCassidy]

Thanks for your assessment of my lack of mental capacities.

You still seem to be laboring under the misconception that I have assessed your mental capacity. I haven't. I have never mentioned, commented, nor assessed in any way your mental capacity. I have never even considered it. To be totally honest I really don't care about your mental capacity or lack thereof.

What I did was opine that your post was dumb. That does not mean you are dumb. You are not your post. Just as the map is the not the territory. I.E., the understanding that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. (My apologies to Alfred Korzybski for that over simplification of his thesis.)

 

[Butterflygirl2]

I think everybody should use the Bible version that suits them best, so long as it is faithful to the original languages.

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?

 

[tyndale1946]

I have always read the KJV... I know there are others who read a different version... That what you love and that is what you read and study... Same with my KJV that is what I love and that is what I study and if I quote scripture on here that's where it will come from... Most of the old theologian I quote from also used the KJV... I know there are version that is said may explain things better and that be so but not for me. I have been reading my KJV for over 50 years and I learn something new everyday as you should also as you read yours... To me the earmark of any version is "Does it exalt Jesus Christ?"... Brother Glen

 

[heisrisen]

I'm KJV only and nothing will change that. Things that are different, are not the same.

 

[Internet Theologian]

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?

Good question!

It would be a tough thing to not feel as spiritual due to the particular version one uses. Ones spirituality (I'm thinking confidence before God) should only be tied to a converted sinners fellowship with God and only according to the Word.

 

[Internet Theologian]

lol...I just read through this thread and noted the attack on each other started immediately, and the OP was hardly addressed at all. This must be the common reaction here as I've experienced the same thing. Why people do this is beyond me. Make a post, get a reply, or replies, that imply you're an idiot.

 

[annsni]

Well, wasn't the question "What are your thoughts on this?" I think that's what everyone is addressing.

 

[Internet Theologian]

My bad I didn't know the mental capacity thing meant 'thoughts'...I missed that subliminal message!

 

[TCassidy]

Things that are different, are not the same.

So the KJV of 1611 is not the same as the KJV of 1762 which is not the same as the KJV of 1769 which is not the same as the KJV of 1873?

So which one of those is the real KJV?

 

[McCree79]

So the KJV of 1611 is not the same as the KJV of 1762 which is not the same as the KJV of 1769 which is not the same as the KJV of 1873?

So which one of those is the real KJV?

I'm going to say not the 1611. I got my hands on a 1611....I can barely read it. The Kings English is awful. You have to think about many words, since the spelling makes them virtually unreadable.

Wifedome.....downe from heuen to eate......Iesus said vnto them.....father giueth mee.....he that beleeuth on me...it was at Heirusalem.....

The 1611 is a nightmare. I love having it and occasionally reading it. But to have it has my primary text. No way....give me the NASB, NKJV or ESV anyday.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[robustheologian]

I was saved when someone was preaching from a King James and I like the King James. It's what I was raised on.

But it is not my principle bible to read nor study.

Amen. I wonder does anyone consider why the KJV isn't the primary bible used in seminaries today. Whistling

 

[Rippon]

Amen. I wonder does anyone consider why the KJV isn't the primary bible used in seminaries today. Whistling

Oh, let me count the ways...

 

[Internet Theologian]

So the KJV of 1611 is not the same as the KJV of 1762 which is not the same as the KJV of 1769 which is not the same as the KJV of 1873?

So which one of those is the real KJV?

Oh, now you're confusing things with facts!

 

[Salty]

I'm KJV only and nothing will change that. Things that are different, are not the same.

So if you were to learn a foreign language - say German, what version would you use to lead a German-only speaker to salvation?

 

[Van]

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?

I do not think you are well served by either the KJV or the NIV. Try the NASB95 and the WEB. The NASB gives you what the modern scholars believe is the Alexandrian text (CT) and the WEB gives you what modern scholars believe is the Byzantine Text-form. Then compare these to the HCSB, LEB and the NET.

 

[Logos1560]

I'm KJV only and nothing will change that. Things that are different, are not the same.

Are you suggesting that the truth could not change your opinions? Where do the Scriptures teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars/critics/priests in 1611?

The 1611 KJV is different from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

Varying KJV editions in the 1600's are different and not identically the same as KJV editions in the 1700's.

Varying KJV editions in the 1700's are different and not identically the same as KJV edition in the 1800's.

The thirty or so varying KJV editions in print today are not identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

 

[Rippon]

Then compare these to the HCSB, LEB and the NET.

Of course, all three show great affinity with the NIV.

 

[nailah783]

Personally I feel like whatever can help you become closer to God should be the one that you use. I had no idea when I started this that it was going to cause so much controversy. People really do have very strong beliefs in this subject that I thought was comical when the lady at my church made this statement to me that she would only read the KJV as though the NIV was a sin to read. Well I guess to each their own when it comes to this subject for me.