Featured KJV Bibles

You don't read very well do you? I'm not a KJVO as i stated...you also don't research very well either..King James was not a homosexual, he was accused long after his death and King James had no part in writing the kjv, he only approved it, we don't even know that he ever opened it! Sir Anthony Welden, an officer of the royal court of whom King James had removed in anger swore vengeance and was the first to accuse him "AFTER" King James death!

 

Those are FACTS! Harper Collins published those books mentioned..now YOU dispute those FACTS! You are nit picking at words! That's childish to say the least!

 

What about this KJV Bible published by Zondervan? Good to go?

http://www.zondervan.com/bibles/large-or-giant-print-bibles/king-james-version-pew-bible-large-print

 

Proverbs 29:9King James Version (KJV)
9 If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.
I'm done with this discussion!

 

Really no need to question if I understand this distinction, is there? Not certain what your point is, but it comes across as condescending. Let's not go there.

As I stated, and IMO, she should not have been involved. It is highly doubtful no one knew she was a homosexual. Every person involved should have been vetted. I don't think the latter findings are valid but simply show some slackness on the vetting process.

Of course. .

 

Lighten up brother. You're getting bent and your usage of '!' is going to make the bandwidth explode.

I didn't say you were a kjvo'er. Should I also come at you and say you don't read very well, or would that be asinine as well?

 

She worked on the NIV as a stylistic consultant from 1970-78. I don't believe she showed any evidence of homosexuality publicly at that time. She was married to a man and had one child at the time when employment began. She told her husband she was gay and divorced in 73. But I don't see and evidence she told anyone outside of family until after her time with the NIV team was over.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

She divorced in 73 so if as you say she did so to announce her homosexuality she still continued to serve on the NIV team. To announce this at that time in history it would seem to be quite scandalous.

 

Yeah, I actually read what he said too. This part here: 'She told her husband she was gay and divorced in 73.'

Therefore I'm referring to her allegedly telling her husband. That is the announcement referred to...

 

That's a sad story Ann.

Is he on a translation committee? Laugh Roflmao Tongue

 

Personally, I don't have an issue with the KJV, but more often the modern folks, who want to make the KJV some exalted book, neglect that the translators of the KJV stated:

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where."
​

I am bothered by those who want to "puff" up some version as the Word, when even the KJV translators stated that ALL translations were the Word of God.

The KJV translators KNEW that only the original manuscripts were perfect that some "errors" would be found, and subsequent corrects made:

"No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?"​

If one doesn't like reading the original 1611 spelling, you can find the 1769 spelling of the above here.

My point being, the KJV was a standard established to accomplish a number of things:

• Standardize spelling throughout the English readers.
• Present a unified Bible incorporating as much information available at the time.
• Removing as much influence of the papist perversion as possible (considering the history of the times and influences of the persecution of those who opposed the papal established churches).
• Establishing a standard of readability and level of education for the populace in general.

​

However, at no point did the translators state that the translation work was establishing a Bible that was above critical analysis, the only, or anything other than the Word of God, in which they included ALL other translations to be, also.

 

The macarthur/Ryrie in Kjv both good choices, as would be the reformed study bible, and the Zondervan Kjv version, the one with the Niv study bible notes adopted to it!