The Holy King James Bible is our authority and guiding principle.

[robycop3]

I can remember when the Freewill Baptist church presented me with the KJV Open Bible that family, friends, and fellow Christians glorified God as if I had obtained something of great worth.

First, one should be an adult; otherwise it's juvenilery.

 

[Logos1560]

the KJV Open Bible

To which Open Bible edition of the KJV do you refer?

The 1975 Open Bible KJV edition has many differences from most typical post-1900 KJV editions. It is more in agreement with the post-1963 American Bible Society edition of the KJV. Most of the differences are updates to spelling. Some KJV-only advocates have objected to its spelling update "Joshua" at Acts 7:45.

A few example differences in the 1975 Open Bible KJV edition in the first twenty-one chapters of the book of Genesis would be "cherubim" (Gen. 3:24) instead of "Cherubims," "instructor" (Gen. 4:22) instead of "instructer," "was lifted" (Gen. 7:17) instead of "was lift," "assuaged" (Gen. 8:1) instead of "asswaged," "plucked" (Gen. 8:11) instead of "pluckt," "thoroughly" (Gen. 11:3) instead of "throughly,""mortar" (Gen. 11:3) instead of "morter," "show" (Gen. 12:1) instead of "shew," "Rephaim" (Gen. 14:5) instead of "Rephaims," "Emim" (Gen. 14:5) instead of "Emims," "a horror" (Gen. 15:12) instead of "an horror," "a handmaid" (Gen. 16:1) instead of "an handmaid," "fetched" (Gen. 18:7) instead of "fetcht," "son-in-law" (Gen. 19:12) instead of "son in law," "hast showed" (Gen. 19:19) instead of "hast shewed," and "today" (Gen. 21:26) instead of "to day."

The 1985 Open Bible KJV edition is evidently based on an older KJV edition as it does not keep the spelling updates in the 1975 edition.

There is also a 1990 New Open Bible KJV edition.

 

[rockytopva]

Could they not have done the same with an ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT , or some other version?
My church provides each 3rd grade child with a personal Bible. They are encouraged to use this Bible as they attend various ministry programs throughout the week. All my children still have their Bibles on even though they are older. It is a great connection to the community of faith.

First, one should be an adult; otherwise it's juvenilery.

As far as grade school my parents bought the King James based Uncle Arthur's Bedtime stories volumes, in which I really enjoyed. Even though Arthur Maxwell was SDA, his works were praiseworthy and taught and illustrated bible stories well.

 

[Logos1560]

It should be clear that some make assumptions concerning the KJV that they may think and believe to be true, but they fail to prove them to be true, and in a number of cases they have been soundly proven not to be true.

 

[George Antonios]

The cult of the KKJVO

The cult of SO (scholarship only).

 

[Reformed1689]

I also believe the KJV has its inaccuracies, such as in interpreting the Greek Phileo and Charis. But it is still my interpretation of choice. I like having the Strongs dictionary close by as I read.

Oh boy, those who thing the Strong's dictionary is adequate for true study and not just a starting point scare me...

 

[Reformed1689]

The cult of SO (scholarship only).

Doesn't exist.

 

[Logos1560]

The cult of SO (scholarship only).

It is human KJV-only reasoning which in effect advocates complete trust in the scholarship of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

Many non-KJV-only believers do not advocate any scholarship only position as you seem to claim, but fail to prove.

 

[Reformed1689]

It is human KJV-only reasoning which in effect advocates complete trust in the scholarship of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

Many non-KJV-only believers do not advocate any scholarship only position as you seem to claim, but fail to prove.

You know that is a good point. KJVO advocates actually are the ones putting forth a scholarship only position.

@George Antonios

 

[rockytopva]

Oh boy, those who thing the Strong's dictionary is adequate for true study and not just a starting point scare me...

John Bunyan made do with the kjv.... This is an excerpt from chapter 13 Early Literary Influence of the King James Bible showing how John Bunyan's writing was influenced by his reading of the Bible.

"Beginning at the end of the seventeenth century and lasting for two centuries, the King James Bible and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress were the two “best sellers” in evangelical Protestant households. In the popular imagination, these two books were regarded as being cut from the same religious and imaginative cloth. The fact that readers have found these two books a natural pair is more telling than occasional scholarly attempts, grounded in technical stylistic analysis, to show that Bunyan’s style often differs from the KJV. The Victorian literary giant Thomas Babington Macaulay offered the opinion that Bunyan “knew no language but the English, as it was spoken by the common people. He had studied no great model of composition, with the exception…of our noble [KJV] translation of the Bible.”

 

[Reformed1689]

John Bunyan made do with the kjv.... This is an excerpt from chapter 13 Early Literary Influence of the King James Bible showing how John Bunyan's writing was influenced by his reading of the Bible.

"Beginning at the end of the seventeenth century and lasting for two centuries, the King James Bible and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress were the two “best sellers” in evangelical Protestant households. In the popular imagination, these two books were regarded as being cut from the same religious and imaginative cloth. The fact that readers have found these two books a natural pair is more telling than occasional scholarly attempts, grounded in technical stylistic analysis, to show that Bunyan’s style often differs from the KJV. The Victorian literary giant Thomas Babington Macaulay offered the opinion that Bunyan “knew no language but the English, as it was spoken by the common people. He had studied no great model of composition, with the exception…of our noble [KJV] translation of the Bible.”

How is that relevant? John Bunyan spoke Elizabethan English...

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh boy, those who thing the Strong's dictionary is adequate for true study and not just a starting point scare me...

Yes, as many KJVO seem to run to Strongs as being their best resort!i

 

[Yeshua1]

The cult of SO (scholarship only).

At least our side has scholarship!

 

[Yeshua1]

To which Open Bible edition of the KJV do you refer?

The 1975 Open Bible KJV edition has many differences from most typical post-1900 KJV editions. It is more in agreement with the post-1963 American Bible Society edition of the KJV. Most of the differences are updates to spelling. Some KJV-only advocates have objected to its spelling update "Joshua" at Acts 7:45.

A few example differences in the 1975 Open Bible KJV edition in the first twenty-one chapters of the book of Genesis would be "cherubim" (Gen. 3:24) instead of "Cherubims," "instructor" (Gen. 4:22) instead of "instructer," "was lifted" (Gen. 7:17) instead of "was lift," "assuaged" (Gen. 8:1) instead of "asswaged," "plucked" (Gen. 8:11) instead of "pluckt," "thoroughly" (Gen. 11:3) instead of "throughly,""mortar" (Gen. 11:3) instead of "morter," "show" (Gen. 12:1) instead of "shew," "Rephaim" (Gen. 14:5) instead of "Rephaims," "Emim" (Gen. 14:5) instead of "Emims," "a horror" (Gen. 15:12) instead of "an horror," "a handmaid" (Gen. 16:1) instead of "an handmaid," "fetched" (Gen. 18:7) instead of "fetcht," "son-in-law" (Gen. 19:12) instead of "son in law," "hast showed" (Gen. 19:19) instead of "hast shewed," and "today" (Gen. 21:26) instead of "to day."

The 1985 Open Bible KJV edition is evidently based on an older KJV edition as it does not keep the spelling updates in the 1975 edition.

There is also a 1990 New Open Bible KJV edition.

Really points out the Myth of there being one accepted nd recognized Kjv version by KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is human KJV-only reasoning which in effect advocates complete trust in the scholarship of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

Many non-KJV-only believers do not advocate any scholarship only position as you seem to claim, but fail to prove.

It is foolish to claim for the 1611 translators inspiration never claimed for themselves!

 

[Marooncat79]

For the record a KJV from the 17th century actally encouraged -on a preface page

1. The translation from the originals into the common language (newer more modern versions as the English Language changed)

2. Actually stated that there were certain errors

3. Actually encouraged future KJV versions to clean up their errors

I owned one at one time but lent it out and never got it back

 

[Yeshua1]

For the record a KJV from the 17th century actally encouraged -on a preface page

1. The translation from the originals into the common language (newer more modern versions as the English Language changed)

2. Actually stated that there were certain errors

3. Actually encouraged future KJV versions to clean up their errors

I owned one at one time but lent it out and never got it back

The supreme irony is that KJVO would accuse the 1611 translators with those views as being not a real KJV!

 

[Marooncat79]

Hehehe

 

[robycop3]

John Bunyan made do with the kjv.... This is an excerpt from chapter 13 Early Literary Influence of the King James Bible showing how John Bunyan's writing was influenced by his reading of the Bible.

"Beginning at the end of the seventeenth century and lasting for two centuries, the King James Bible and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress were the two “best sellers” in evangelical Protestant households. In the popular imagination, these two books were regarded as being cut from the same religious and imaginative cloth. The fact that readers have found these two books a natural pair is more telling than occasional scholarly attempts, grounded in technical stylistic analysis, to show that Bunyan’s style often differs from the KJV. The Victorian literary giant Thomas Babington Macaulay offered the opinion that Bunyan “knew no language but the English, as it was spoken by the common people. He had studied no great model of composition, with the exception…of our noble [KJV] translation of the Bible.”

Bunyan lived 1628-1688 while the KJV was about the only English version available in Britain. So, he had to make do with the KJV or no English version at all. But the KJV was in his language. (Just read Pilgrim's Progress to see.)

 

[robycop3]

For the record a KJV from the 17th century actally encouraged -on a preface page

1. The translation from the originals into the common language (newer more modern versions as the English Language changed)

2. Actually stated that there were certain errors

3. Actually encouraged future KJV versions to clean up their errors

I owned one at one time but lent it out and never got it back

Ya might ask Logos if he'd seen that edition with that preface page. He has read and/or examined many KJV editions.