THE INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURE

[Eliyahu]

I used to stay around KJV as KJVB(Best), not KJVO.

 

[tinytim]

Brother James, you are refreshing to me.

From what I read from you, you sound a lot like me 5 years ago.

I used to be so KJVO. That poor church I pastored back then..... They must have really loved me to put up with me!

 

[robycop3]

Bro. James & Eliyahu...May I ask each of you what opened your eyes?

In my own case, I was never KJVO...but I honestly looked at it closely as I could, and found there's simply no inspiration and Scripture to support it, and therefore it just couldn't possibly be true. I was wondering if such a discovery prompted you gents' choices to change your minds?

I believe God keeps right on inspiring His word to appear in today's languages, and that He keeps right on causing men to translate it.

 

[Brother James]

Don't get me wrong. I still love the KJV. I still believe the TR is the best text based upon my study. It's just some of the claims that I've heard and been guilty of teaching in the past are simply absurd. With that said though I do have some concern with the glut designer Bible versions on the market and the outstanding ignorance of the scripture and doctrine among those who name the name of Christy today. I sill believe that the glut of CT Bible versions bring a lot of doubt about the text of the Bible. Thats my opinion and I certianly wouldn't take it to the extreme that I would break fellowship with another christian over it. I've been reading the NKJV and have really enjoyed it but I'm still going to stay with the A.V. untill God shows me different. I've been using it for 22 years and I can't imagine being without it. Besides, it's so easy to memorize.
God bless you all.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Footnotes, or side-notes can be wonderful things for in-depth study, as the readers of the original 1611 version KJV readers found out.

One of the reasons the KJV was authorized by James was as a response to "side-notes" of the then popular Geneva Bible that were expressively against the idea of the divine authority of kings.
The original KJV was remarkably free of notes.

One of John Bancroft's instructions stated:
"Noe marginal notes att all to be affixed, but only for explanation of you Hebrew or Greeke Words, which cannot without some circumlocution soe breifly and fitly be expressed in ye Text." (Adam Nicolson's "God's Secretaries, the making of the King James Bible" 2003)

Rob

 

[rbell]

Originally posted by Deacon:

One of John Bancroft's instructions stated:
"Noe marginal notes att all to be affixed, but only for explanation of you Hebrew or Greeke Words, which cannot without some circumlocution soe breifly and fitly be expressed in ye Text." (Adam Nicolson's "God's Secretaries, the making of the King James Bible" 2003

Rob

hey, with wordiness like that, who would have ROOM for marginal notes?