What Version of the Bible do you read

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Palatka51, the KJV is a good Bible.

I study three different KJVs every day:

1. KJV1611 - I have an electronic version via e-sword.com and a paper version from Nelson

2. KJV1769 Editions - I have an electronic version via e-sword.com with Strong's Numbers so I can hook to the Hebrew or Greek as needed. I also have paper editions which I hardly ever use. I checked about 11 of my paper KJVs (excluding the KJV1611) and found 10 different readings.

3. KJV1873 Edition, only Paper

 

[RustySword]

My favorite one for reading is the KJV - I just like it.

I study out of the NKJV more than any other. It has the variant readings from different manuscript families in the margins, reads similar to the KJV, and is as accurate as any of the others, if not more so (I had three years of Greek and two years of Hebrew in seminary, so if I really need to dig in that deeply, I can).

But for my daily reading, although I alternate between different translations, I find myself reaching for the KJV more than any other.

 

[2serve]

I suppose one could also say, "for one to use the KJV strictly is dangerous business when it comes to some theologies", considering the fact that the JW's, Mormons, and most other cults use or used the KJV exclusively.

You evidentally have never so much as spoken to either a "JW" or a "MORMON" seeing that "JW's" have changed and adopted their own translation " The New World Translation " and " MORMONS " adopt the book of "Mormon" as a newer revelation in addition the The A.V. .

WoW!

Did you see that?
That crazy guy tried to know what he was talking about before he posted.

I still love ya.

P.S. KJVO and don't care if you agree, I don't have to answer for you.

:tonofbricks:as before waiting on the stones.

 

[annsni]

You evidentally have never so much as spoken to either a "JW" or a "MORMON" seeing that "JW's" have changed and adopted their own translation " The New World Translation " and " MORMONS " adopt the book of "Mormon" as a newer revelation in addition the The A.V. .

WoW!

Did you see that?
That crazy guy tried to know what he was talking about before he posted.

I still love ya.

P.S. KJVO and don't care if you agree, I don't have to answer for you.

:tonofbricks:as before waiting on the stones.

So you're calling Mexdeaf a liar? Hmmmm - interesting.

I guess YOU'VE never spoke to a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon because the other version that they use - and the one they always used before the JW's made the New World version WAS the KJV.

Oh, also David Koresh used the KJV as far as I remember. Most cults do.

People can twist truth. Why twist something if it's wrong? There's no need.

Valid modern versions are as much the Word of God as the KJV is.

And the arrogance can be left at the door.

 

[Amy.G]

I can't stand arrogance either, but I wonder why most people who prefer the KJV feel like they have to apologize for it.

 

[Marcia]

I can't stand arrogance either, but I wonder why most people who prefer the KJV feel like they have to apologize for it.

They shouldn't if they are just saying they prefer the KJV. I think some here may be confused about the KJV issue. It's not preferring the KJV that is the problem, or believing that it is the best translation. It is believing that only the KJV is God's word that is the problem.

There's a difference between preferring the KJV or thinking it's best, and saying that only the KJV is God's word.

 

[Marcia]

...Unfortunately, many Bibles are based on the two Greek faulty manuscripts -- the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Scholars have proven that these manuscripts have been tampered with.

You made an assertion here that you need to back up. Which scholars? Please explain how they have proved that these ms were "tampered with." Don't give links - give an explanation since you made the statement, so you must know.

 

[Dale-c]

I am really glad that I did not get into these debates when I was first on the BB. at that time I was KJVO and would have thought many of the same things about the "modern" versions (which the KJV is too in a sense)

As far as the OP, I use the ESV and the NASB primarily and occasionally the KJV but less and less.
I also use the NIV some in church since one of the elders uses that and the other uses the ESV.

 

[EdSutton]

I will use the NIV and NASB once in a while for clarification purposes, but for one to use them strictly is dangerous business when it comes to some theologies.

What theologies would those be?

Uh- would you believe TR Primacy, KJV Primacy, and One Version 'Onlyism' when it happens to be of a different 'Onlyism' variety that that of the individual making such a statement, for three to start off with??

Ed

 

[mcdirector]

Count me as one in dangerous waters . . .

 

[Tater77]

I can't stand arrogance either, but I wonder why most people who prefer the KJV feel like they have to apologize for it.

You cant thank Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Texe Marrs and many others for that one. And the rabid foaming at the mouth KJVO hardliners that tear you apart for not agreeing with them.

 

[Keith M]

They shouldn't if they are just saying they prefer the KJV. I think some here may be confused about the KJV issue. It's not preferring the KJV that is the problem, or believing that it is the best translation. It is believing that only the KJV is God's word that is the problem.

There's a difference between preferring the KJV or thinking it's best, and saying that only the KJV is God's word.

You're absolutely right, Marcia. No one should ever feel they need to apologize because they prefer one Bible translation over another. The only apology owed (but never offered) is for denigrating all translations but one of the KJVs. Most extremist KJVOs preach about scriptural authority when in fact they become their own final authority by declaring one of the KJVs to be the only word of God. There is absolutely NO scriptural justification for the KJVO position we see advocated by some people.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I can't stand arrogance either, but I wonder why most people who prefer the KJV feel like they have to apologize for it.

Amy.G

Since a plurality of English speaking Christians have used the KJV for a long time it is natural to compare new versions to the KJV. Supporters of new versions try to demonstrate that their favorite new version is better by showing "faults" in the KJV. In the process of time the supposed faults have multiplied to the point that the people are convinced that the KJV is an extremely faulty version of the Holy Bible.

Many readers will not be able to disprove the "faults" (due to the abundance and obscure nature of them) but continue to read the KJV because it is The Bible to them. Those folks will (as you say) "feel like they have to apologize for it" because they can't answer the "experts".

The folks who love the KJV are correct to do so. It has been a blessing to generations of Christians for a good reason. It is an exceedingly good translation.


A.F.

 

[EdSutton]

Amy.G

Since a plurality of English speaking Christians have used the KJV for a long time it is natural to compare new versions to the KJV. Supporters of new versions try to demonstrate that their favorite new version is better by showing "faults" in the KJV. In the process of time the supposed faults have multiplied to the point that the people are convinced that the KJV is an extremely faulty version of the Holy Bible.

Many readers will not be able to disprove the "faults" (due to the abundance and obscure nature of them) but continue to read the KJV because it is The Bible to them. Those folks will (as you say) "feel like they have to apologize for it" because they can't answer the "experts".

The folks who love the KJV are correct to do so. It has been a blessing to generations of Christians for a good reason. It is an exceedingly good translation.


A.F.

Considering that the NIV is currently the most widespread selling version, do the same principles you advocate here, also apply to the NIV, among English versions?

FTR, I do not particularly favor the NIV, by any stretch, personally, but do recognize that there have to be reasons for its rise in use and sales, beyond the fact that it is 'new,' or the argument of some self-styled expert(s), for so were the ASV, RV, NASB, LIV, etc. - none of which made anywhere near the overall impact as did the TYN, MCB, GEN, KJ1611, KJ1769, NIV, and NKJV, in respective historical order, apart from the ASV, which for a time, made some overall headway.

Even the 'new' TNIV is scarcely making any 'blip' on the radar of the KJV, NIV, and NKJV sales.

How come??

Ed

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Considering that the NIV is currently the most widespread selling version, do the same principles you advocate here, also apply to the NIV, among English versions?
.....

I am not sure I advocated any particular principle. Perhaps you could clarify your intent.

I don't know of anyone who has expressed shame for reading the NIV if that is what you mean.

A.F.

 

[Tater77]

The KJV is hard to understand today. Just because you can pronounce a word, doesn't mean you understand its meaning. The NIV is easy to read and understand. People like that. I have a great grasp of English but I even have to stop here and there in the KJV and figure out what the English is saying.

I am just as guilty as anyone about casting aside the KJV because of the Onlyites. I used to be that way, but I was wrong to do so. The KJV is just a bystander in a bitter conflict and its sad to see it used as a weapon against other Christians.

Many people just own and use one Bible and they want to understand it. Those of us that own a Bible collection are a minority.

 

[Baptist4life]

The KJV is hard to understand today.

I'm so tired of hearing that I wanna scream. Those of us who use the KJV, and have for years, understand it just FINE. Why can't you all seem to understand that??:BangHead:

 

[Amy.G]

I'm so tired of hearing that I wanna scream. Those of us who use the KJV, and have for years, understand it just FINE. Why can't you all seem to understand that??:BangHead:

I haven't been using the KJV all my life and I can still understand it.

 

[Dale-c]

I grew up using the KJV but I now find the NASB and the ESV to be much more readable. I just moved and the church here uses the NIV and the ESV but before, I found it interesting when the pastor would explain that the difficult word in the KJV meant the exact thing my NASB said.

The danger of the KJV is not that is a bad translation, but that it is a translation into an outdated form of the language we speak.

I thought I understood it just fine but as I compare it to other good translation I have found that it was not the KJV in error, but my understanding of archaic language often times.

 

[annsni]

I'm so tired of hearing that I wanna scream. Those of us who use the KJV, and have for years, understand it just FINE. Why can't you all seem to understand that??:BangHead:

I don't read where anyone said that YOU cannot understand the KJV. Why are you getting angry when someone says that they have difficulty with it?

I can pull apart all the parts of a double bridle, clean and oil them then put them back together. Why can't you?

Not everyone is able to understand the older English that is in the KJV. It's not a reflection of the KJV nor of the person. Some people just cannot process those words the same as others.

That is the beauty of being able to say the same thing with some more simplified, common words. Is there a problem with that? Would you say to a 2 year old "You have a first degree laceration on your anterior mid thigh. We need to debreid the wound and disinfect it, then put a sterile dressing on it to protect from contanimation." or do you say to them "You got a cut/boo-boo/owie! Let's clean it out and put a bandaid on it to keep it clean." It's the same thing, but different words. One is more understandable to some than others. Not everyone can understand the 1600s terminology (especially since the meaning of many of the words have changed).