Which "King James" Only Version?

[Rhetorician]

Hello to all who care about such:

Here is an article that will surely interest you "King James Only" devotees. Happy reading and get back to me with your comments please.

FYi!

http://www.patheos.com/community/euangelion/2011/05/23/which-king-james-bible/ :wavey:

"That is all!"

 

[dcorbett]

I read the article.

I believe that the King James Bible I use is the closest to the original manuscripts that is available in this day and age. Nothing we have is exactly what was written because it wasn't originally written in English to begin with. I am happy with this Bible, I don't need another version, and I won't want another version. I have been reading a KJV since I was old enough to read.

I do wish, however, that people would just let me enjoy my Bible without a barrage in an attempt to discredit my Bible. Read yours, and I will read mine, and I will pray that we both grow in Christ.


Thank you

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The problem in the article is not the King James Translation or its readers. The problem is those who claim that there is only one valid translation that all English speakers must use. The author is pointing out that this is inconsistent since there are several versions of the King James translation.

 

[Mexdeaf]

To what Roger said, I say Amen.

 

[Rippon]

And again we come back to the proposition that things which are different are not the same.

KJV Onlyists assert that the KJV is the standard. But the "standard" is a moving target.

 

[robycop3]

BUT, D Corbett, do you dispute the use of other English versions by other people?

 

[Rhetorician]

Bro. Corbett Response

I do wish, however, that people would just let me enjoy my Bible without a barrage in an attempt to discredit my Bible. Read yours, and I will read mine, and I will pray that we both grow in Christ.


Thank you

Bro. Corbett,

I sense at least a small bit of tension in your response, maybe even anger?! Please do not take offense at the post. :smilewinkgrin:

"That is all!"

 

[Baptist4life]

Sad that on it's 400 year anniversary people still are trying to discredit it. And, yes, I AM offended by the OP. I've said many times the KJV gets attacked while trying to refute KJVOism. Why the moderators allow it, I don't know.

Post anything you want against KJVOism, but WHY must posting all kinds of things against the KJV be a part of that?


NO, I'm not KJVO, either, but I am KJV Preferred.

 

[Baptist4life]

And again we come back to the proposition that things which are different are not the same.

How many "NIV's" have there been now?

 

[Rippon]

How many "NIV's" have there been now?

The 1973 NT,the 1978 full Bible, updated in 84 and in 2011.Technically the TNIV is not considered a NIV. Neither is the NIrV. The NIVI wasn't released in America.

But the KJV has much more variety in its various editions. The original of 1611 (and there were variations even during that year),The Paris,Baskerville and Blayney,the Oxford 1833,the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by Scrivener,and the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton.

There might have been even more that I overlooked.

But the point is that no KJV enthusiast can claim that there is one definitive KJV edition that is the unalterable and uniquely preserved body of Scripture which no other Bible version can rival.

 

[Rippon]

NO, I'm not KJVO, either, but I am KJV Preferred.

You sound like a KJVO most of the time though you insist that you're not.

 

[Baptist4life]

What was/is the NIVI?

 

[Baptist4life]

You sound like a KJVO most of the time though you insist that you're not.

I get that a lot, I guess. But, I belong to a wonderful church that preaches from the NKJV, and the majority of the people in my church use the NIV, NASB, or NKJV. I don't have one problem with it. Wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Rippon]

I get that a lot, I guess. But, I belong to a wonderful church that preaches from the NKJV, and the majority of the people in my church use the NIV, NASB, or NKJV. I don't have one problem with it. Wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ.

So you no longer get confused with the various translations being used in your church as you claimed many times in the past?

 

[dcorbett]

First, I am a sister in Christ, not a brother :flower:

Secondly, I am KJV only by my choice. I am not angry, only sad that so many invest so much energy and time trying to discredit a Bible that has seen millions saved and taught millions the Word of God. I invest no time or energy in trying to convince those who use newer versions that they are wrong. I keep saying over and over that I have no need for another version and I don't want another version. I don't argue with people, but they attempt to argue with me. Frankly, it gets old to come in here and see ANTI-KJV posts. I love the Bible, it guides me in daily living.

That's why I said what I said.

 

[Rippon]

I am not angry, only sad that so many invest so much energy and time trying to discredit a Bible that has seen millions saved and taught millions the Word of God.

Would you be willing to say the same thing with regard to the NIV?

I invest no time or energy in trying to convince those who use newer versions that they are wrong.

But do you believe that they are indeed wrong?

Frankly, it gets old to come in here and see ANTI-KJV posts.

Can you discern the difference between an anti-KJV stance, and an anti-KJVO position?

 

[Baptist4life]

Rippon, why do you always seem to want to "argue" in every one of your posts?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Maybe because this is a debate thread?

 

[David Lamb]

Sad that on it's 400 year anniversary people still are trying to discredit it. And, yes, I AM offended by the OP. I've said many times the KJV gets attacked while trying to refute KJVOism. Why the moderators allow it, I don't know.

Post anything you want against KJVOism, but WHY must posting all kinds of things against the KJV be a part of that?


NO, I'm not KJVO, either, but I am KJV Preferred.

I have just re-read the OP, and I think it must have been edited. At least, I can't see anything that discredits or attacks the AV (KJV). I see that the writer of the OP disagrees with "onlyism", but where does it attack or discredit? I did think that possibly you meant the blog to which the OP linked, but its opening words seem to indicate that the writer of that article is not seeking to attack or discredit a version:

As we all know, 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible (KJB). And what a wonderfully happy birthday it is for a translation with such a distinguished history and influence in the realm of the English speaking world.
​

The remainder of the article seems to be pointing to the fact that the KJV has appeared in several editions since that of 1611, and that many of those editions differ from one another, some in minor ways, others in big ways such as the 1611 edition including the Apocrypha, and later editions omitting it.

If I've misunderstood you, I apologise in advance.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

First, I am a sister in Christ, not a brother :flower:

Secondly, I am KJV only by my choice. I am not angry, only sad that so many invest so much energy and time trying to discredit a Bible that has seen millions saved and taught millions the Word of God. I invest no time or energy in trying to convince those who use newer versions that they are wrong. I keep saying over and over that I have no need for another version and I don't want another version. I don't argue with people, but they attempt to argue with me. Frankly, it gets old to come in here and see ANTI-KJV posts. I love the Bible, it guides me in daily living.

That's why I said what I said.

Please report any anti-KJV posts. They will be dealt with.