Which KJV edition is 100% accurate?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JesusInFirstPlace:
I wasn't trying to spread rumors! I just want to cover all the bases before I decide on a Bible that isn't quite....right for me.

I knwo you weren't traying to spread rumor, but I wanted to make sure it didn't get to that point. As far as scriptural translations, what do your friends use? Perhaps you can borrow one of theirs. Check a couple out at your local library and see which one best suits your reading style. Or, go to gospelcom.net and compare translations on specific verses or chapters.

 

[JesusInFirstPlace]

Ok, I went to that website, and here's one thing I looked at:

II Timothy 2:15
(NIV)
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

(NASB)
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

(MSG)
Concentrate on doing your best for God, work you won't be ashamed of, laying out the truth plain and simple.

(CEV)
Do your best to win God's approval as a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed and who teaches only the true message.

(KJV)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


But don't they all seem to be saying it a little differently?????

 

[Trotter]

The Message is a paraphrase.

"Study" in the KJV means "work hard".

"Rightly dividing" means as in "cutting it straight", handling correctly.

Different words, same message.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[JesusInFirstPlace]

K, I get it! Because I was not seeing how they got "work really hard to get God's approval" from "study"

But I still think the "concentrate" thing is a little weird...

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JesusInFirstPlace:
Ok, so I have a question:
Do all of you MV's (for lack of a better term) believe that all of the English versions of today are inspired? Or are there some that you back, but some that are bad???

No they do not! They rely on their ability to interpret the best English translation that they deem appropriate for the situation. In other words, their intellect is their final authority. </font>[/QUOTE]Not so, Mr. Herrington. Again, another show of KJVo emotionalism in posting. The MV's very well interpret the Word of God.

 

[robycop3]

JIFP, there's something to remember about Greek and Hebrew...the ancient versions of those languages contain far fewer words than does modern English...or for that matter, the English of 1611. Therefore, there are many words in G and in H that have several different possible translations, same as bat, fly, or break do in English. The main guide for the most correct rendering is the context, but when the context isn't clear, the translator must make an 'educated guess' of the BEST translation, based upon usages of the same word or phrase in other places where the context IS of help, or of their entire overall view of the Scriptures.

Some people will say, "GOD inspired this or that rendering in this version", but the prob with THAT view is a COMPLETE LACK OF PROOF for such an assertion. There's absolutely NO PROOF that GOD inspired one version and not another.

In your choice of Bible version(s) please PRAY about it and study different versions. Some are clearly bogus, but certainly there's more than JUST ONE valid English Bible translation. Just don't let anyone tell you this or that version is bogus without INVESTIGATING FOR YOURSELF. God gave you a brain to use for yourself, w/o being totally dependent upon someone else's thoughts.

 

[robycop3]

Terry Herrington:No they do not! They rely on their ability to interpret the best English translation that they deem appropriate for the situation. In other words, their intellect is their final authority.

Please tell us, Terry, what YOU have done differently from what you said above. How have you varied by ONE DEGREE from the above?

 

[AVL1984]

Don't ask, roby. He's already stated that he ignores those who ask him questions. Typical, isn't it? Probably because there is not evidence to back up ONLYISM, and there is no version of the KJV that is 100% correct.

 

[JesusInFirstPlace]

I think that I will take your advice about praying about it, first and foremost. And if I feel that God is leading me to using more than just the KJV (does that make sense???), then I will check out some other versions. Are there any that you would recommend to me, knowing that KJV is the only one that I've used, so I won't want anything majorly different. And would you recommend that I go buy one, or just use online Bibles???

 

[robycop3]

First, NOTHING beats holding the book in your hands & reading it for yourself.

Next, I use the New King James Version{NKJV), New American Standard Bible(NASB), KJV, and a replica AV 1611, but not necessarily in that order...and what's right for ME may not be right for YOU.

I recommend you do what you can to obtain or borrow some other Bible versions, and when you do, study ABOUT them as well as studying the Bibles themselves.

Time is short for me at the moment as i must be off to work(I wk.swingshift) but hopefully one of the fine Christians here will take up where I left off tonight.

GOD BLESS!

Cranston

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
They rely on their ability to interpret the best English translation that they deem appropriate for the situation. In other words, their intellect is their final authority.

Isn't that called relative theology? Now show us how KJVO is not a man made theology that is not relative but eternal and absolute.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Phillip:
My point with this post is to show how confusing the KJVo movement is to a new or young and growing Christian.

I disagree! There is no confusion whent the KJVO's provide zero proof for their humanistic theology. There is no confusion at all. The evidence is clear.

 

[JesusInFirstPlace]

You know what's really confusing? Your last post! I read it like 3 times, and I am still kind of confused (did I mention I have blonde roots????). Like I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious, or what on earth you are trying to say!!

 

[gb93433]

When I was a kid I had blonde roots too. Now my daughter has them but she is much smarter than me.

I was blending a bit of sarcasm with the truth.

Simply put: There is no confusion when someone cannot provide any proof of what they say they believe.

 

[JesusInFirstPlace]

K, thanks! (I was kidding about the blonde roots thing though-my hair is very black)

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by JesusInFirstPlace:
then I will check out some other versions. Are there any that you would recommend to me, knowing that KJV is the only one that I've used, so I won't want anything majorly different. And would you recommend that I go buy one, or just use online Bibles???

I would recommend that you consider reading
a modern-spelling edition of the 1534 Tyndale's New Testament edited by David Daniell and published by Yale University Press in 1989. You might be able to find a copy of it at a public library [at least I have seen a copy of it in some public libraries in my area]. Even many KJV-only advocates claim that around 90% of the KJV comes from Tyndale. Yet you can see from reading it that there are many of the same-type differences between Tyndale's and the KJV as can be found between the KJV and the NKJV.

If you want to check some translations online,
you can find several at this web address:

www.studylight.org

This web site even has several of the earlier
[pre1611] English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. At the search window, you can scroll down a list of the available translations. If you
go down toward the bottom, you will find a list of earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1587 edition of Geneva Bible, and 1568 Bishops' Bible.

 

[JesusInFirstPlace]

But won't those be just as "confusing" as the KJV is??? Like that's what the argument against it is, isn't it- that it's not in modern language or whatever.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by JesusInFirstPlace:
But won't those be just as "confusing" as the KJV is???

Actually, the older 1534 Tyndale's New Testament at several verses is simpler, clearer,
or reads more like present-day English than the KJV. One reason is that the KJV used or took several Latin-based words from the 1582 Rheims N. T. that are not found in Tyndale's.

 

[HankD]

But don't they all seem to be saying it a little differently?????

Yes and that is a good thing. Here is something the KJV translators said in the prologue of the First Edition of the King James Bible in 1611.

so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:

HankD

 

[manchester]

JiFP, I have many translations. But I would recommend the NASB for a literal translation study bible, the NLT for easy reading, and the HCSB for one overall bible.

It sounds like you use the KJV for your study bible and you want one for easier reading. I would use the NLT.