The KJV and the modern bible versions

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ffbruce

New Member
Oct 9, 2008
166
0
0
61
jerryjohnson said:
SwampFox,Is there a way to put someone on an ignore list on this new board?

Interesting passive-aggressive slap there. :)

What you're really saying, however, is that you simply cannot stand having somebody disagree with you. I find the closed-mindedness very sad.
 

ffbruce

New Member
Oct 9, 2008
166
0
0
61
jerryjohnson said:
What you think is not important to me.

But you're scared to be faced with facts that blow holes in your worship of the KJV. Personally, I find such closed-mindedness to be very, very sad.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
On second thought, I think this one should remain open. I left a couple questions unanswered. I do expect the barbs to cease on both sides and for members to conduct themselves maturely.

What exactly leads you to believe that the KJV is the best English translation available? Is it the archaic English? Or the very few late date manuscripts that underlie the Textus Receptus? Or the exclusive use of a Byzantine text platform? Or maybe the KJV translator's use of the Latin Vulgate?

I prefer the KJV because the archaic language does convey the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek better than the modern versions, IMHO. It does a far better job than our modern language in conveying the Psalms, as a particular example, than modern translations. Unfortunately, English is not well equipped to deal with the depths of Hebrew or Greek. Though I am not a Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic scholar, I feel my English background and degree qualifies me to make that judgment with a little more than simply personal conviction, based on what ancient language knowledge I do have. Unfortunately it seems modern scholars are too focused on one or the other, and you end up with the awkward "Yodaisms" of the NASB (still a great Bible) or the watered down language of something like the NRSV or NIV. The ESV makes some great strides in this department, but the rose-tinted glasses of the Reformed persuasion is rather obvious.

Which brings me to modern scholars. For those of you who don't know what the academic world is like that carries out most of these modern translations, you should join in some classes sometime and see. You'll be told how Adam and Eve are symbolic, part of a series of fables that seek to portray Babylonian and Sumerian myths in a new light. Now I'm certainly not knocking anyone or everyone who translates a Bible. However, this should be kept in mind when the scholars use various texts. Either God led Israel and Jesus performed miracles...or...they did not. Like Christ told the Laodiceans, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot." (Revelation 3:15)

As far as texts, we could rehash this argument well into the night and for weeks to come. I know ya'll won't see eye to eye with me, and this reply was not made to garner that response. However, the laughable, empty, and rather ignorant attacks on people who prefer the KJV are getting old. The really sad thing is folks feel the need to use personal text to make a point. What kind of Christian worries so much about what Bible version anyone uses that they'll slight or insult a brother or sister over it?

In short, I'll simply say that the validity of modern scholars' views on texts is laughable. These are the same group that want to tell you everything about the Gospel of Q. Apparently Q was a mysterious guy whom they cannot prove existed, but they know he wrote a manuscript that led to what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote (all under pseudonyms of course!) at a later date.

Did you know the KJV translators wrote a note acknowledging their humanity but telling us they did the best they could? Did you further know the average modern version is roughly 10% (or 64k words) shorter than the KJV. With the NKJV for instance, they like to use the phrase "majority" of texts. What they don't tell you is that majority is a collection of 414 out of 5,000 manuscripts, which by the way, tend to differ or outright contradict each other. Most of these come from Egypt out of Alexandria, part of a long ago corrupted tree.

So, the validity of these manuscripts certainly is no better than the Textus Receptus. If that's not the way ya'll see it, so be it. I don't care, that's your prerogative. I happen to believe despite the stacked odds, that God can overcome all of this and has, and that modern versions are fairly valid and do the job. However, I believe that the men that created the KJV are just as inspired as the modern versions, placing them on equal footing from the start. The aforementioned details put the KJV over the top for me as the version of choice.

You're not more of a Christian if you use it, and you're not less of a Christian if you don't. You are less of a Christian if you like to tell others what to do overtly or covertly when it comes to Bible versions.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Swampfox,

Your reply doesn't even begin to answer my objections and demonstrates very clearly that you know very little about the original languages or textual criticism. English is not well equipped to deal with the depths of Greek and Hebrew? Are you kidding me? Your degree tells you this? Well, my training in the original languages tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Give me an example of how modern English is inadequate. Give me an example of how the ESV is tainted by "Reformed" influences. "Q" was a mysterious guy? No sir. "Q" which is short for "quelle," which in turn is German for "source" is the theoretic source document of Matthew and Luke only. It has nothing to do with Mark and John and it has no relevant place in this discussion regarding English translations or textual platforms. Alexandrian texts are corrupt? Show me how this is so and make sure you site the textual critical scholars you're consulting. Why should we rely exclusively on a few late date Byzantine manusripts to the exclusion of a plethora of much older texts?
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sarcasm really streaks right over you, doesn't it?

How about you first show us all that wisdom you claim to have? Tell us why we're wrong other than the usual drivel I've heard thousands of times by now. I'm not seeing much more than some ambiguous ramblings about this and that right now. I could take your word for it...or I can look things up for myself.

Unfortunately, I notice a very distinct trend in this topic. Some folks like to ask all the questions and attempt to control the discussion. They never really seem to be able to share an ounce of their own logic, and they like to condescendingly tell everyone that they know better. It's never good enough, so why waste my time? Half the questions you asked again were already answered, if you cannot be bothered to read them, then I cannot be bothered to spell them out in a different manner.

I'm not sure what you and Bruce are looking for other than for us all to loudly declare how right ya'll are and how wrong we are.

Let me ask you a question or two now.

Why does what Bible version I use bother you so much? Do you just not have anything better to argue about or does the king's English really bother you that much?

[Begin Sarcasm]
It's just like old brother Q. (We can call him John Doe of the Gospel of John Doe if that makes you feel better.) He's the source for Matthew and Luke, but out of the synoptic three, he's not the source for Mark. Luke and Matthew clearly couldn't be Luke and Matthew, they must be someone else and have used another source that we cannot seem to find a trace of anywhere. We just know it exists, and that you must accept as infallible!
[/End Sarcasm]

To put this in layman's terms - rather than couching behind "scholarly" forays - it would be just like a Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist translating the Bible. Many of the folks doing the translating believe that the Bible is full of fables taken from older stories of regional cultures. That makes sense. I mean stories like the Exodus and Sodom must have been stories about convenient earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and tsunamis, right?

Yep that's trustworthy alright.

Deny the reality and twist the facts, seems I remember this being a MO of someone in the Bible.

As far as your Greek caveat, I can think of an easy word that provides consternation in English: καταβολή
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
SwampFox said:
Let me ask you a question or two now.

Why does what Bible version I use bother you so much? Do you just not have anything better to argue about or does the king's English really bother you that much?

I already said that your preference doesn't bother me in the least. All translations have their unique flaws. My objection is that it's indefensible to say that the KJV is the best translation available. I pointed out just a few glaring problems with such a notion and you failed to address even one of them.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I already said that your preference doesn't bother me in the least. All translations have their unique flaws. My objection is that it's indefensible to say that the KJV is the best translation available. I pointed out just a few glaring problems with such a notion and you failed to address even one of them.

See paradox.

It's only the aspect that I think it's the best that bothers you so much, right? I mean it must be eating dear Bruce up, he felt compelled to use his member text here to make his point. Can't stand it, can you? All of us KJV's are common, uneducated folk that don't know better!

How about you worry about you and I'll worry about me? Indefensible to some might just be defensible and more to others. Unfortunately all of this argument ignores one very important thing, the Holy Spirit. Each person is free to choose his or her versions, or like most of us, compare multiple ones.

I'll reiterate one thing, the KJV remains the best in my eyes.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
SwampFox said:
It's only the aspect that I think it's the best that bothers you so much, right?

I see you're not paying attention. Tell me why we should trust exclusively the various versions of the TR + the Latin Vulgate utilized by the KJV translators as opposed to the NA 27 & the USB 4.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exclusively would mean to the exclusion of all the others.

I simply trust the Textus Receptus over the others because the others are an assimilation of documents that disagree, contradict, etc. So called scholars like to play with numbers and select a portion of them that agree with what they want out of the greater whole of confusion. The NA 27 is brought to you by the same scholarly class that gave us Q. It's their best guess about what's right/original/etc.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Antioch vs. Alexandria


We hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. (Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)

The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2: 8) , and allegorical foolishness (not believing God's word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:



Egypt and Alexandria

1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife (Gen. 12:10-13).

2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).>

3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).

4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).

5. God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" (Exo. 20:4).

6. God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" (Deu. 4:20).

7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16), so why should we look there for a Bible?

8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).

9. God plans to punish Egypt (Jer. 46:25).

10. God calls His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15).

11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11: 8) .

12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).

13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).

14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .

Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8) . Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).

QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?



Antioch

1. Upon it's first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5). Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?

2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.

3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts 11:20-21).

4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).

5. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).

7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).

8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).

9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30), because Antioch was the home base.

10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).

Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had it's on sea port and more than it's share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base". Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews (Jerusalem and Judaea) and the Gentiles (Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc) that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it's geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.

So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings.

There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
SwampFox said:
Exclusively would mean to the exclusion of all the others.

I simply trust the Textus Receptus over the others because the others are an assimilation of documents that disagree, contradict, etc. So called scholars like to play with numbers and select a portion of them that agree with what they want out of the greater whole of confusion. The NA 27 is brought to you by the same scholarly class that gave us Q. It's their best guess about what's right/original/etc.

O.k., now I'm sure that you don't know what you're talking about.

1. Once again you have failed to answer my questions.

2. All textual platforms contain variants--even the Byzantine text family utilzed by the KJV translators.

3. The NA 27 and the USB 4 of the 20th century have nothing to do with the proponents of 19th century German Higher Criticism that leads to "Q."

4. You trust the TR? Which version?
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
And if you want to add ESV to this discussion though it may have some good points its the first step away from God and into political correctness sense it likes to be gender neutral it is the first step in changing the teaching againt Sodomy to be politically correct it al;so changes the teaching of Adam and Eve ...once we start messing with these basics it just one step closer to Amos 8:12

While I tell people to read what ever they understand best compare to other versions if one is going to do a deep study to get to the truth of what God was trying to tell us KJV is heads above the rest
the only bible I completly stay away from is ESV ..................

In Genesis 3:6 the ESV follows the example of the NIV with "she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate," where the RSV had "she also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

The RSV rendering is to be preferred here, because the Hebrew (lit. "she also gave some to her husband with her," as in the KJV, ASV and NASB) does not say or imply that Adam was with Eve at the time and place of her temptation.

There is nothing corresponding to the words "who was" in the Hebrew, and the word עמה ("with her") in 3:6 has an adverbial force, according to a common usage of the preposition (see עם in the lexicons). This sentence should be interpreted "she gave some to her husband as well, or also."

This is the interpretation of the Vulgate, RSV, Berkeley, NEB, REB, TEV and JPS translations, and of most of the commentators. Gordon J. Wenham in his recent commentary (Genesis 1-15, in the Word Biblical Commentary series, published in 1987) ignores the NIV rendering, explains that the phrase "emphasizes the man's association with the woman in the eating," and points to the similar phrases in

Genesis 6:18, 7:7, and 13:1. Clearly the narrative, which represents the Serpent talking only with Eve and not Adam, presupposes a situation where the serpent has caught Eve alone. It was the serpent's clever plan to mislead the woman when she was alone, because she could be more easily led astray in the absence of her husband.
He targets the more vulnerable woman first, and through her he eventually gets the man as well. The fact that later God blames Adam not for listening to the serpent but for "listening to the voice of your wife" (3:17) also indicates that Adam was not present to hear the serpent's words; it was through Eve's persuasion that he ate the fruit. Evidently he did not hear the serpent's words directly. This, at any rate, is the ancient Jewish understanding of what happened, and it is also the view presupposed by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14, where the prohibition of female leadership in the church is based on the fact that Eve (and not Adam) was deceived by the serpent.

If the ESV revisers meant to convey the idea here that Adam was at the tree with Eve while she was being tempted, watching silently while the serpent tells lies to his wife, it indicates a certain lack of exegetical sobriety and conservatism; but unfortunately it does seem that this was their intention. Several people who were involved in the production of the ESV have quoted this rendering in support of the idea that the root cause of the Fall (i.e. the "original sin") was Adam's passivity, his failure to take charge of the situation and control his wife's behavior at this critical moment.

This is a pretty serious misuse of the text, enabled by a misleading translation of one Hebrew word.
 

jerryjohnson

New Member
Nov 6, 2009
497
39
0
77
I actually prefer the KJV because it’s the one I know the best since I’ve used it most of my life and I can check the wording by using the Strong’s Concordance. I have read from the RSV and NIV some but I don’t like some of the translating decisions they have made, although I can give you a particular example off the top of my head.

There are some KJV’s that are better than others. The one I have used for years now is the Companion Bible edited by E. W. Bullinger.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
jerryjohnson said:
I actually prefer the KJV because it’s the one I know the best since I’ve used it most of my life and I can check the wording by using the Strong’s Concordance. I have read from the RSV and NIV some but I don’t like some of the translating decisions they have made, although I can give you a particular example off the top of my head.

There are some KJV’s that are better than others. The one I have used for years now is the Companion Bible edited by E. W. Bullinger.
ditto I agree whole heartly Jerry:) and I do prefer older KJV to newer ones but often read my Companion Bible
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
O.k., now I'm sure that you don't know what you're talking about.

1. Once again you have failed to answer my questions.

2. All textual platforms contain variants--even the Byzantine text family utilzed by the KJV translators.

3. The NA 27 and the USB 4 of the 20th century have nothing to do with the proponents of 19th century German Higher Criticism that leads to "Q."

4. You trust the TR? Which version?

1. In your own conflated opinion, perhaps.

2. Why do you always take what I say and make up something I did not say? Never said that, so seriously quit making up lies.

3. It's from the same "scholarly" community which still believes in the myth of Q, so yes, it has everything to do with it!

4. I trust the TR over the so-called majority manuscripts. I don't know how else to say it. Is there another language I can communicate with you in so you'll understand this?

I'll add some of my thoughts to this. I guess I simply don't understand why you folks infer the negative of what we say. For instance:

Statements like "I like the KJV," "I prefer the KJV," or "I recommend the KJV" seem to be interpreted as "Use the KJV or we reject you" or "We only use the KJV."

Later on, I make a statement about the TR being the preferred for me, and then it garners the response: "Tell me why we should trust exclusively the various versions of the TR + the Latin Vulgate utilized by the KJV translators as opposed to the NA 27 & the USB 4." I'm sorry, but I genuinely do not understand where this came from when not 10 posts prior to that I said I like the KJV best, but use the other versions as well.

Yet a third example is this most recent post which insinuates that I said the TR did not have errors.

This morning I took a good look around at the literature out there about this subject on the internet. I find it sadly funny that virtually every article I came across has the exact tone that ya'll take with us here. Several articles took the time out at the end to decry KJV only zealots which do exist but are in the minority. In you folks' zeal to prove that we are ignorant and don't know what we are talking about, I don't know if things get lost on ya'll or what. However, it seems as though the accusers come into the same boat that they say the accused are in with regards to version worship and the like. It's like you cannot recognize that fundamentally we are not that far off, but the focus needs to be on the one thing that is different where you hold that we hold to a text that is <insert adjectives here>.

We can sit here all day and you can tell me I never answered questions or how ignorant I am, or we can have an honest discussion. Unfortunately that honest discussion seems increasingly less likely given how both you and one of your buddies reacted in his now removed replies and email correspondence to this forum. I tried to provide him with a venue to the chagrin of many of my members, and apparently he felt that he was the only one who could use rude language to get his point across. After telling us he's leaving numerous times, I'm still showing him here albeit he is only lurking now. For some reason, ya'll just cannot let go!

In closing I'll point out why I continue to use the KJV as my favorite. It's the forgotten factor in this whole argument because you cannot quantify it and it's based on personal experience to which the next person can simply claim a lie. I use the KJV because it's most frequently where I end up in my Bible Studies, and I would submit I feel the Holy Spirit leads me there. As I said before, I believe God to be at work always in every version, so I trust that God even works through the scholars which question or perhaps even deny aspects of his narrative. However, the KJV remains my favorite and won't change because I believe it to be the most sincerely motivated out of what we have.
 

gervais

New Member
Aug 3, 2009
104
16
0
69
I don’t know why my reading or not reading the KJV is such an issue. It’s my choice to read what I want and your choice to read what you want. If you want to read the Readers Digest version, or NIV or _____, go for it. I returned to faith after someone gave me a copy of the Living Letters version. God through the Holy Spirit is very able and willing to meet us where we are.