Just Bought A New King James Version Today
- Thread starter gumby
- Start date
-
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!
It's one of the versions I own and often consult. It's basically a modernized KJV, but it has had a little reworking. I think it's a pretty good Bible, and it follows more after the Byzantine texts. It's much easier to read than the KJV and I don't think it will deviate too much from what you're used to with the NASB. They both retain that "awkward" (compared to modern language) phrasing but it makes the verses more memorable IMHO. All in all a good Bible I'd use for study.
Miss Hepburn
Well-Known Member
I also have one.
Dr. Fred Price uses it. So you may not want to now, ha! Or that may influence you.
He showed subtle differnces that really did impact a sentence -like maybe the KJV said
"the" when the NKJV said "a".
What I do with all of them, pick a verse you particularly like - go to that and see what you think.
I always turn to Ps 139.
Also Luke 11:36 So far the KJV on that is the best, imo.
The Beatitudes are good, too.
You'll have your favs.
RSV is my main one bec it was my first.
Dr. Fred Price uses it. So you may not want to now, ha! Or that may influence you.
He showed subtle differnces that really did impact a sentence -like maybe the KJV said
"the" when the NKJV said "a".
What I do with all of them, pick a verse you particularly like - go to that and see what you think.
I always turn to Ps 139.
Also Luke 11:36 So far the KJV on that is the best, imo.
The Beatitudes are good, too.
You'll have your favs.
RSV is my main one bec it was my first.
Thats the key word here ben MENS translation errors, the bible in itself is perfect and im not going to argue with you on this subject because as you well recall we have been down that road before and theres no real point in it.
I've used NKJV for years. I've been very happy with it and never had a reason to use enything else.
Moses :)
Moses :)
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
With all due respect, follow the link and read the article, then take that thing back and get a refund. I hope you kept your receipt.
Why the KJV?
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
I don't understand the question. I'm suggesting that the KJV-1611 is the only Bible we should be reading. If you follow the link I provided, you will see that I'm a strong supporter of the KJV. But am totally against the New King James (and any other modern day book calling itself a bible) for reasons outlined in the article.
Miss Hepburn
Well-Known Member
Hi UnworthyServant,
Glad to see you here.
An idea - love your statement of faith - if you were to write it more horizontally as your "signature" - which would appear under all your posts it would make it easier/faster for us to scroll on down. By changing that you then have the ability to change the font, color, size, etc.
You may already know this, of course and did it on purpose for us to notice. Alot of us have already and a horizintal change would be ok at this point - We would still see it
say, if it were in rainbow colors - that would be kind of fun. :)
Take care,
:) Miss Hepburn
Glad to see you here.
An idea - love your statement of faith - if you were to write it more horizontally as your "signature" - which would appear under all your posts it would make it easier/faster for us to scroll on down. By changing that you then have the ability to change the font, color, size, etc.
You may already know this, of course and did it on purpose for us to notice. Alot of us have already and a horizintal change would be ok at this point - We would still see it
say, if it were in rainbow colors - that would be kind of fun. :)
Take care,
:) Miss Hepburn
Miss Hepburn
Well-Known Member
HI again, UnworthyServant,
I just thought maybe you would be the perfect guy to ask what you think about something. Something I don't get...
What's the deal with Psalm 46 KJV - you count 46 words down you get 'shake', you count 46 words up from the last word and you get 'spear'.
Apparently an homage to Shakespeare that was 46 years old at the time of the Bible compilation.
It dosen't bother me... I have no opinion except that it is obvious the creepy King or someone had a hand in this- soooo, therefore - what
the heck ELSE was tampered with!!!
( Not that the main message was changed, mind you.) Changes nothing in my faith.
Thank you,
:) Miss Hepburn
I just thought maybe you would be the perfect guy to ask what you think about something. Something I don't get...
What's the deal with Psalm 46 KJV - you count 46 words down you get 'shake', you count 46 words up from the last word and you get 'spear'.
Apparently an homage to Shakespeare that was 46 years old at the time of the Bible compilation.
It dosen't bother me... I have no opinion except that it is obvious the creepy King or someone had a hand in this- soooo, therefore - what
the heck ELSE was tampered with!!!
( Not that the main message was changed, mind you.) Changes nothing in my faith.
Thank you,
:) Miss Hepburn
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
Hi Sis
You give me too much credit. Honestly I've never heard about what you mentioned above. I have heard of these types of things before but never gave it much thought. As you've no doubt noticed, I'm KJV only kinda guy. And what you mentioned might be true in the KJV but being as there are so many so-called Bibles now. All written differently, I don't believe this would work in all of them. Agreed?
Remember: 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Miss Hepburn
Well-Known Member
Yup, it is only in the KJV.
Pretty easy to see. I was hoping you'd have a comment on it specifically.
I never trust creepy King's and their hunger for control and power. Yuk.
All they would have to say is, "Off with your heads if you don't take such and such out of your
transcribing of this Bible. By order of ME - slash this verse, because it won't give me
as much control over the masses."
Then the scholars, priests doing the transcription, in their wisdom, could
not mention the reference in another area the King was too supid to see.
I have so little faith in mankind and his intentions.
The Holy Spirit is a gentle Spirit to be felt by open souls to be guided by.
Power hungry, selfish, corrupt men in power could not be trusted to not bully
the transcribers. Imo.
BUT, we have the best that we can have. And the main points are there. Imo.
I know people here do not agree, that's ok, I still love everybody.
:) Miss Hepburn
edit:
Uh-oh, I just started to read your link about the KJV - you're not going to like me anymore after this post.
But, I won't delete it - I'll let it stay. Oh well - 2 more Christians that love God, yet disagree. I think we can handle it. :)
Pretty easy to see. I was hoping you'd have a comment on it specifically.
I never trust creepy King's and their hunger for control and power. Yuk.
All they would have to say is, "Off with your heads if you don't take such and such out of your
transcribing of this Bible. By order of ME - slash this verse, because it won't give me
as much control over the masses."
Then the scholars, priests doing the transcription, in their wisdom, could
not mention the reference in another area the King was too supid to see.
I have so little faith in mankind and his intentions.
The Holy Spirit is a gentle Spirit to be felt by open souls to be guided by.
Power hungry, selfish, corrupt men in power could not be trusted to not bully
the transcribers. Imo.
BUT, we have the best that we can have. And the main points are there. Imo.
I know people here do not agree, that's ok, I still love everybody.
:) Miss Hepburn
edit:
Uh-oh, I just started to read your link about the KJV - you're not going to like me anymore after this post.
But, I won't delete it - I'll let it stay. Oh well - 2 more Christians that love God, yet disagree. I think we can handle it. :)
kiwimac
Member
- Dec 19, 2009
- 117
- 13
- 18
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
And what evidence do you have to support this claim? I offer the following in support of the KJV-1611
Why the KJV?
The KJV is the most modern up-to-date English language Bible we have. It comes from authorized text and has a flow from the first century Christians.
What is called archaic words like Thou and ye are actually not. They were not common at 1611 they were brought in to clearify and make Bible doctrine a little more clear. Example: we in our modern day word for you - is it singular or plural? From the old text there was a need for a distintion so words that hadn't been used for ~300 yrs were brought back to make it easy to understand. Thee and thou are for the singular 'you' whereas 'ye' is plural.
The KJV comes from accepted and authorized text down through the ages from Christians. The newer translations (which are not from older or better text) come from newer text that were not accepted by our early church fathers. Many of the newer versions from Westcott and Hort were translations from corrupted text that were not accepted by early Christians or even Hebrew scholars of the first century. They have attempted to whitewash the KJV with the NKJV but it is not a new translation of the KJV, it is a corrupted text version. The NIV, RSV, New English Bible and NLBT are from unaccepted text. Text like the LXX, Hexapla, Sinaitius, etc..... from the catholics and those that have killed the saints down through the centuries.
Please read Martyr's Mirror, Trail of Blood and Foxe's Bood of Martyrs. They are available on the Internet. You can trace the early church fathers like Peter, Paul, John the beloved, James (Christ's brother) Polycarp and Christ's saints and churches down through time and see the history of the church and what Christ's church and saints have died for and gladly laid down their life.
Please do yourself a favor and take some time and read what has gone on for the past 2,000 years; it is well documented for a large part. Some of the history has been written by the enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ. But you will like the read.
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
Sam is the above directed towards me? Did you bother to follow the link I provided? I already know about everything you said. I would like to see everyone read the KJV and get rid of all the impostor bibles out there. Starting with the Revised Version and including every abomination that followed after it. Being as all so-called Bibles after it are grounded in the Revised Version. This is covered in depth in the link I provided above. The very idea that God would bless the production of so many interpretations of His word is blasphemous to say the least.
Samuel, I have noticed several times now you have said something like the KJV "has a flow from the first century Christians." What do you mean by this? I hope you are not suggesting that the first century Christians used the KJV...
as far as the "thous" and the "thees", these are English words, and are not found in the original manuscripts that the first century Christians would have either read or heard while in a "church" service...
so when you say "The KJV comes from accepted and authorized text down through the ages from Christians." You need to know that this just isn't true. In fact, prior to the KJV the most popular Bible, used by English speaking Christians, was the Geneva translation.... Prior to this was the Bishops, and prior to that Tyndale etc etc So in fact, "down through the ages" Christians have used numerous different translations of the Bible. In fact, translations of the Bible have been made into many different languages, ought we insist that people from every tribe and nation come to learn and understand 1611 era English? Of course not. So too, those of us who speak English ought not be forced into reading English from centuries ago.. So I cannot really understand this fascination and glorification of the 1611 (or 1769) KJV... the translators of the KJV, in fact, had complaints leveled at THEM for introducing this "new" translation.... some of the arguments they faced sound just like the arguments the KJV folks today use in trying to wrongly elevate the KJV! (see the preface to the 1611 KJV http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html )
Lastly you say "Please do yourself a favor and take some time and read what has gone on for the past 2,000 years; "... well, I have, to some extent anyway, and I have come to a different conclusion than you have... what does this mean? That I am not "really" a Christian because I, for many reasons, do not think the KJV is the best translation of the Bible? I mean, I am fine with you using the KJV if that is what you feel best encourages your walk with God. I am not "against" the KJV per se... I am just against the idea that it is the only translation one ought to use. The simple testimony of history shows us that the English speaking church has used many different English translations of the Scriptures . So when you say "The NIV, RSV, New English Bible and NLBT are from unaccepted text." I have to ask... "unaccepted" by who exactly? Everyone? No. Those who insist on the KJV only? Yes. But why should I be concerned about what the KJV only advocates say?.
blessings,
ken
Unworthy Servant here are some links you might want to check out:.....
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm
http://www.kellnet.com/aschafer/nts/00kjv.pdf
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/images/stories/alwaysbeready/dk115.pdf
http://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC4W1102.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W1202.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0103.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC1W0203.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0303.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0403.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0503.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC2W0703.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC2W0803.pdf
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/KJV.HTM
blessings,
ken
as far as the "thous" and the "thees", these are English words, and are not found in the original manuscripts that the first century Christians would have either read or heard while in a "church" service...
so when you say "The KJV comes from accepted and authorized text down through the ages from Christians." You need to know that this just isn't true. In fact, prior to the KJV the most popular Bible, used by English speaking Christians, was the Geneva translation.... Prior to this was the Bishops, and prior to that Tyndale etc etc So in fact, "down through the ages" Christians have used numerous different translations of the Bible. In fact, translations of the Bible have been made into many different languages, ought we insist that people from every tribe and nation come to learn and understand 1611 era English? Of course not. So too, those of us who speak English ought not be forced into reading English from centuries ago.. So I cannot really understand this fascination and glorification of the 1611 (or 1769) KJV... the translators of the KJV, in fact, had complaints leveled at THEM for introducing this "new" translation.... some of the arguments they faced sound just like the arguments the KJV folks today use in trying to wrongly elevate the KJV! (see the preface to the 1611 KJV http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html )
Lastly you say "Please do yourself a favor and take some time and read what has gone on for the past 2,000 years; "... well, I have, to some extent anyway, and I have come to a different conclusion than you have... what does this mean? That I am not "really" a Christian because I, for many reasons, do not think the KJV is the best translation of the Bible? I mean, I am fine with you using the KJV if that is what you feel best encourages your walk with God. I am not "against" the KJV per se... I am just against the idea that it is the only translation one ought to use. The simple testimony of history shows us that the English speaking church has used many different English translations of the Scriptures . So when you say "The NIV, RSV, New English Bible and NLBT are from unaccepted text." I have to ask... "unaccepted" by who exactly? Everyone? No. Those who insist on the KJV only? Yes. But why should I be concerned about what the KJV only advocates say?.
blessings,
ken
Unworthy Servant here are some links you might want to check out:.....
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm
http://www.kellnet.com/aschafer/nts/00kjv.pdf
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/images/stories/alwaysbeready/dk115.pdf
http://bible.org/article/conspiracy-behind-new-bible-translations
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC4W1102.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W1202.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0103.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC1W0203.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0303.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0403.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0503.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC2W0703.pdf
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC2W0803.pdf
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/KJV.HTM
blessings,
ken
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
epistemaniac
Sorry but the info you provided does not change my mind. No I did not read all of it because I have seen it's like many times. Just as I'm sure you did not read the info I provided. I'm not going to change my belief that the KJV is the best version of Gods Word just as you are not going to change your mind to the contrary. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
May the LORD bless thee and keep thee. May the LORD make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace. Amen
Sorry but the info you provided does not change my mind. No I did not read all of it because I have seen it's like many times. Just as I'm sure you did not read the info I provided. I'm not going to change my belief that the KJV is the best version of Gods Word just as you are not going to change your mind to the contrary. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
May the LORD bless thee and keep thee. May the LORD make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace. Amen
Similar threads
