Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Bad example - the evidence that it is a non-apostolic insertion is overwhelming.
of course…
Because you believed the narrative.
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!
Bad example - the evidence that it is a non-apostolic insertion is overwhelming.
The 'thees' and 'thous' aren't really the problem, because they're so obviously "old" and if you don't already know what they mean you can look them up in a dictionary.
The real problem is the words that have changed their meaning. These can catch people out and cause them to misinterpret what they read without realising it.
Who these days is likely to know that the word "prevent" in the KJV actually means "precede"? Or that "reins" actually means "kidneys". This is why updates are necessary.
I use a bible update it's called the NIV or again the NLT both of which are updated from the KJV.
None of God's word is missing from the new versions.
That is not true at all.
NIV completely leaves out Matthew 17:21
NIV completely omits Matthew 18:11
NIV completely omits Matthew 23:14
There's at least 13 more places in the NIV and NLT New Testament versions that completely omit verses that do exist in the 1611 KJV. In other places in the NIV and NLT there are parts of verses removed that exist in the KJV.
This was the reason why Wescott and Hort had to come up with their fake theory that the Textus Receptus manuscripts had revisions between 250-350 A.D. with adding to the manuscripts because its manuscripts contain more Scripture, while the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus mansucripts are SHORTER. In essence, they had to make some kind of EXCUSE for the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus manuscripts being shorter. And their THEORY could not be backed up by any historical evidence at all!
The intent of the more modern translations is to be more accurate. Since the time of the KJV they have discovered older texts that did not have certain scriptures in them. So that means some where added, along with some theological words, like fornification that were formulated centuries later and inserted into Bibles like the Geneva Bible and the King James Version which introduced false beliefs. That is a long story in collegiate study.
In an attempt to present the word of God more accurately the NIV does not include these added scriptures or words.
Then that was a bogus collegiate study, because Wescott and Hort's fake theory about the additions in the KJV wasn't about the ENGLISH translation of the KJV, but about the GREEK MAJORITY TEXT manuscripts used for the KJV. Thus they were saying the actual Greek manuscripts (the Majority Texts, 5000+ of them), had been corrupted!
But the reality is that the TWO manuscripts Wescott and Hort claimed were 'older', and more accurate, because of not having been tampered with, show LITTLE USAGE, and are in small number of copies; while the Majority Texts used for the KJV New Testament make up the MAJORITY of EXISTING Greek texts (5000+), and show GREAT USAGE, and even can be verified in many of the quotes of the early Church fathers back in history! Those are all solid proofs of which Greek texts the early Church fathers relied upon and used, and it was the Majority texts.
So no surprise that some of today's universities are also on the boat to dump the good ole' 1611 KJV Bible.
NIV completely leaves out Matthew 17:21
NIV completely omits Matthew 18:11
NIV completely omits Matthew 23:14
Nah, that's just a call for more laziness, since one can look up any of the terms in the KJV in a simple Lexicon like a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
Whatever has a door-to-door salesman got to do with my bible of choice. i bought my first one direct from the Bible Society. And I am very happy with it. You are doing what you just accused a door-to-door salesman of doing - pushing a certain version at me. Just think about it. Anf FYI a bible is not 'gadgetry'.Then you're happy with door to door salesmen pushing the 'New and Improved' gadgetry. I'm not, I don't trust door to door salesmen.
The English language has barely evolved in the last 100 years.
An old dictionary can cure the "thee's and thou's" that folks can't seem to understand.
However, school kids still easily the KJV as it stands.
i was given a new KJV bible when I was ten. I tried to read it but couldn't understand it. At thirty five when I became a Christian my CoE church used the GNT which I was able to read and understand. Today there is now possible reason to use the KJV apart from personal choice. And those who choose not to go with that one have plenty of other choices which can only be a good thing. It seems it is only hard-liners that still insist on the archaic versions as nobody in my church uses one.I cannot agree sir, in fact I am quite shocked at how little reading comprehension skills many adults have. I didn't really notice it until I started teaching the Bible, I have came to the conclusion that 2 Cor 4:4 is very true.
You use a translation instead of a dictionary to figure out unknown words?I already have a new translation - been using them for 48 years, and no need for a dictionary at all!
Blame the parents, not the KJV.I cannot agree sir, in fact I am quite shocked at how little reading comprehension skills many adults have. I didn't really notice it until I started teaching the Bible, I have came to the conclusion that 2 Cor 4:4 is very true.
Blame the parents, not the KJV.
We don't need a "Bible for illiterate', because we already have a cartoon Bible for them.
They need to practice reading with the KJV.
You might want to research the issues with the NKJV more thoroughly. It is a pretender.
Personally I do NOT favor MODERN translations of the Bible...