There are many editions out there today to choosefrom today...but sadly this has only served inmany ways to add to the confusion of which oneshould i read from.The ( kjv ) was published in 1611 and has been awork of genius ever since - relaible, depenabe,extremely accurate, great for memorization, andunsurpassed as a sheer masterpiece of HOLY WRIT.It goes with-out saying that since the Holy BOOKSwere compiled and assembled together as....ONETHAT OLE SLUEFOOT HAS SOUGHT TO ATTACK AND TOSABOTAGE THEM EVER SINCE....FOR HE ( SATAN ) HATESTHE WORD OF GOD - AND HE HATES SCRIPTURE WITHA PASSION ( HE ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL )And why the rage against them..."you shall knowthe truth and the TRUTH shall - make you free"That my friends is why satan despises you and ifrom devouring the holy scriptures....daily !!!But why the King James version ?? aren't othersjust as good, why limit yourself to that one ??And after all we don't go around speaking in allthee's and thou's, and wherefore's and whither tooetc etc - so why not upgrade or super-size toa more modern so-called version, let's becontemproary they say.But it's interesting for all the criticism the kjv gets it is still the tried and proven model,most of my friends even today stick by it, andstill hark back to it - when in doubt.Furthermore the other modern versions frequentlyomit verses to suit themselves - for instancedid you know most modern bibles have elimatedMatthew 17:21 FROM THEir PAGES, and have corruptedI John 5:7-8 to bits !! among many other notableomissions.For these reasons and more - we choose the ( kjv )And it's significant that many false teachers today try their best to undermine that oneversion of holy scripture !!intimating that others translations are farsuperiour or have a better rendering to that ofgood ole ( kjv )Each to his own - but i know which version i shallstick with !! and i know the amount of work the translators, and further a stringent board over-saw the work and assmbly of that ONE VERSIONSO AM I STICKLER FOR THE ( KJV ) YES I AMTHIS IN SPITE OF THE PUSH TO ERADICATE IT AS SOMETHING ARCHAIC OR ANTIQUATED - OR FROM ADINOSAUR ERA !!
Well written, well said.I prefer the KJV primarily because it does not change. The new kjv will change from edition to edition as well as the others.If I don't understand a word I just look it up, simple.Memorizing is easier especially when you know it won't change.This is important cuz when I quote certain scriptures, sometimes the reply is "Thats not how it's written in my bible..."so anyhow KJV preffered all the way!Gos bless, John
Hi,I have used and love (short of bibliolatry) the KJV for many years.However, how does one use it to preach and teach to people with a less than adequate understanding of the King's English? Where I live Im confronted with this problem, almost on a daily basis when I use the KJV.A lot of Christians do not know the meaning of "The glory of the Lord is thy rereward." I certainly read it a couple times before I even saw that the word wasnt, reward. Many Jacobian English usages are no longer current - suffer means let, let means prevent, and prevent means precede. Ive heard it affect our speech in prayer and conversation. Who but Christians use the word, brethren? Whats wrong with brothers? Some of the words are highlighted in the spell checkers, and are not to be found in pocket dictionaries. Doth it behoove me to eschew the translation of my forefathers? My dearest pastor, who now sleepest, wouldst not suffer it to be so! Or should I go with a version that actually communicates, rather than befuddles?So, just to convey a spiritual message to a person who's primary language is not English often goes into melt-down, becoming a lesson in archaic English usage rather than an edifying lesson in scripture. What glorifies the Lord in this case?My wish list doesn't exist in print, i.e., a bible that is derived from the same texts, but is translated into simple English for people with a limited vocabulary of 3,000 words or less, that also makes a differentiation between the singular 'you' and the plural 'ye', for instance. The only thing I can think to do is take a modern translation and go through the KJV line by line and note the differences. Im actually planning on doing this very thing. If the Lord wills.To save me from this long, but certainly not onerous task, does anyone know of any bible resources that highlight all of the differences between the KJV and any of the more popular modern translations. Ive searched the web for such an aid, to no avail. Or is it Noah veil? You see the problem Im having?Thanks to my brethren and sistern!Jeffrey
To all those who lean toward the KJV only category, would you please read the following link with an open mind. It explains why modern versions are different and almost always shorter than the KJV.http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665
TrueWitness there is a difference between kjv only and kjv prefered. Here's a link to a thread that discusses the same thing as your link but with a different perspective. http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11558&forum=36#90080
HowdyI am a KJV preferred believer. 400+ years of unrivaled soul saving is enough to convince me it's the "Best by a long shot" translation. If the issue was only one line of manuscripts versus another line of manuscripts, would there then be a need only to produce one rendering of each? However that is not what is happening. many groups of individuals with various agendas continue to pump out thier own "translation" from the Alexandrian texts, and each one seems to be more vile than the one that came before it. Me thinks that there is a lot of "Did God really say" behind most of these new translations. Be verrrrrrrrrrry verrrrrrrrrrry careful what you choose to call God's Word.Blessings Greg
Nicely worded and saidKudos to the great responesMany try to undermine the KJVBut long live God's wordand long live the ....( the KJV )