wyguy Posted April 29, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 373 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,331 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 71 Days Won: 10 Joined: 10/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1965 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Is it just me, or do those who insist the 1611 KJV Bible is the only version that is the true word of God, appear to worship that translation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzdy Posted April 29, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 173 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,911 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 10 Joined: 03/21/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't know about all that nonsense I use a variety of bibles in my studies but think I have brother in law that would fight to the end that its the only version God gave the world. At walmart the 400th anniversary of the 1611 bible is available for 5 dollars, I have it on esword but its nice to have a hard copy on hand, the genealogical charts are really neat. shalom, Mizz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Is it just me, or do those who insist the 1611 KJV Bible is the only version that is the true word of God, appear to worship that translation? I don't know if they worship that translation, but I do know that by saying the 1611 is the only true translation, they are saying God is limited in His ability to get His message across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Is it just me, or do those who insist the 1611 KJV Bible is the only version that is the true word of God, appear to worship that translation? Its just you. Let's take this comparison. There are numerous books belonging to various religions. I come out and ask, "Is it just me, or do those who insist that the Holy Bible is the only true Word of God appear to worship it? The reason I hold to the 1611 King James Bible is because of accuracy. I believe the new translations are full of errors, and that they come from corrupt manuscripts. And by the way, I am not limiting God's ability as to how he can get his message across. He got it across just fine with the KJV Bible. I am acknowledging the devil's ability to corrupt that which is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't know about all that nonsense I use a variety of bibles in my studies but think I have brother in law that would fight to the end that its the only version God gave the world. At walmart the 400th anniversary of the 1611 bible is available for 5 dollars, I have it on esword but its nice to have a hard copy on hand, the genealogical charts are really neat. shalom, Mizz Is the 400Th Anniversary edition differen't from other copies of the Authorized version, aside from the charts? I generally use a 1611 re-print, and that does have some distinctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzdy Posted April 29, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 173 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,911 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 10 Joined: 03/21/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't know about all that nonsense I use a variety of bibles in my studies but think I have brother in law that would fight to the end that its the only version God gave the world. At walmart the 400th anniversary of the 1611 bible is available for 5 dollars, I have it on esword but its nice to have a hard copy on hand, the genealogical charts are really neat. shalom, Mizz Is the 400Th Anniversary edition differen't from other copies of the Authorized version, aside from the charts? I generally use a 1611 re-print, and that does have some distinctions. I'm really not sure, never done the comparisons but its supposed to be 'the most accurate replica of the 1611 available on the market'. I don't generally get to worked up over translations I use several bibles as well as a other study aides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted April 30, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 301 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted April 30, 2011 The actual 1611 KJV started out as a Catholic Bible with the Apocrypha, and it was revised almost countless times until the 1769 version of it came out. So, there is no perfection, and we must remember that the Inspired Holy Bible was not written in English. The translators of the KJV never claimed to be inspired - in fact they claimed the opposite in the Preface to the 1611 version. You might also be interested to check and see if the original translation still exists Is this the version of the KJV Bible you are using? Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV-1611 8 For by grace are ye saued, through faith, and that not of your selues: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of workes, lest any man should boast. 10 For wee are his workemanship, created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes, which God hath before ordeined, that we should walke in them. Or, is this the version of the KJV Bible you are using? Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. If you are using the second one, the one in green, you are using the 1769 Version of the KJV. There was a time when there were so many versions of the KJV out that they formed a committee to standardize it. Folks, the KJV is just a translation and nothing more. It's a good translation, but we have many good English translations - some more accurate than the KJV (i.e. NASB). There is a reason why serious students of the Holy Bible still go back to the Hebrew and Greek. Thankfully, the Holy Bible has been translated into just about every known language to man, and God is using them for His Perfect Will and Purpose. By the way, I use the 1769 version of the KJV almost every day, but I also use other excellent translations almost every day. Finally, you don't have to speak English to hear or read God's Word. Great hosts of people around the world are still being saved with translations other than English. English speaking people are NOT the only people who have access to God's Word. Isaiah 55:6-13 KJV Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. 12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. 13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 I am using the 1611 re-print with the old English spelling and the Apocrypha. For the sake of clarity, I convert the spelling when I type a verse in a post. The KJV starts out with the Textus Receptus, so any of the KJV Bibles are superior to the modern English translations that come from corrupt manuscripts. I believe the 1611 version is best, but if that is too hard for someone to understand, the Authorized King James Bible is the next best thing. Here is a passage from the Bible I use without me making changes. Matthew 5:13-16 13 Yee are the salt of the earth: But if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it bee salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be troden vnder foote of men, 14 Yee are the light of the world. A citie that is set on an hill, cannot be hid. 15 Neither doe men light a candle, and put it vnder a bushell: but on a candlesticke, and it giueth light vnto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good workes, and glorifie your father which is in heauen. It is not that hard to make simple changes in the spelling for clarity, and that is what I do. There are also other differences in the 1611 Version. The Psalms include the introductions that have been left out of many of the new Bibles. Let's take Psalm 3 for an example. It begins PSAL. III A Psalme of David when he fled from Absalom his sonne. Then there is the issue of the Apocrypha. My Bible includes 14 additional books not included in most Bibles today. Today's Catholic translation only includes 7 of these 14 additional books. It is true the translators didn't consider their work to be the only accurate Bible, but that doesn't mean that isn't the case. Why is this translation so much better than the rest? Because it started with the TR. Even if the Authorized version differs a little from the 1611, it will still be much better than translations that began with corrupt manuscripts. I personally use the 1611 Edition, but if I was going to use something else, I would go with the Authorized King James Version. The best modern English version is the New King James Bible, but I personally don't use it. The other translations aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted April 30, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 301 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Hello Butero, You stated an opinion and most Bible scholars disagree with you. I also disagree with you, so we can agree to disagree. There is much more wrong with the KJV, but I don't like to bash Bible translations unless they are spurious. Again, I'll just give thanks that we have numerous excellent English translations of the Holy Bible. Use the one you like and will read - God will use it. KJV onlyists do a great disservice by bashing other excellent translations, and the end result may be driving people away from the KJV. This is especially true for those who bother to get the facts about the KJV. I still use the 1769 version of the KJV because I grew up with it, but I use several other excellent translations every day. You would bash those other translations - wrongly and misinformed in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted April 30, 2011 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,194 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 30, 2011 The actual 1611 KJV started out as a Catholic Bible with the Apocrypha, and it was revised almost countless times until the 1769 version of it came out. So, there is no perfection, and we must remember that the Inspired Holy Bible was not written in English. The translators of the KJV never claimed to be inspired - in fact they claimed the opposite in the Preface to the 1611 version. You might also be interested to check and see if the original translation still exists The Catholic claim is nonsense, this was very clearly an Anglican (Epicopalian venture), and whilst much of the text was incorporated and adapted from earlier translations: Tyndale, the Geneva Bible the "great Bible". These were, with the exception of the Douay-Rheims Bible, produced by Protestants. William Tyndale whose translation was the most important source was burnt by the Catholics for having the audacity to produce a translation. Here's the translators introduction to their version. As to the Apocrypha they followed Luther's approach as presenting them in a seperate section as a useful, interesting but unreliable curiosity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts