Kindle Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.37 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2017 The reason why the KJV bible translation is the best translation is because some of the newer translations have taken out important verses. Such as the NIV,,RSV,NRSV, & the NCV. You may also want to use a physical bible to see which translations has taken out verses Examples: Matthew 12:47(KJV) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. The NIV bible has removed the scripture and put it as a footnote The RSV has removed the scripture see here The NRSV has removed the scripture and put it as a footnote Matthew 17:21 (KJV) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. The NIV has removed the scripture see here The RSV has removed the scripture see here The NRSV has removed the scripture see here The NCV has removed the scripture Luke 24:40(KJV) And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. The RSV has removed the scripture see here The NRSV has removed the scripture and added it as a footnote John 5:4(KJV) For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. The NIV has removed the scripture The NKJV has removed the scripture and added it as a footnote The RSV has removed the scripture see here The NRSV has removed the scripture see here The NCV has removed the scripture And this is just a few. Keep in mind it is better to look up the missing verses in a physical bible. More missing verses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.36 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2017 23 minutes ago, worthy said: And this is just a few. Keep in mind it is better to look up the missing verses in a physical bible. You're absolutely right. The are at least 66 verses which have been omitted completely, totaling about 700 words. In addition to that there are about 1,500 alterations which are doctrinally significant. And according to John William Burgon (who examined just the Gospels themselves and collated them) there are almost 9,000 alterations of various kinds in the modern versions which are based upon a handful of ancient corrupted Greek manuscripts. The King James Bible (also known as the Authorized Version) has come under attack since the late 19th century. However, since it is based upon the true Hebrew and Greek texts, Christians have relied upon this faithful translation for over 400 years. That speaks for itself. Furthermore, the KJB is recognized as an English "classic", and in fact, the English language has been molded by the KJB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2017 The KJV is a good translation. However, it is just one in many good translations available. I personally think the NASB or ESV are better word-for-word translations. Curious, do you also believed the KJV was inspired by the Holy Spirit? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2017 Here are some questions to consider if you are KJV only: 1. What Bible would you recommend since before 1611 there was no "true" Bible? 2. Why do KJV only advocates reject the Apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha? 3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV? 4. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? 5. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? 6. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"? 7. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have some kinds of mistakes is irrelevant, because most people who are not KJV only maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? 8. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? 9. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist? 10. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,696 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,515 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 12, 2017 for word for word translations, the KJV and the NASB I think are the top two, with the ESV coming in right behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,027 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,770 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said: for word for word translations, the KJV and the NASB I think are the top two, with the ESV coming in right behind them. and not the latest version of the NASB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,696 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,515 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, other one said: and not the latest version of the NASB. i have not read the latest version, but what is wrong with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 12, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,027 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,770 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said: i have not read the latest version, but what is wrong with it? it uses more of the Alexandrian text. I have a single verse that I test translations with. John 3:16 Quote John 3:16-17 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. NASB John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. KJV John 3:16 16 “God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life. NIrV John 3:16 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. NASU They changed the effects of believing from a conditional Should not or might not as some use to a definite will not or shall not. it seems to be the Alexandrian Texts that are changing those things, so I try and avoid those translations. Still there are some non essential things that none of them translate into english really right. I know people who believe and are still holding hands with the devil and from everything I read, those people will not make it to be with the sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,696 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,515 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 13, 2017 my NASB says shall not. I dont know what to tell you. perhaps your getting it confused with something else? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16-19&version=NASB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.37 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, GoldenEagle said: Here are some questions to consider if you are KJV only: 1. What Bible would you recommend since before 1611 there was no "true" Bible? 2. Why do KJV only advocates reject the Apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha? 3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV? 4. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? 5. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? 6. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"? 7. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have some kinds of mistakes is irrelevant, because most people who are not KJV only maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? 8. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? 9. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist? 10. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? One Question at a time Please Are you saying that i am a kjv only reader? if so that's not true notice the title says why the KJV is one of the best translations answer to question 2 I don't reject the apocrypha at all I actually read it answer to question 5 I read the KJV 1611 version which is the original answer to question 1 I recommend reading the hebrew answer to question 10 suggest you read the original version of course answer to question 3 what does that have to do with me pointing out the scripture the took out in the newer translations I dont understand question 4 or 9 maybe you could rephrase them answer to question 6 the KJV bible is not recognized by the Catholic church Edited January 13, 2017 by worthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts