what Bible do you read

[PeterJohn]

To me the KJV is the closest translated bible from the original Hebrew and Greek language

Can you show that to be true?

There are other verses but this will serve as a pointer:

NIV ...Rev.19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given to her to wear."(Fine linen stands for the righteouy acts of thr saints.)

Parenthesis as above in Niv

KJV; Rev 19:8 And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in bright linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Are those who support the primacy of Non-KJV translations not based on the Textus Receptus also claiming that it is the riighteous acts of the saints (i.e.salvation thru Good Works) which God allows his Bride the Church to wear

or is the allegedly later and purportedly less accurate KJV trans

which imputes that" the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints" suggests that we are not the Bride of Christ thru our self-righteousness but by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Believer ...

There is a notorious verse in the OT which transposes Lucifer for God in one of the Prophets and may be considered by some to be a niggling inaccuracy but by others as a translators Blasphemy ...this is the "Star of the Morning" verse in one of the Major Proiphets

Incidentally I am not KJV-Only tho The KJV is my first English trans. Bible; as I qouted above in another reply I do read other versioms but The KJV is the trans I use as a member of the congregation; and in my personal devotions ...

God, can and has used other Versions and other devices to bring believers to Christ as He is the Author of ALL and meets people where thry are at in the pre-conversion, conversion phase ... Does that necessarily mean that He endorses those methods as his Son or Daughter matures ....

I mean, there is a verified instance of God using the Qu'ran to bring a Muslim to Saving Grace in Christ so does God endorse the Qu'ran as Scripture?

[Floatingaxe]

I mean, there is a verified instance of God using the Qu'ran to bring a Muslim to Saving Grace in Christ so does God endorse the Qu'ran as Scripture?

How did this happen? The Koran is not an inspired work of God. The Holy Spirit must have been doing overtime to convince that person of error!

[Friarbob]

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible? I read the King James Version of The Holy Bible, because it was ordered by King James to have people to interprete it for his knowledge, not for religious reasons. That is why I think it comes the closest in translation. And do you use the Bible as a whole or just hold tight to certain scriptures? I guess just reading some of the other threads has me wondering, I feel I should look at all views and then wieght them out against the Bible to see if that is how I should line up my life. I want to be a willing vessel for God, and do all I can to honor him not myself. And being that I am human and by nature am prone to mistakes. I am seeking out you're imput. thanks

To get back on topic I use severall different trans lations and my favorites in order of preference are:

1. New King James version 2. New International Version 3. King James Version. And I ocasionally borow my wife's New American standard. I own abou 10 to 16 different translation that I use for comparison. With that said guys lets get back on topic with this thread originator's topic. OKAY In other words I am tired of reading these posts that are argumentative for no good purpose.

[pointer]

To me the KJV is the closest translated bible from the original Hebrew and Greek language

Can you show that to be true?

There are other verses but this will serve as a pointer:

NIV ...Rev.19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given to her to wear."(Fine linen stands for the righteouy acts of thr saints.)

Parenthesis as above in Niv

KJV; Rev 19:8 And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in bright linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Are those who support the primacy of Non-KJV translations not based on the Textus Receptus also claiming that it is the riighteous acts of the saints (i.e.salvation thru Good Works) which God allows his Bride the Church to wear

or is the allegedly later and purportedly less accurate KJV trans

which imputes that" the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints" suggests that we are not the Bride of Christ thru our self-righteousness but by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Believer

The action of the Holy Spirit within the saint leads to righteous acts, acts which are evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit (see Eph 2:10). There is no implication here of works justification.

If this is a pointer to the quality of pro-KJV arguments, it does not augur at all well for the KJV cause.

[PeterJohn]

Dear Pointer,

The a priori requisite of the Holy Spirit enacting Righteousness in the Believer is self-evident in the AV

But where is that same knowledge drawn from the context of those verses in the NIV which speaks plainly ...

ONLY THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WHOLLY AND HOLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD and the Qu'ran IS A MAN-CREATED COUNTERFEIT ...just so you know my position there ...

I was saying God uses any tool which he knows can reach the heart of the true seeker after Himself, even means which we as humans in our individual narrow-focuses (no matter how broad-minded we may be )have difficulties or cannot embrace ...in the instance of that Muslim he came into contact with a Christian national and from there more conventionally thru the Word of God; The Holy Bible; but his Questions seeking Salvation began with sections of the Qu'ran before this took place ...

Anyway in this thread I promise from now on to keep strictly to the Thread's own guidelines ...maybe this version question can be approached in a new thread altogether

[pointer]

The a priori requisite of the Holy Spirit enacting Righteousness in the Believer is self-evident in the AV

Is it so very obvious that those who read (or try to read) the 'King James' are morally superior to those who don't? In my experience the reverse seems much more likely. It seems to me that 'KJ'V owners have to buy a modern Bible just to see what the 'KJ' means.

Or do you mean that the 'KJ'version is self-evidently spiritual? If you mean that, one must ask, how can such a thing be self-evident? One man's spiritual meat is another's poison.

Incidentally, the 'King James' was never authorised by anyone, certainly not by God. It's a book with no name.

But where is that same knowledge drawn from the context of those verses in the NIV which speaks plainly ...

If you refer to Rev 19:8, I think that you will find that most translations, including the NKJV and literal versions, agree with the NIV. So is it possible that the 'KJ' is simply wrong? How is it that KJVOers so detest the NIV? That version is often used by Greek scholars when using English, as it usually comes so close to the originals. Can it be that many KJVOers are really saying that they detest the Scripture? I think they might be.

ONLY THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WHOLLY AND HOLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD and the Qu'ran IS A MAN-CREATED COUNTERFEIT ...just so you know my position there ...

That's ok, though it's off topic, and of no use in answering the thread question.

I was saying God uses any tool which he knows can reach the heart of the true seeker after Himself

Of course. Some would say, God can do miracles, and can save even with the old 'steam Bible', the 'KJ'V- though many involved in mission say that the 'KJ' does more harm than good.

Anyway in this thread I promise from now on to keep strictly to the Thread's own guidelines ...maybe this version question can be approached in a new thread altogether

The 'version question' as you put it, is the thread topic. Read what the OP says:

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?

Another poster addressed this very question, though gets only one mark out of 100. That is one mark more than those who merely stated a preference without reason. One mark is the most one can get for merely writing an essay title:

"To me the KJV is the closest translated bible from the original Hebrew and Greek language"

I asked: "Can you show that to be true?"

Now what more on-topic question could possibly be asked? The statement made could be quite mistakenly erroneous. It could be entirely second-hand, with the writer knowing nothing about original languages. It could even be a knowing and malicious attempt to assert what is the opposite of the truth. That is why the question must be asked if one is not on the slippery slope into a police state.

99 more marks are available to those who can compare the 'KJ' to original Hebrew and Greek Scripture. Not to the NIV.

[Christian]

Regarding the OP

I will state for the record that I believe that the KJV is our most accurate translation of Scripture.

With that being said, each morning I read my MJKV (Modern King James Version...I like the way it reads), right alongside my KJV.

Right next to this is my NIV (New International Version) and my ASV (American Standard Version).

In addition to these I keep an "Oxford Study Edition" and a "Youth Bible" nearby in case I want to check them also.

So yes...there are six Bibles on my table. I enjoy the cross-referencing I am able to do with them and it has helped my comprehension of Scripture immensely.

Would someone say I was right or wrong in my choice of these versions?... I really don't care.

God will not judge us on what version of the bible we read, remember that.

in Christ

-C-

[Christian]

??????????????

??????????????????????

Incidentally, the 'King James' was never authorised by anyone, certainly not by God. It's a book with no name.

HISTORY

According to an eyewitness account, Dr John Rainolds "moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixth were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original."

King James proposed that a new translation be commissioned to settle the controversies; he hoped a new translation would replace the Geneva Bible and its offensive notes in the popular esteem. After the Bishop of London added a qualification that no marginal notes were to be added to Rainold

[toohisglory]

I grew up with the KJV and that was the only bible we had to read . I understand it now ,

before I was born again I had a hard time understanding the true meaning. After I accepted

Jesus it was like a vail was lifted and it was like the words were alive. It is true that an unsaved person can not understand Gods word.It is not very clear to them. We need to help them all we can . Never give up on a person . I am glad that no one gave up on me. That was closet to 40 years ago and sweeter gets the journey every day,serving Jesus realy pays .

[pointer]

Regarding the OP

I will state for the record that I believe that the KJV is our most accurate translation of Scripture.

So we have it on record that an anonymous poster going under the nick of 'Christian' says he/she thinks that the 'KJ'V is 'our' most accurate translation of Scripture. We do not know whether this person is a Christian or an opposer of Christianity. However, no mature Christian would make such a comment as that without good reason given, and the use of the word 'our' is another indicator of low standards of safeguarding.

Those things in themselves do not mean that the 'KJ'V is not the best translation. However, the many occasions on which this claim is made anonymously, without evidence indicates quite strongly that the 'KJ'V may well be anything but a good translation.