I Am KJVP!
- Thread starter zerinus
- Start date
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
I learned to read in the King James bible back around 1949, or so. Consequently it's been my "Main Squeeze" for 70 years, and I have picked up, along the way the Corrections for the places where the translation isn't so good. SO - I'll be KJVP for the rest of my life for sure. besides all the resources for KJV are free - no pesky "Copyright" stuff applies. Our church (AoG) tends to use the NIV.
praise_yeshua
Active member
They're not free. You're using an official work of the British Monarchy. If you were under the British Monarchy, then you couldn't make those claims.
However, the Geneva Bible. You can make that claim all you want.
praise_yeshua
Active member
It is a bad choice for many reasons.
1. It is not the most accurate translation.
2. It is largely a plagiarized work from the Geneva Bible. In other words, they STOLE the ideas and work of another to produce it.
3. The KJV largely follows the MT but should follow the LXX. The very Bible the apostles used.
4. The KJV is missing entire books that are referenced in other areas of Scriptures. In other words, there are reference in the KJV that point to verses that are not in the KJV itself.
I could go on and on but this is enough not to be KJV Preferred.
praise_yeshua
Active member
In other words, you don't want to change.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
No need to whatsoever. Simple as that.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
And they did an excellent job of it for sure. Kudos!!
But I'm a TEXAN, so the "British Monarcy" doen't mean SPIT. Frankly I'm surprised that it's even still around, since it has little to do with governing Britain any more. Just leeches on British society.
I don't have a "Geneva Bible", and have no need of one.
Bonnie
Super Member
Our church uses the ESV mostly now. It has also used the NIV and NRSV, in the past, but I do not like the last one.
For beauty, one cannot improve upon the KJV. But for clarity, I prefer the NASB, NIV, or ESV.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Active member
So that's why your church uses the NIV? Yeah. Right.
They did a terrible job and the filithy hands of the monarchy are all over it. The same ones that persecuted the Church of God on this earth.
Agreed.
You're wrong. The Geneva Bible is the best representative of the TR tradition.
praise_yeshua
Active member
The Scriptures talk of "great swelling words" in a very bad context.
Paul spoke of "enticing words".
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom
In the south we call them "million dollar words". The KJV is full of them. They don't help people understand the Scriptures.
praise_yeshua
Active member
Because there is something better. Better.... is BETTER.
Why prefer something worse or inferior?
robycop3
Active member
I mwas tild by a British that to them, the monarchy is same as our flag is to us. To them, it's the very essence of Britain, the thing that makes them distinct from the rest of the world, much as the Emperor is to Japan.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Nope - the NIV, because of its language, is the "Comer" these days. other contenders are the OASV, and the NASV. One Bible's as good as another, and there's really no significant difference worth mentioning among them.
Ridiculous!!! there's nothing wrong with the KJV. It says exactly what all the others do.
SO - use it if it lights your fire. I've got no need of it.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
The linguistic BEAUTY of the KJV is probably its worst problem, which has led to translation issues, that require some digging into the Greek to straighten out (like John 21:15 and following). I don't know that I'd suggest that a new Christian in '20 Choose the KJV to read - because of the language. But in the final analysis the BEST Bible translation is ALWAYS the one you'll actually read. My Wife likes the "Good news Bible".
But since I "Think" in KJV language regarding the scriptures, I'll be sticking with it. Makes using a concordance easier when you know exactly what you're looking for. Our church projects the Scriptures, so carrying a Bible isn't necessary.
praise_yeshua
Active member
Just how do you know? You have admittedly never used any other. So you're making blind claims without any experience.
I can prove you wrong with one reference.
KJV
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Geneva
Heb 13:8 Remember them which have the oversight of you, which have declared unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering what hath been the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, the same also is forever.
You can see the filthy hands of the English Monarchy on this verse. I look forward to you retracting your unexperienced claim.
You certainly do. Your Bible of choice teaches that man rules you. You accept their rule because of the perversion of the Scriptures you've blindly trusted for your entire life.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Did you even BOTHER to read your own cites?? They both say the same thing (except that you conveniently truncated your KJV cite).
THE BEST TRANSLATION of the Bible remains the one you'll actually READ.
The Royal Family bring in huge tourists dollars and are much loved by a lot of English people. There are those who do not wish to have them. But they cannot comment on politics etc. But the commonwealth countries all have the Royal Family as their monarchy as well, though some have become republics but stayed in the Empire. I personally hate their visits because it costs our country a fortune to host them. I believe if they want to come and visit their colonies, they should pay for it.
The various bible translations have their strengths and weaknesses, God can use any of them to help people know who He is. I think which Bible you enjoy to read is the one that you are comfortable to read. But I am sure people have more than one translation to help with understanding difficult to interpret.