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.
I am a KJVP (KJV Preferred). Anything wrong with that?
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.
No need to whatsoever. Simple as that.In other words, you don't want to change.
And they did an excellent job of it for sure. Kudos!!They're not free. You're using an official work of the British Monarchy.
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.If you were under the British Monarchy, then you couldn't make those claims.
I don't have a "Geneva Bible", and have no need of one.However, the Geneva Bible. You can make that claim all you want.
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.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.
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.
Our church uses the ESV mostly now. It has also used the NIV and NRSV, in the past, but I not like the last one.
For beauty, one cannot improve upon the KJV. But for clarity, I prefer the NASB, NIV, or ESV.
My point in starting this thread was to raise the question of why does it have to be "KJVO" or nothing? Why can't we have something in the middle, like "KJVP"?
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.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.
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.So that's why your church uses the NIV? Yeah. Right.
Ridiculous!!! there's nothing wrong with the KJV. It says exactly what all the others do.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.
SO - use it if it lights your fire. I've got no need of it.You're wrong. The Geneva Bible is the best representative of the TR tradition.
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".Our church uses the ESV mostly now. It has also used the NIV and NRSV, in the past, but I not like the last one.
For beauty, one cannot improve upon the KJV. But for clarity, I prefer the NASB, NIV, or ESV.
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.
Did you even BOTHER to read your own cites?? They both say the same thing (except that you conveniently truncated your KJV cite).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.
NoI am a KJVP (KJV Preferred). Anything wrong with that?
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.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.