I Am KJVP!

[Bonnie]

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.

You have a point. There are expressions in the KJV that are archaic now, and have changed meaning. Like "suffer" meaning "permit." We hardly use that word that way anymore, except for the phrase "he will not suffer fools gladly." But even that is rare nowadays. But the KJV still sounds beautiful. Like Ps. 23--it is much prettier and more poetic in the KJV than in more modern translations, IMO.

 

[robycop3]

Given the fact that a great many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words/phrases have multiple English meanings, & the context doesn't always make the best meaning for that particular passage plain, multiple translations helps in the better understanding of the Scriptures. Of course, the HOLY SPIRIT is the best Teacher of all.

 

[Shoonra]

I am in agreeement that the KJV is sometimes inaccurate (more often, obscure and fatiguing) but I don't think it can be called plagiarized. It was deliberately intended to be a revision of the previous English Bible (the Bishops Bible but also the Geneva): in any event the translation of the same work twice is likely to show a LOT of duplication and similarities.

The OT of the KJV was supposed to be from the Hebrew (the Massoretic Text, which was then imperfectly available in printed editions); the LXX is the source of some OT quotations in the Greek NT but not all OT quotes, and the Disciples, being Jews, would know and use the Heebrew version.

As for "missing books" there are mentions of "lost books", such as the Book of Jasher, which simply don't exist anymore for any translation. The 1611 edition of the KJV (and recent deluxe editions) contain the Apocrypha, altho the KJV version was hardly an improvement over earlier translations and modern translations (e.g., RSV, NEB, TEV) are better.

Anybody who prefers the KJV is welcome to it, but I object to attempts to forbid reading modern versions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I am in agreeement that the KJV is sometimes inaccurate (more often, obscure and fatiguing) but I don't think it can be called plagiarized.

The Geneva Bible introduced marginal notes, chapters and verses. The KJV planarized this format and much of its their content.

The OT of the KJV was supposed to be from the Hebrew (the Massoretic Text, which was then imperfectly available in printed editions); the LXX is the source of some OT quotations in the Greek NT but not all OT quotes, and the Disciples, being Jews, would know and use the Heebrew version.

No true at all. The apostles were ignorant and unlearned men. They would have used the LXX and this is the reason you find the vast majority of quotes from the LXX in the NT. The LXX was the very first Bible for the common man. Widely distributed and widely used, it was the standard for the early church until Jerome took his ungodly action to leave his silly mark on history.

 

[Jewjitzu]

The Geneva Bible introduced marginal notes, chapters and verses. The KJV planarized this format and much of its their content.



No true at all. The apostles were ignorant and unlearned men. They would have used the LXX and this is the reason you find the vast majority of quotes from the LXX in the NT. The LXX was the very first Bible for the common man. Widely distributed and widely used, it was the standard for the early church until Jerome took his ungodly action to leave his silly mark on history.

What is your source for thinking that Jews in the homeland would refer to the LXX when they had the Hebrew scripts available to them, they were bar-mitzvaed with the Hebrew, etc.? Where did you get that the apostles were ignorant?

 

[praise_yeshua]

What is your source for thinking that Jews in the homeland would refer to the LXX when they had the Hebrew scripts available to them,

They had the LXX available to them. Which came from the seventy. You have no evidence that they had a extant Hebrew Bible available to them. No one who knows anything of the subject would make such a claim.

they were bar-mitzvaed with the Hebrew, etc.? Where did you get that the apostles were ignorant?

There you go again. You don't know the NT and yet you want to pretend you're an expert. I know what the Scriptures say.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

There was only one among them that was extensively educated in the historical religion of the Jews and you obvious hate him.

 

[Jewjitzu]

They had the LXX available to them. Which came from the seventy. You have no evidence that they had a extant Hebrew Bible available to them. No one who knows anything of the subject would make such a claim.

How do you know they had the LXX? Of course Hebrew would have been available to them. Israel was the center of learning with scribes, levites, priests, etc. You are you kidding?

There you go again. You don't know the NT and yet you want to pretend you're an expert. I know what the Scriptures say.

First off, I never said I was an expert. You need to calm down. And another point, the judges and rabbis had the right to canonize the books of the bible, since they seat in Moses seat. They never accepted the NT. So, the NT is not scripture.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

There was only one among them that was extensively educated in the historical religion of the Jews and you obvious hate him.

Uneducated in what? Speaking their languages?

Are you saying I hate Paul? I don't hate the guy, he was just a false teacher, rabbi, and Pharisee. No one acknowledges him as a Pharisee of Pharisees, or that he was blameless in the law. I mean, he openly admits to being an accomplish to murder, etc.

 

[balshan]

The Geneva Bible introduced marginal notes, chapters and verses. The KJV planarized this format and much of its their content.



No true at all. The apostles were ignorant and unlearned men. They would have used the LXX and this is the reason you find the vast majority of quotes from the LXX in the NT. The LXX was the very first Bible for the common man. Widely distributed and widely used, it was the standard for the early church until Jerome took his ungodly action to leave his silly mark on history.

Prove they were ignorant, because even in those days the Jewish people valued education. They were able to read and write and understand scripture.

 

[Shoonra]

The verse numbering in the NT was taken from the Greek edition of Estienne, which possibly (probably) was one of the Greek NTs used in working up the KJV.
The disciples - perhaps more than the apostles of the subsequent centuries - would have been familiar with the Hebrew text of the OT, and bits of the NT indicate that Jesus spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic, possibly additional to Greek.

 

[robycop3]

The verse numbering in the NT was taken from the Greek edition of Estienne, which possibly (probably) was one of the Greek NTs used in working up the KJV.
The disciples - perhaps more than the apostles of the subsequent centuries - would have been familiar with the Hebrew text of the OT, and bits of the NT indicate that Jesus spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic, possibly additional to Greek.

I figure Jesus, being God & the Creator of all languages, could & can) speak, write, & understand any language man has ever, or will ever, use.

 

[SteveB]

I am a KJVP (KJV Preferred). Anything wrong with that?

not until you start saying that no one else is allowed to read any other translation, or even the greek/hebrew.
I started off reading the KJV.
Then the NKJV came out a couple of years later, and I began reading it. Then my preferred Open bible went out of business, and my eyes grew too old to read so I switched to a smartphone bible app, which did not have the NKJV, so I started reading other translations.
Now I have an app which has over 115 english, hebrew/greek interlinears, and even latin translations-- just what I've downloaded so far.
So..... as long as you don't tell me that there's something wrong with me continuing to learn, I won't complain about your preference with the KJV.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Just how do you know? You have admittedly never used any other. So you're making blind claims without any experience.

I know because I go to church am completely AWARE of which translation they're using (that's experience in case you didn't recognize it).

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.

Keep looking!! you've just proven MY point since KJV Hebrews 13:7,8 = "Geneva" 13:8. if a re-numbering of verses is your only argument, you lose. God DOES set up worldly powers, and governments, and obeying their laws is intrinsic to being a good citizen. are you nothing more than a common anarchist??

You certainly do. Your Bible of choice teaches that man rules you.

Except all you're doing is exposing your IGNORANCE of the KJV, since it teaches no such thing. Another total failure.

 

[organgrinder]

I have no issue with those who use the KJV. I read it every evening and read my NKJV every morning. I study with both and other versions. It may be true the English monarchy wanted "rule over you", but as you look into the Greek it should those who have authority over you. Really not an issue as far as I am concerned. God gave us leaders both spiritually in the church and in civil government.

This is much ado about nothing.

 

[Our Lord's God]

I am a KJVP (KJV Preferred). Anything wrong with that?

Whatever made you think you should have a preference?

 

[SteveB]

Whatever made you think you should have a preference?

That's what I've been wondering too, but apparently they thought it was important to say.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I have no issue with those who use the KJV. I read it every evening and read my NKJV every morning. I study with both and other versions. It may be true the English monarchy wanted "rule over you", but as you look into the Greek it should those who have authority over you. Really not an issue as far as I am concerned. God gave us leaders both spiritually in the church and in civil government.

This is much ado about nothing.

As ALL "my version is better than yours" arguments here always are. One Bible's every bit as good as another, and the BEST translation remains the ONE YOU'LL ACTUALLY READ!!!!

 

[Our Lord's God]

As ALL "my version is better than yours" arguments here always are. One Bible's every bit as good as another, and the BEST translation remains the ONE YOU'LL ACTUALLY READ!!!!

Since they disagree considerably, where did you get that idea?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Since they disagree considerably, where did you get that idea?

Because THEY don't "DISAGREE CONSIDERABLY". Simple as that. There's not a penny's worth of difference among the major translations. (TRUE Joe Smith's "Inspired translation" goes somewhat into left field - even the Mormons won't use it). Even the NWT is plenty close to the authorized text.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Because THEY don't "DISAGREE CONSIDERABLY". Simple as that. There's not a penny's worth of difference among the major translations. (TRUE Joe Smith's "Inspired translation" goes somewhat into left field - even the Mormons won't use it). Even the NWT is plenty close to the authorized text.

What planet are you on?

 

[SteveB]

Since they disagree considerably, where did you get that idea?

oh by all means.
Pray do tell!

Here are 12 translations of John 8:32.
Please show me how they "disagree considerably." I'll be back with more in a little bit.

John 8:32
(ABP+) AndG2532 you shall knowG1097 theG3588 truth,G225 andG2532 theG3588 truthG225 shall freeG1659 you.G1473
(Greek ABP+) καιG2532 γνωσεσθεG1097 τηνG3588 αληθειανG225 καιG2532 ηG3588 αληθειαG225 ελευθερωσειG1659 υμαςG1473
(Greek NT INT+)
και
G2532
CONJ
καί
and
γνωσεσθε
G1097
V-FDI-2P
γινώσκω
to know
την
G3588
T-ASF
ὁ
the
αληθειαν
G225
N-ASF
ἀλήθεια
truth
και
G2532
CONJ
καί
and
η
G3588
T-NSF
ὁ
the
αληθεια
G225
N-NSF
ἀλήθεια
truth
ελευθερωσει
G1659
V-FAI-3S
ἐλευθερόω
to liberate
υμας
G5209
P-2AP
σύ
you
(Greek NT TR) και γνωσεσθε την αληθειαν και η αληθεια ελευθερωσει υμας
(Hebrew NT DD) וידעתם את האמת והאמת תוציאכם לחרות׃
(KJV) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(KJV+) AndG2532 ye shall knowG1097 theG3588 truth,G225 andG2532 theG3588 truthG225 shall make you free.G1659 G5209
(WEB) You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
(WEBA) You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”