Original post:
You are apparently mixed up.You need to learn the difference between "PREFERRED" and "ONLY".......The title of this thread is King James PREFERRED, not KJV ONLY...........big difference. Read with comprehension.
I Am KJVP!
- Thread starter zerinus
- Start date
Original post:
You are apparently mixed up.You need to learn the difference between "PREFERRED" and "ONLY".......The title of this thread is King James PREFERRED, not KJV ONLY...........big difference. Read with comprehension.
But, the title of this thread is I Am KJV Preferred.........nothing was mentioned about the OP being KJV Only. They NEVER said that the KJV was the " only ONE translation and should be the only one used". He, or she, simply stated they were KJV preferred. meaning the KJV was the version that they personally liked best, and wondered what was wrong with that. I saw no "utter stupidity" or "fanaticism" in the OP. You apparently misunderstood, or do you think that is wrong that someone still prefers to use the KJV? No need to attack them, or me, and call them names. You seem to have an anger issue which isn't very Christlike.
Last edited:
The KJV is a good translation. I used it the first time that I read the Bible cover to cover. It is good because it always translates the same Hebrew and Greek word the with the same English equivalent and doesn't bounce around with different English words like some the modern translations. But of coarse any translation never does the original language justice.
robycop3
Active member
With all due respect, the KJV DOES flounce around different meanings for the same Greek or Hebrew word. For instance, it renders sheol/hades as "the grave", as well as incorrectly rendering it "hell". Another is the greek 'pascha, which the KJV renders as 'passover 28 out of 29 appearances, with one major goof-"Easter" in Acts 12:4.
Do you consider it OK when the Church of England makers of the KJV do it?
Would you defend the KJV when its translators present a non-literal, non-word-for-word, dynamic equivalent rendering?
According to a consistent, just application of your assertion, did the KJV translators edit God when they did not provide an English rendering for many original-language words of Scriptures found in their underlying original-language texts and when they added many words in English for which they had no original-language words of Scripture in their underlying original-language texts?
KJV
Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
____________________
NIV
Psa 2:1 Why do the nations conspire[a]and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
Which is the accurate translation and the best translation of this passage?
Nope.
When I first got saved, I was given a "King James II" Bible. If I remember, it was KJV, edited so the thees, thous, and - eths became yous and es. (It's been long gone. Sigh)
Yes, as the Kjv mistranslated of Sheol/Hades as Hell at times is where we got the "Jesus descended into Hell"
At times and in places they indeed did go for a more dynamic rendering!
jay Green Kjv?
Possibly, but this was back in the early 70's, and a LOT of water has gone under the bridge!
Yes, the 1971 King James II was edited by Jay Green. The New Testament was printed in 1970.
Before that, Jay Green had made a 1962 Children's Version of the Holy Bible and a 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible.
Later, Jay Green produced the 1990 Modern King James Version.
Not a fresh translation as the Nkjv was, but his revision?
There is a myth circulating among KJVOs that, somehow, getting a copyright on a new Bible version requires that at least 10% of its text be different from any previous version. There is no such copyright law or regulation. A copyright is not a guarantee of originality and conceivably someone could cheat and register an exact duplicate of a previously copyrighted work; the copyright registrars do not play detective to prevent copying. If there is duplication, then litigation will decide the matter.
There is another myth circulating that the KJV is the "only non-copyrighted version". This is wrong on at least two levels. First, the KJV, while in public domain in the US, is under a perpetual Crown Copyright in the UK, meaning that UK publishers must obtain a license to print the KJV - the license is supposed to assure conscientious proofreading and printing. Second, a great many Bible versions are now in public domain, including Webster's, Young's, the RV of 1881, the ASV of 1901 and others.
There is another myth circulating that the KJV is the "only non-copyrighted version". This is wrong on at least two levels. First, the KJV, while in public domain in the US, is under a perpetual Crown Copyright in the UK, meaning that UK publishers must obtain a license to print the KJV - the license is supposed to assure conscientious proofreading and printing. Second, a great many Bible versions are now in public domain, including Webster's, Young's, the RV of 1881, the ASV of 1901 and others.
Yes, as those holding to KJVO do indeed seem to me a really big deal about modern bibles and being copyrighted!