[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Why Use The KJV Translation?  (Read 14682 times)

Frank Mortimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2004, 11:15:04 AM »
But what if it is broke?

What if the moon was made of green cheese? It isn't, so the question is irrelevant.


Quote
See, take Romans 11:26...
" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

Doesn't that bother you?  We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

No, not one bit. What bothers me is you don't know the difference between Romans 8 and Romans 11.

The Holy Spirit is not a man, neither is God a man,

1. Christ came to earth as a man!
2. The Holy Spirit is a "Spirit" not a man!
3. God is without mother or father, an infinite being, not a man nor a woman.

 Genesis 1:27
 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."





jd@

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2004, 07:53:39 PM »
Fixed it.

Of course the Holy Spirit isn't a man, but he's still a he!  He's masculine without being male...

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2004, 08:52:00 PM »
Hi jd, you post: "
But what if it is broke?
See, take Romans 8:26...
" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
Doesn't that bother you?  We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

jd, this is an oft repeated alleged error that has no basis in fact at all.  People who make this false claim should do a bit more study and learn their own English language first before making these silly objections.  I hope you  are humbly open to the truth.



The Spirit ITSELF


“The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as “itself” a major error in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?

Doug Kutilek is a well known critic of the KJB. He has both printed, and posted an article on the internet, which harshly criticizes this “supposed” error in the King James Bible.

Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.”

He continues, “I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter.”

The purpose of this article is to “address the matter”. I believe Mr. Kutilek’s objections to the use of “it” or “itself” in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use “itself” in either the very same verses or in the very same manner; and ignorant because he doesn't know the English language very well.

First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”

The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.

The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.

The first verse is John 1:32. “And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him.” Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in their use of “it” are Tyndales , the Geneva Bible of 1599 and 1602, Bishops Bible, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version of 1901, Douay of 1950, Henry Alford’s, Young’s, 21st Century KJB, William’s New Testament 1937, Lamsa 1933, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, 20th Century New Testament, Weymouth’s, Goodspeed’s American 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, the Revised Standard Version , the NRSV of 1989, and the 2001 English Standard Version.

The second verse is Romans 8:16. “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Versions that agree with the KJB are the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Goodspeed 1943, Third Millenium, and the NRSV.

The third verse is Romans 8:26. “But the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Again the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T 1729, Wesley's 1755 translation, Coverdale 1535, Darby, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Goodspeed 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Geneva of 1599 and 1602 agree with the KJB.

The fourth verse is 1 Peter 1:11. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Versions that agree with the use of “it” here are Alfords, Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Webster’s, Berkeley, Basic Bible in English, and the NRSV of 1989.

So we see that many Bible versions which both predate and follow the KJB have used “it” and “itself” to refer to the Spirit of God. This is perfectly acceptable English.

The NASB and NIV have two interesting and parallel verses in the New Testament. Both Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 speak of a “spirit that takes along with IT seven other spirits more wicked than ITSELF”.

Here is a case of a spiritual entity that can see, hear, speak, and has a personality, yet the gender is disregarded in the NAS and NIV, and is referred to as “itself”. This spirit was not an inanimate object, but rather a spiritual being with a distinct personality.

In Luke 8:29, the same thing occurs in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. “For he had commanded the unclean SPIRIT to come out of the man. For oftentimes IT had caught him.” Here again is a spirit that talks, reasons, hears, and knows that Jesus is the Son of God and that torment awaits him. This is clearly a personality and yet all the above mentioned versions refer to him as an “it”. The gender is disregarded, and this is perfectly acceptable English.

Another instance of the Lord Jesus Christ using the little word “IT” to refer to himself is found in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV in Luke 24:39 where He says: “Behold my hands and my feet, that IT is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Again in Revelation 12:4, a multitude of Bible versions, including the NKJV, NIV, and the brand new English Standard Version of 2001, all refer to the child Jesus as IT. “And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as IT was born.”

All of the modern versions use “itself” when referring to both animals and groups of people. The NKJV has the donkey itself in Hosea 8:9, the goat itself in Lev. 16:22; Israel itself in Judges 7:2. Numbers 23:9 speaks of “a people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations”, and Zechariah 12:12, “the family of the house of David by itself.”

All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20, the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

Notice the angel does not say “he”, but “that which”: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In Luke 1:35, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.

The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: “WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world.” This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing?

Mr. Kutilek’s objections to these four verses in the KJB seem to be unfounded. God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He has revealed Himself to us in His inspired words, and I believe He has faithfully kept them for us today in the English language of the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Gender: Female
  • Psalms 52:8
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2013, 03:08:06 AM »
Hi jd, you post: "
But what if it is broke?
See, take Romans 8:26...

" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
Doesn't that bother you?  We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

jd, this is an oft repeated alleged error that has no basis in fact at all.  People who make this false claim should do a bit more study and learn their own English language first before making these silly objections.  I hope you  are humbly open to the truth.

Well said Kinny. I checked this out myself and there are some good articles proving there is not one thing wrong with that translation of it, and its used that way throughout scripture. Just more of the KJV bashers grasping at straws.

What I have found is that people look so hard to try and find any little thing where they can grab hold of to declare the KJV inferior, and they never ever succeed. At least not with me. Now that I can see through their motives.


Tim Norton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2013, 02:34:46 AM »
Hi Melanie,
  I just read that they are thinking of putting out a new version of the NIV with updated sources and modern text which will make it more readable. I have a few questions for those of you who use the KJV, and other versions for that matter.

   1. Does the KJV need an update?
   2. Do you think they should just leave the KJV alone?
   3. Do you feel these updates of Bibles are based on need or greed?
   4. Will you consider switching to a update or another version?
   5. Have the changes and or differences in these Bibles improved them or the Church?


Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Gender: Female
  • Psalms 52:8
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2013, 07:49:34 PM »
Hi Melanie,
  I just read that they are thinking of putting out a new version of the NIV with updated sources and modern text which will make it more readable.

Hi Tim,
   They're always tinkering with the Bible, it's in their genes. They can't help themselves because they want to appear intellectual and forward thinking. No, the KJV doesn't need an update. Christians need to get off their lazy butts and study scripture and stop thinking a new version will help them understand. The world we live in today is full of lazy people who want instant gratification. These modern versions (I think there are over 120 now) are just a symptom of that.


Mitchell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2013, 05:22:46 AM »
What's the latest Bible Version?

Dan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Gender: Male
  • Dan the Man
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2013, 09:15:52 AM »
What's the latest Bible Version?

By the time I give you the latest version, there'll be another one.  ;D


Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2013, 03:46:04 AM »
>>>
   1. Does the KJV need an update?
<<<

No more than consumers need their beef injected with growth hormones. But what's needed falls by the wayside when you have self-centered Christians who only look out for themselves. Who can resist the latest thing when told it is Improved, Older, Bigger, Newer, Enhanced, Super Charged, More Accurate, Superior, More Modern, More Understandable, etc., all under the proverbial umbrella of "something better."

Proverbs 22:28
  • "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."

Of course, that verse is "ultimately" talking about the God's word (not the KJV) but, the point is abundantly clear that sometimes things that don't need fixing are better left alone. The KJV doesn't "really" need editing, Christians need an education. Along with a little charity or agape love. I've gone over the Bible Versions Issue over the years with a fine tooth comb, and I see no benefit whatsoever in these new English translations, and a ton of mistakes, pitfalls, problems and drawbacks. But I'm in the minority. Because the world, and the worldly Church, loves the newest thing.


Quote
>>>
   2. Do you think they should just leave the KJV alone?
<<<

Actually, they can't really do anything to the KJV, it is what it is. They can only create another version of it. Perhaps call it "The Latest, Newer, Most Recent, New, New King James Version." :)  But you can't stop people from altering the KJV if they wanted to, since it is in public domain with no owner nor anyone holding copyrights. So "people" can do whatever they want with it. Oddly enough (or maybe not) they've pretty much left it alone and concentrated on putting out other new versions, updates of other versions and producing versions from newer or older texts that have been found since the KJV was published. So besides the few changes from the 1611 and the introduction of the NKJV, it's "pretty much" been left alone. ...Thank God! However, restless and idle hands commonly bring mischief upon the head, without even being conscious of it. What I call common sense, they call an overreaction.



Quote
>>>
   3. Do you feel these updates of Bibles are based on need or greed?
<<<

Both. I think it's based on a "perceived need," whose niche will always be filled by people motivated by an ever-present greed. There really is no need or necessity for a new translation, as there weren't for any of the many modern versions that came before. But reasons are like excuses, justifications, explanations and pretexts--people can come up with one whenever they want to. Just as the world wants to jump on the latest Tattoo craze, latest dress styles, latest hair styles, latest car models, TV models etc. If you want it, you're going to find a reason to justify it. Truth be damned whether you "really" need it or not. That's why people want the latest Bible version touted and "perceived" to be better or more accurate. Or because they heard it comes from older manuscripts that people say are better (another well oiled myth). When in fact, all they're "really" doing is selfishly muddying the waters and causing confusion where there need not be any. ...Kinda Like Calvinists ;)



Quote
>>>
   4. Will you consider switching to a update or another version?
<<<

Not I. Any minute advantage I might receive from a "supposedly" better translation, would be wholely eclipsed by the drawbacks, difficulties, weaknesses, hindrance and detriment it would cause to the Church as a whole. The trick is recognizing this.

Romans 15:1-2
  • "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
  • Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification."

But like I said, the Church today is just as selfish as the world is. In fact, I really don't see much of a difference anymore. They're going to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, come hell or high water. They euphemistically call it, Christian Liberty.

Philippians 2:3
  • "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves
  • Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."

What's missing in the Church is a meek spirit, the humility of Christ to sacrifice, that they count others more significant than themselves.


Quote
>>>
   5. Have the changes and or differences in these Bibles improved them or the Church?
<<<
   

This one should be self evident. Just open your eyes and look around. Did you see the Church improving with any of these new versions? At all? I saw a steady decline myself. Did you see the Church gaining a much better understanding of the scriptures when these new versions were introduced? Truth? I sure didn't. So you tell me, what really was the profit (besides in the pockets of those producing them) of all the new versions? Sure, people claim to better understand, but the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding tastes exactly the same as it did before the new versions--if not worse. So say what they will, they didn't receive better understanding, a clearer grasp of the word, nor a better knowledge from these new versions. All they received was the spirit to say they did for appearance of advancement. In "truth", better understanding doesn't come from new versions.

Proverbs 18:15
  • "The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge."

Better knowledge of the scriptures isn't the product of newer translations and modern versions, it comes from the fruit of the Spirit. Seeking a new translation is actually contrary to seeking wisdom and knowledge (in my humble opinion). And yet, you will have Christians swear by these modern translations as if they have literally changed their lives, loosing them from the burdensome chain of the KJV. It's all a farce. There's nothing new to be gleaned in any of these modern versions.

My view? Some traditions are worth keeping. Weddings, Thanksgiving, ...The KJV.     


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"



Betty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2013, 07:03:17 AM »
Mr. Warren,
  It seems I spend all my time here trying to set you straight. With all due respect, you are really getting to be a stick in the mud. With your old fashioned attitude, you seem to prefer that we all dwell in the past and mot modernize. Do you prefer to allow things like a better knowledge of the texts and enjoyment of it to pass you by? Because that's what it sounds like. You remind me of the early settlers out west who didn't want the rail road to come through because they thought it would bring industry that would destroy their beauty. You can't stop progress. You either change with it, or get left behind.

"You are cut off from Christ, you who would have righteousness by the law; you are turned away from grace". Gal. 5:4

You just condemn everything. You don't want people who are emotionally abused to get divorced. You don't think fasting is of any worth. You don't think women qualified should hold the same positions as men in the Church. You want women to wear granny dresses. You don't want one Christian group to consort with other Christian groups, even though they both claim Christ. You condemn the Roman Catholic religion. You reject those who claim the power of the spirit to heal. You claim Christians shouldn't get tattoos. And now to top it off, you want everyone to use an antiquated book that is outdated and difficult to understand, and which all agree is absolutely foreign to people today. They cannot make out what it is saying, except with hours of explanation and instruction. Why would you support that?


"But no one puts a patch of new cloth on an old garment, for its filling up takes from the garment and a worse rent takes place." Matt. 9:16

That's why I say (with all due respect), you are a stick in the mud. You know, change is good. You can't remain in the middle ages forever. The time of enlightenment has come.

Apostolic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2013, 09:45:21 PM »
LOL! Good one Betty.  :laugh:  The KJV is hard to read. Besides, how many versions really are there?

yaboo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
  • I'm a Lamma
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2013, 11:40:36 PM »
But what's needed falls by the wayside when you have self-centered Christians who only look out for themselves. Who can resist the latest thing when told it is Improved, Older, Bigger, Newer, Enhanced, Super Charged, More Accurate, Superior, More Modern, More Understandable, etc., all under the proverbial umbrella of "something better."

Tony,
   Come on! Don't be so dramatic. There is no doubt in my mind that people can be saved through the BBE, NIV, The Living Bible or the Catholic Douay-Rheims. So that's not an issue. What is at issue is that the KJV is old fashioned, difficult to understand, outdated, uses archaic language and is downright antediluvian. Is it beautifully written, maybe. That's debatable. But what isn't is that, unless we still use the words didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore, it's time for a revision.



Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2013, 01:16:24 AM »
>>>
The KJV is hard to read.
<<<

Not true. But I do understand that some people love saying that. Anyone with a 4th grade educatiuon can read it. I'm assuming you meet that qualification.


Quote
>>>
Besides, how many versions really are there?
<<<

Only in English?

1. 1388 Wycliffe's Bible
2. 1516 William Tyndale's NT
3. 1535 Myles Cioverdale's Bible
4. 1537 Tyndale-Matthews Bible
5. 1539 The Great Bible
6. 1539 Taverner's Bible
7. 1560 The Geneva Bible
8. 1568 The Bishop's Bible
9. 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible (Roman Catholic)
10. 1611 KJV King James Version, also called King James Bible (KJB) or Authorized Version (AV)
11. 1752 Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible
12. 1764 Quaker Bible
13. 1808 Thomson's Translation Old Testament
14. 1830 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
15. 1833 Noah Webster's Bible
16. 1844 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (Also called "Inspired version of the Bible")
17. 1851 Brenton's English Translation of the Septuagint
18. 1862 YLT Young's Literal Translation
19. 1864 Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamn Wilson
20. 1876 Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
21. 1881 Sinai and Comparative NT by Edwin Leigh
22. 1885 ERV English Revised Version
23. 1885 DBY A New Translation - John Darby Bible
24. 1897 The New Dispensation
25. 1898 American Revised Version
26. 1898 The Woman's Bible
27. 1901 ASV American Standard Version
28. 1901 The Modern American Bible
29. 1902 Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
30. 1902 Twentieth Century NT
31. 1902 The Emphasized Bible
32. 1903 WEY The NT in Modern Speech
33. 1903 Ferrar Fenton Bible
34. 1904 The Corrected English NT
35. 1904 The NT Revised and Translated
36. 1904 WNT Worrell New Testament
37. 1909 The University NT
38. 1909 The Shorter Bible
39. 1909 The Bible in Modern English
40. 1909 CV Concordant Version
41. 1910 The Restored NT
42. 1912 The Holy Bible: An Improved Edition
43. 1913 The Literary Man's NT
44. 1914 The New Covenant
45. 1917 The Wisdom Books in Modern Speech
46. 1921 A Plain Translation of the NT
47. 1923 GSP The NT, An American Translation
48. 1924 Centenary Translation of the N.T.
49. 1924 The Older Children's Bible
50. 1924 The Everyday Bible
51. 1924 Centenary NT, by Helen Barrett Montgomery
52. 1926 The Western NT
53. 1926 MOF The Bible: A New Translation by James Moffatt
54. 1927 GSP Godspeed Version
55. 1931 The Complete Bible
56. 1933 Lamsa Lamsa Bible
57. 1935 AAT An American Translation
58. 1936 WVSS Westminster Bible
59. 1937 WIL The NT in the Language of the People
60. 1941 SCM Spencer NT Version
61. 1941 CFY Confraternity Bible
62. 1944 ASV American Standard Version
63. 1951 The Authentic Version
64. 1952 RSV Revised Standard Version
65. 1952 The Four Gospels by E. V. Rieu Penguin
66. 1955 The Clarified NT
67. 1955 Knox Knox's Translation of the Vulgate
68. 1955 The Authentic NT, by Hugh Schonfield
69. 1956 KLNT Kleist Lily New Testament
70. 1958 JBP The NT in Modern English
71. 1958 BV Berkeley Version
72. 1960 CKJV Children's King James Version
73. 1961 NWT New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses)
74. 1961 The Jesus People NT
75. 1961 The NT: An Expanded Translation
76. 1961 The Simplified NT, by Olaf M. Norlie
77. 1962 MKJV Modern King James Version
78. 1963 BCK Beck Bible
79. 1963 Judaica Press
80. 1965 AMP The Amplified Bible
81. 1965 BBE Bible in Basic English
82. 1966 RSV-CE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
83. 1966 JB Jerusalem Bible
84. 1966 TEV Today's English Version
85. 1968 The NT: a New Translation, by William Barclay
86. 1969 BWE Bible in Worldwide English
87. 1969 MLB Modern Language Bible (New Berkley Version)
88. 1970 NAB New American Bible
89. 1970 KJVII King James II Version
90. 1970 NEB New English Bible
91. 1971 NASB New American Standard Bible
92. 1971 TLB The Living Bible
93. 1971 TSB The Story Bible Language Edition
94. 1972 PHI The NT in Modern English
95. 1972 LivEng The Bible in Living English
96. 1973 CPV Cotton Patch Version
97. 1976 GNB Good New Bible
98. 1976 BECK An American Translation
99. 1977 The Four Gospels, by Norman Marrow
100. 1978 NIV New International Version
101. 1978 SEB Simple English Bible
102. 1980 SEV Simple English Version
103. 1980 The Distilled Bible
104. 1981 The Compact Bible
105. 1981 The Living Torah by Aryeh Kaplan
106. 1982 The Reader's Digest Bible
107. 1982 NKJV New King James Version
108. 1985 NJB New Jerusalem Bible
109. 1985 The Recovery Version
110. 1985 TNK Tanak: The Holy Scriptures
111. 1985 NJB New Jerusalem Bible
112. 1985 New Jewish Publication Society of America
113. 1985 The Original NT
114. 1986 English Version for the Deaf
115. 1986 ICB International Children's Bible
116. 1986 NLB New Life Bible
117. 1986 NLV New Life Version
118. 1986 CCB Christian Community Bible
119. 1987 Easy to Read Version
120. 1987 LIT A Literal Translation of the Bible
121. 1987 NCV New Century Version
122. 1988 New Evangelical Translation
123. 1988 Christian Community Bible
124. 1988 McCord's NT Translation of the Everlasting Gospel by Hugo McCord
125. 1989 ERV Easy-to-Read Version
126. 1989 God's New Covenant (Internet)
127. 1989 NRSV New Revised Standard Version
128. 1989 JNT Jewish NT
129. 1989 REB Revised English Bible
130. 1989 NRSVCE New Revised Standard Version
131. 1990 The New Translation
132. 1990 MKJV Modern King James Version
133. 1991 KJ21 21st Century King James Version
134. 1991 CEV Contemporary English Version
135. 1991 The Unvarnished New Testament
136. 1992 Alba House Gospels (Catholic Bible)
137. 1992 CWB Clear Word Bible
138. 1994 The Clear Word (SDA)
139. 1994 Leeser Bible Tanakh Old Testament
140. 1995 NASU New American Standard Updated
141. 1995 MSG The Message
142. 1995 The Schocken Bible Volume 1: The Five Books of Moses
143. 1996 GW God's Word
144. 1996 NIrV New International Reader's Version
145. 1996 NIVI New International Version Inclusive Language
146. 1996 The Living Nach
147. 1996 Stone Edition
148. 1996 The NT, by Richmond Lattimore
149. 1997 NLT The New Living Translation
150. 1998 NET The NET Bible (New English Translation)
151. 1998 CJB Complete Jewish Bible
152. 1999 AKJV American King James Version
153. 1999 RcV Recovery Version
154. 1999 TCE The Common Edition NT
155. 2000 KJV2000 King James 2000 Version
156. 2000 UKJV Updated King James Version
157. 2000 English Jubilee 2000 Bible
158. 2001 HSV Holy Scriptures Version
159. 2001 ESV English Standard Version
160. 2001 EEB EasyEnglish Bible
161. 2001 James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta
162. 2003 ISV International Standard Version
163. 2003 CKJV Comfort-able King James Version
164. 2003 NSB New Simplified Bible
165. 2003 TSB The Story Bible
166. 2003 TMB Third Millennium Bible
167. 2003 A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
168. 2004 HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
169. 2004 AB The Apostle's Bible
170. 2004 EEPB The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible
171. 2005 ACV A Conservative Version
172. 2005 ALT Analytical-Literal Translation
173. 2005 TNIV Today's New International Version
174. 2005 NCPB New Cambridge Paragraph Bible
175. 2005 NET New English Translation
176. 2005 CAB Complete Apostle's Bible
177. 2005 ACV A Conservative Version
178. 2006 WEB World English Bible
179. 2006 AV7 AV7 New Authorized Version
180. 2006 ARTB Ancient Roots Translinear Bible
181. 2007 RNKJV Restored Name King James Version
182. 2007 NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint
183. 2007 DRP David Robert Palmer Translation
184. 2007 MGB The Manga Bible
185. 2007 The Inclusive Bible
186. 2008 CPDV Catholic Public Domain Version
187. 2008 MASV Modern American Standard Version
188. 2008 TFB The Free Bible
189. 2008 TEB Transparent English Bible
190. 2008 The Orthodox Study Bible
191. 2008 The Voice - New Testament
192. 2009 CPDV Catholic Public Domain Version
193. 2009 The Literary Bible - Old Testament
194. 2010 WGCIG Work of God Children Illustrated Bible
195. 2011 EOB Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible
196. 2011 LOLCAT LOLCat Bible
197. 2011 The Kingdom New Testament
198. 2011 NABRE New American Bible Revised Edition
199. 2011 CEV Common English Version
200. 2011 NEV New European Version
201. 2012 MLV Modern Literal Version


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2013, 01:27:30 AM »
>>>
Tony,
   Come on! Don't be so dramatic.
<<<

Dramatic huh?  Well ya can't please everyone.


Quote
>>>
There is no doubt in my mind that people can be saved through the BBE, NIV, The Living Bible or the Catholic Douay-Rheims. So that's not an issue.
<<<

Actually it is an issue. Maybe not to you, but to me it is. There is no doubt in my mind that people can be saved standing in a mosque, at a Benny Hinn revival, in the confession booth of a Roman Catholic Church or at a Wiccan pagan festival, but what has that got to do with the propriety or appropriateness of the act itself? How one can be saved is most certainly "not" the issue, the issue is what is the attentive, sound, correct, thoughtful and selfless thing for Christians to do. Not for themselves, but for the Church.

James 2:8
  • "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:"

It seems denial and self sacrifice has also fallen by the wayside in our zeal for modernization and Christian liberty.


Quote
>>>
What is at issue is that the KJV is old fashioned, difficult to understand, outdated, uses archaic language and is downright antediluvian.
<<<

Antediluvian? There's nothing primitive or backward about the KJV of the Bible. And I'm sure it seems to you we belong to an earlier period or different time in holding to this book. And maybe we do. If by that you mean that period when Christians knew progress doesn't mean forsaking the narrow way for modernism or selfish narcicism. You call that old fashioned. The dictionary defines "Old Fashioned" this way:
  • favoring styles, methods or ideas no longer curent;
  • Attached to traditional or conservative ideas or customs;
  • holding to a way of thinking prevalent in former times:]/li]
That pretty much sums up the faithful Christian in our day, holding to ideas and laws and  traditions that are no longer in vogue, accepted or popular. Nevertheless, we cling to them not because they are old, but because they are what's pleasing to God.

As for difficult to understand? Did you finish high school? If you did, then I'm sure you have no trouble understanding 99.9 percent of the words of the KJV. Even the old ones. And those "few" you might, if you don't use a dictionary, search or concordance, you aren't studying to understand the Bible anyway.

Proverbs 22:6
  • "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

You're a grown man and you're whining about understanding? Kids 6 years old to 12 read and understand the KJV of the Bible. The truth is, this "I can't understand the KJV" of the Bible "excuse" is a myth or worse. It would be more honest to just say I like the new translations, rather than feign bewilderment by KJV wording.


Quote
>>>
 Is it beautifully written, maybe. That's debatable.
<<<

..not in my house it's not :)


Quote
>>>
But what isn't is that, unless we still use the words didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore, it's time for a revision.
<<<

Didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore? You can't understand those words? You're joking, right? I thought you were going to give me one of the few difficult words like Concupiscence or unicorn. With the "didst, ye, slew, henceforth, thou and wherefore," you illustrate vividly what I've said all along. Namely, it's not really a question of understanding at all, but one of modernization. Wherefore doth thou then say ye can't understand these type words. No, you just don't like the styling.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2013, 06:23:58 AM »

What about Unicorn?

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]