I'm sorry my friend but the old KVJ I will remain using. Many modern day religious translators have attempted to interpret the Bible, instead of merely translating it. Therefore, when they translate the Bible they add, change or delete certain words to make it confirm to their religious doctrine. God was aware that this would happen and had John write, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19). At the end of the day english is english. I don't speak english correct, but I have understanding of the word of God, and that comes from God. Not the book. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (proverbs 3:5)
You wrote, "Many modern day religious translators have attempted to interpret the Bible, instead of merely translating it. Therefore, when they translate the Bible they add, change or delete certain words to make it confirm to their religious doctrine." And you think that this criticism doesn't apply to the King James version? Let me explain a few things to you...
1) The King James Bible didn't merely translate the Bible (whatever that means!). There were earlier English translations that they relied upon, as well as a
limited number of early texts.
It is impossible to create a "word-for-word" translation from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. There are words that can have multiple meanings depending on context, verb tenses that have no precise English equivalent, and idioms that have no precise equivalent in English. For example, "It's blowing like hell, so I expect that soon it will be raining cats and dogs". Most modern English speakers understand this perfectly, but it would seem to be insanity to a non-English speaker.
2) Translators throughout history, including the scribes of days gone by, added their own parts to the Bible and deleted others, made copying errors, and in general did what fallible human beings do.
The King James Bible is not a word-for-word translation, nor is any Bible. Parts were added and subtracted over the many centuries. For example, Romans 8:1 In the King James it says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The last part of the verse was
added to the text; it doesn't appear in
any of the earliest sources. Modern Bibles have correctly written this verse as "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (without the condition added).
3) Now I want to be as kind and gentle as possible when I write this... Judging by your post you are not very well versed in the modern English language. You wrote, "I don't speak english correct, but I have understanding of the word of God, and that comes from God. Not the book." How can you have an understanding of the Word of God using a translation into a form of English that nobody has used as their primary language for
centuries? Even people that are well-versed in English mistranslate the King James in their minds, making it say
what they want it to say. As my "signature" explains, "
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it."
Luke 14:7-11 (KJV):
7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them.
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Would you please explain to me what this parable is actually saying? Here is something that will help you...
"When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Luke 14:7-11 (NIV)
I know that some say that the KJV is the only true English translation, but there is no sound basis for saying that. It feels "religious" but nothing substantiates that theory. At the end of the day -- idiom! -- 17th Century English is
not the equivalent of modern English. English, like every other language, changes over time. Many aspects of English have changed over the centuries so, as my example above shows, we no longer think/read/write in early 17th Century Englyshe. As shown above, that includes you, for thou doest not write in thy post using the Englyshe of scores, nay eons, of days of yore.
"Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord and shun evil" Proverbs 3:7