KJV haters

[Goodbook]

I've noticed a lot of Bible versions are just revised and updated versions of the KJV.
I think they are ok if you really can't get your tongue around the suffixes, its still true to the wording and syntax of scripture, I can follow along.

But other translations can be confusing, like they will word scripture in a way that loses the meaning of the original. eg NLT which paraphrases and takes more words to say things than the KJV would.

Also, I remember the bible talking about the jots and tittles of scripture, 'Jots and tittles' are like crossing your t's and dotting your i's in the english idiom. That scripture's words are precious, pure and refined seven times. So it's not just the book of Revelation that shouldn't be added to or taken away.

 

[DawnStar]

Also, I remember the bible talking about the jots and tittles of scripture, 'Jots and tittles' are like crossing your t's and dotting your i's in the english idiom. That scripture's words are precious, pure and refined seven times. So it's not just the book of Revelation that shouldn't be added to or taken away.

That statement is a definite misapplication of the scripture verse you are referring to.

 

[ReformedJen]

I understand what your saying. I was taught that the KJV was the original and truest version of God's word. you can tell it is when you compare it to the other versions, they actually change what God said to fit their own needs and warp his words and that angers me. it angers me that people think that KJV is annoying because of old english when they need to be worried about how the other versions say things that arent true.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

[…] But other translations can be confusing, like they will word scripture in a way that loses the meaning of the original. eg NLT which paraphrases and takes more words to say things than the KJV would. […]

In order to claim that the KJV is the only Bible that should be used, you have to point out the problems with all the other translations — not just the NLT. You need to explain to me what is the problem with the NIV, the ESV, the NASB and the AMP. You also need to explain the problems with all the versions of other languages (namely, Portuguese, Spanish and French, the ones I can read), if you really believe that the KJV is the only inspired version ever.

ADDENDUM (forgot to write it earlier): In defence of the NLT, bear in mind that every translation has its own purpose. There is nothing wrong with creating a version that is essentially a paraphrase. Surely, there is the risk that there will be misinterpretations. However, so long as one is aware of the potential risks of reading such versions, and so long as one is aware that the main versions to be used are the more literal ones, there is no problem.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I understand what your saying. I was taught that the KJV was the original and truest version of God's word. you can tell it is when you compare it to the other versions, they actually change what God said to fit their own needs and warp his words and that angers me. it angers me that people think that KJV is annoying because of old english when they need to be worried about how the other versions say things that arent true.

Please provide such examples of versions that ‘change what God said […] and warp his words’. Then, prove that it is the KJV that is the version faithful to what God said and the others are changing it, and that it is not the other way round.

 

[Goodbook]

It doesn't anger me so much as saddens me that people will diss the KJV. Its like, they don't know what they are missing.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

It doesn't anger me so much as saddens me that people will diss the KJV. Its like, they don't know what they are missing.

It doesn't anger me so much as saddens me that people will dis the NIV. It's like, they don't know what they are missing.

 

[Albion]

What are they missing? It certainly doesn't have the beauty or familiarity of the KJV. It's almost homely.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

What are they missing? It certainly doesn't have the beauty or familiarity of the KJV. It's almost homely.

In my humble opinion, the NIV has a lot of beauty and clarity to it. I love it for these and other reasons. However, I accept that anyone would prefer another version. What I do not accept is that someone will say, ‘The KJV is the only version that should be read.’

My point, however, with the previous post, was to show Goodbook that I could say the exact same thing about the NIV as she said about the KJV — and, then, who is right?

 

[Albion]

My point, however, with the previous post, was to show Goodbook that I could say the exact same thing about the NIV as she said about the KJV — and, then, who is right?

Since you put it that way, she is.

We could give the NIV its due and say that it's clear and reads easily, but after all is said and done, we'd still be comparing Shakespeare to an ordinary novel.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm still chuckling about how people tout the KJV hasn't been changed but other versions have yet there is different versions of the KJV which... must by definition have changes in them which pretty much invalidates the claims made about changes.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Since you put it that way, she is.

We could give the NIV its due and say that it's clear and reads easily, but after all is said and done, we'd still be comparing Shakespeare to an ordinary novel.

And that is your opinion.

 

[Goodbook]

I think KJV has pretty much remained standard I mean I have copies that are older than others but they are the same. You would definitely know if another version is completely different as the wording has changed.

I think people are getting hung up on cosmetic differences. Like spelling. Hebrew and Greek don't have the range of spellings that english has, and their alphabet is different.

For example, Rahab and Rachab, Jeremiah and Jeremy, are referring to the same people in the Bible, but the spellings are slightly different from OT to NT.

 

[Albion]

And that is your opinion.

You betcha.

 

[mikedsjr]

It doesn't anger me so much as saddens me that people will diss the KJV. Its like, they don't know what they are missing.

*edited punctuation*
Are you in agreement with Kent Hovind the KJV is God "manuscript" written in English?
Must the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts be read in light of the KJV?

 

[Albion]

Are you in agreement with Kent Hovind the KJV is God "manuscript" written in English and Greek or Hebrew manuscripts must be read in light of the KJV?

That POV has certainly not been the issue here. Rather, it's a matter of weighing the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of the KJV against the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of the newer translations.

 

[mikedsjr]

That POV has certainly not been the issue here. Rather, it's a matter of weighing the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of the KJV against the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of the newer translations.

I don't care if that is what has been weighed? I'm asking a very direct question.

 

[Albion]

I don't care if that is what has been weighed? I'm asking a very direct question.

Sure, but goodbook already gave her reasons for favoring the KJV.

 

[mikedsjr]

Sure, but goodbook already gave her reasons for favoring the KJV.

And I asked a direct question she can say yes or no or however she wishes to respond.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I understand what your saying. I was taught that the KJV was the original and truest version of God's word. you can tell it is when you compare it to the other versions, they actually change what God said to fit their own needs and warp his words and that angers me. it angers me that people think that KJV is annoying because of old english when they need to be worried about how the other versions say things that arent true.

It's a great version; not the only one; but pretty reliable. I've used it for years.