KJV only Question

[now faith]

KJVO is a false teaching like any other false teaching. If you like it then read it, but at your age I have no idea why you would. The most modern English translation are the NIV(2011) and the ISV(2012). Then there is the HCSB(2009) and the NetBible(2006). These are all reliable and correct some glaring issues ion the language of the KJV. I say some because the KJV did not have a lot of errors.

50 years from now I wonder what will be the best translation?

 

[stan1953]

Im not king James only i do use it because I like and love it I do consult other translations at times and personally I like the NKJV and use it half the time. I don't know what it is exactly but i feel pulled to the KJV and NKJV. I do love them both but other version are ok aswell.( except the JW bible and Mormon bible) I do consult the NiV too.

You missed the left bracket when you quoted my post so you may want to edit that.

 

[stan1953]

50 years from now I wonder what will be the best translation?

Who knows, but I pray it will accurately reflect the English of that day.

 

[1watchman]

Certainly we should want to understand the various dispensations, Progmonk, --even as Eph. 3:1-7, which is the present dispensation we are in --the sixth, then one more before the end of time. Its a very revealing study if one is interested in learning.

 

[Keachian]

Certainly we should want to understand the various dispensations, Progmonk, --even as Eph. 3:1-7, which is the present dispensation we are in --the sixth, then one more before the end of time. Its a very revealing study if one is interested in learning.

My point was that Dispensationalism is not found in the Bible so why get a Bible with notes that add it?

 

[standingtall]

Its a very revealing study if one is interested in learning.

Learn it? I've spent many years trying to un-learn it and stop trying to relate all of the world's many problems to end-time events.

 

[Hentenza]

My point was that Dispensationalism is not found in the Bible so why get a Bible with notes that add it?

I could argue that it is but this would derail the thread.

 

[WannaWitness]

can you hold to King James onlyism without being legalistic? most of who that are KJVO give the impression to me that they are legalist.I am not kjv only yet, but i am studying textual criticism and stuff from both sides and the middle, right now im byzantine priority with sympathies for the TR. but when i get older my views may change.

I think it all depends on attitude. I am not KJVO, but know some people who are, each with different attitudes about their convictions. In my experience, I have found, believe it or not, a few who more or less stick to the King James (and won't even touch other translations) simply for the sake of "tradition" (for lack of better terms), tending toward more old school convictions, not only on this, but on a variety of other issues. Believe it or not, I do not find such people to be legalistic. It is possible for people to have a conviction on anything while keeping a humble heart and viewing it as nothing more than what it is: a personal conviction. However (yes, a big HOWEVER comes into play), there are many who not only are firmly convicted to read and study only from the King James translation, but view others who disagree in the slightest as no better than heathens! Now this, in my opinion, is legalism... and I know my share of these types, as well.

It's not that I don't understand that people can have honest convictions regarding one thing or another (Bible version choices, what is considered modest clothing, what kinds of music are okay for a Christian to listen to, and so on). We just need to take care that we are trying to stay humble in whatever conviction we may honestly have. This is where Romans 14 comes in. Verse 1 speaks of "doubtful things", then uses eating meat and observing certain days as an example. One who does not eat meat or observe a given day should not condemn the one who does, while those who do should still respect those who do not. And yes, other issues over which convictions and opinions can differ can be applied here. Christians should be able to agree to disagree, despite their differing convictions.

I don't wish to debate, or anything; this is just my two cents.

 

[preacherinblack]

I think it all depends on attitude. I am not KJVO, but know some people who are, each with different attitudes about their convictions. In my experience, I have found, believe it or not, a few who more or less stick to the King James (and won't even touch other translations) simply for the sake of "tradition" (for lack of better terms), tending toward more old school convictions, not only on this, but on a variety of other issues. Believe it or not, I do not find such people to be legalistic. It is possible for people to have a conviction on anything while keeping a humble heart and viewing it as nothing more than what it is: a personal conviction. However (yes, a big HOWEVER comes into play), there are many who not only are firmly convicted to read and study only from the King James translation, but view others who disagree in the slightest as no better than heathens! Now this, in my opinion, is legalism... and I know my share of these types, as well.

It's not that I don't understand that people can have honest convictions regarding one thing or another (Bible version choices, what is considered modest clothing, what kinds of music are okay for a Christian to listen to, and so on). We just need to take care that we are trying to stay humble in whatever conviction we may honestly have. This is where Romans 14 comes in. Verse 1 speaks of "doubtful things", then uses eating meat and observing certain days as an example. One who does not eat meat or observe a given day should not condemn the one who does, while those who do should still respect those who do not. And yes, other issues over which convictions and opinions can differ can be applied here. Christians should be able to agree to disagree, despite their differing convictions.

I don't wish to debate, or anything; this is just my two cents.

thanks i like this answer i agree

 

[WannaWitness]

thanks i like this answer i agree

Thanks.

 

[now faith]

My point was that Dispensationalism is not found in the Bible so why get a Bible with notes that add it?

 

[JacobLaw]

 

[JacobLaw]

50 years from now I wonder what will be the best translation?

 

[JGiddings]

"The New, Improved, Totally Awesome Sauce" NIV Study Bible translation.

 

[New Legacy]

I use the KJV most of the time because it is the most accurate English Version although I'm not KJOnly.

What is your basis for this claim?

I have gotten used to middle English which btw is closer to the Greek/Hebrew then modern English because of the these and thous. Easier to differentiate singular and plural words at least. Also it is easier to use my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and when I read Hamlet I didn't have as hard a time as I would have had otherwise.

I am not sure what you mean here. Middle English has a formal form for second person (thee/thou), which Greek does not.

 

[Hentenza]

The KJV is not written in middle English but in modern English. An example of middle English would be the works of Chaucer, like "Canterbury Tales." Anthologies of works written in middle English usually fall between 1300 and 1485.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

50 years from now I wonder what will be the best translation?

In English? Probably the King James. Probably...

 

[stan1953]

The KJV is not written in middle English but in modern English. An example of middle English would be the works of Chaucer, like "Canterbury Tales." Anthologies of works written in middle English usually fall between 1300 and 1485.

Agreed...it IS in Elizabethan English, which does not have the exact same connotations as today, but it is considered modern English or more precisely Early Modern English.

 

[random person]

Does The NIV & NKJV Have A Pro-Gay Bias?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7809619/#post65163593

 

[Hentenza]

Does The NIV & NKJV Have A Pro-Gay Bias?

No. I'm not sure how your query follows since the Hebrew word קָדֵ֖שׁ can be translated as cult prostitute or temple prostitute as well as sodomite. You might want to do a historical context study on the customs and manners of pagan cults during the time that Deuteronomy and other early books of the OT were written.