My First Bible was KJV!

[rockytopva]

My first bible was an Open Bible KJV presented to me by the First Freewill Baptist Church after spending a year with them teaching Sunday School while I was going to college. I read that bible until the cover fell off and I had to buy another bible. Which was another KJV Open Bible! Oh to go back in time! I would love to spend a Sunday evening service with them while they had the Footwashing-Communion service!

 

[Aussie Pete]

My first bible was an Open Bible KJV presented to me by the First Freewill Baptist Church after spending a year with them teaching Sunday School while I was going to college. I read that bible until the cover fell off and I had to buy another bible. Which was another KJV Open Bible! Oh to go back in time! I would love to spend a Sunday evening service with them while they had the Footwashing-Communion service!

So was mine. I could not make any sense of it so I bought an RSV. Then a Berkley, an NEB, Good News and eventually an NASB. Now I have the Amplified, NASB and Bible Hub. And even better, the Holy Spirit to teach me what it means, not just what it says.

 

[pescador]

My first Bible was the Living Bible, but when I became a Christian I used the King James (as did everyone else in that Pentecostal church). I remember well the day that I discovered the New International Version (NIV) very soon after it was published. I was thrilled to finally have a good translation in the English that I used every day. I still have both the New Testament and the complete NIV that I bought more than 40 years ago! My favorite translation now is the NET (v. 2.1). It has over 60,000 translators' notes explaining why certain parts are translated from the source languages the way they are as well as comments on the social and historical context.

One of the serious flaws of the KJV is the chopping up the text into separate pieces; the source documents have no chapters and verses, so the flow of the narrative (including the poetry) is badly distorted. Even when people post parts they have extracted from the text they include these numbers and divisions which are not part of scripture.

Hebrews 4:14-16 (NET), "Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help."

Hebrews 4:14-16 (KJV)

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

 

[1watchman]

I was saved in 1953 through help of the Authorized King James Bible and have been studying it ever since. I have begun using the Scofield KJV Study Bible for about fifty years now (which I value), and which holds to the original KJV wording; and adds much good help in footnotes and commentaries for understanding better meanings of words used in the Authorized KJV, which I find consistent with all our Bible. It shows the intent of God compared to all that is rendered in the whole of God's Word. It also adds helps in application of verses to our present day, and study of meanings expressed in older writings; all this without changing words to modern expressions (which I think has caused many new Bible renderings coming out every year with modern expressions, to sometimes loose God's over-all thoughts for us. Over simplifying our Bible is a danger of losing the meanings God intended, I see. This is just another view here of our God's message to mankind.

I will just add that the Numbers given for the chapters and verses is of great value to serious Bible students to compare, make references, and also direct others to sources of ministry for their good too. One can find this Scofield edition at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL - USA ---and perhaps in other sound Bible distributors.

 

[pescador]

I was saved in 1953 through help of the Authorized King James Bible and have been studying it ever since. I have begun using the Scofield KJV Study Bible for about fifty years now (which I value), and which holds to the original KJV wording; and adds much good help in footnotes and commentaries for understanding better meanings of words used in the Authorized KJV, which I find consistent with all our Bible. It shows the intent of God compared to all that is rendered in the whole of God's Word. It also adds helps in application of verses to our present day, and study of meanings expressed in older writings; all this without changing words to modern expressions (which I think has caused many new Bible renderings coming out every year with modern expressions, to sometimes loose God's over-all thoughts for us. Over simplifying our Bible is a danger of losing the meanings God intended, I see. This is just another view here of our God's message to mankind.

I will just add that the Numbers given for the chapters and verses is of great value to serious Bible students to compare, make references, and also direct others to sources of ministry for their good too. One can find this Scofield edition at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL - USA ---and perhaps in other sound Bible distributors.

You wrote: all this without changing words to modern expressions (which I think has caused many new Bible renderings coming out every year with modern expressions, to sometimes loose God's over-all thoughts for us).

As I'm sure you're aware (but perhaps not), when the books of the Bible were written, they were written in the languages that most people spoke and/or understood. English Bibles are all translations of ancient texts into our language. Nobody on the planet speaks/reads/writes in the Englyshe of the early 17th Century. Even the 1611 Authorized Version, a.k.a., the King James Bible, was not the first English Bible, nor the last. It has been altered, amended, and republished, many times.

You also wrote: I will just add that the Numbers given for the chapters and verses is of great value to serious Bible students to compare, make references, and also direct others to sources of ministry for their good too. Of course you realize that chapters and verses are not only not part of the original Bible -- they were added centuries later -- but chopping up the writings into separate chapters and verses destroys the literary qualities of the works themselves. Suppose I quoted you as writing...

1) I will just add that
2) the Numbers given for the chapters and verses
3) is of great value to serious Bible students to compare,
4) make references, and also direct others to sources of ministry
5) for their good too.

You would object to my "translation" of your sentence, yet you accept this kind of editing of God's Word. Why?

 

[1watchman]

Dear Pescador, my response is that this good added feature of the Chapters, Sources, etc. by the Bible printers, helps researchers of Bible to find verses and to guide seekers to sources. It is NOT any detraction of the wording God has given (which many new version are doing by actually changing God's thoughts (words) to modern language and thus often losing the full meaning. This is causing new Bible students to misread the meaning God is showing us; thus we hear all manner of ideas about what God is saying by readers using these poor Bible renderings ---sadly confusing some new readers, and surely not making God pleased about that. I hope you will visit the Scofield KJV Study Bible and see the helps there

Your example, friend, is also missing the point of my post by showing my full sentences being separated, which I never suggested if you read what I was saying ---I suppose others understood me. Let us just go in peace, for I do not wish to debate picky ideas by 'pesky doors'. Look up always!

 

[LionOfPatmos]

The King James is a good resource, and probably one of the best we have out of the most commonly venerated translations. Although, like any other popular translation, it is rife with errors. Some of these errors are fatal, and can lead to vast misunderstandings for those who possess only rudimentary knowledge of the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. An example of one of these severe mistranslations is of the Greek word genos in the NT, which is often incorrectly translated as generation; κόσμος was also incorrectly translated as world in John 3:16.

Despite these shortcomings, when coupled with a learned mind and useful lexicons such as a Strong's Concordance, the KJV remains an exemplary resource for those who have a mind capable of dividing truth from error. To this day, the KJV is still my translation of choice for Old Testament texts.

 

[pescador]

Dear Pescador, my response is that this good added feature of the Chapters, Sources, etc. by the Bible printers, helps researchers of Bible to find verses and to guide seekers to sources. It is NOT any detraction of the wording God has given (which many new version are doing by actually changing God's thoughts (words) to modern language and thus often losing the full meaning. This is causing new Bible students to misread the meaning God is showing us; thus we hear all manner of ideas about what God is saying by readers using these poor Bible renderings ---sadly confusing some new readers, and surely not making God pleased about that. I hope you will visit the Scofield KJV Study Bible and see the helps there

Your example, friend, is also missing the point of my post by showing my full sentences being separated, which I never suggested if you read what I was saying ---I suppose others understood me. Let us just go in peace, for I do not wish to debate picky ideas by 'pesky doors'. Look up always!

It always baffles me that you and others consider the King James translation as the Word of God. It isn't; it's a 409-year-old translation into a language that nobody, anywhere, uses today.

The chapter and verse divisions are not part of the Bible text; they were added many centuries later. The originals had no such divisions, which is why accurate Bibles separate the text into the natural grammatic divisions. They divide the Bible artificially.

Your idea that modern language loses the full meaning is preposterous. God did not write the King James Bible!!

When I first became a Christian I used the King James translation. When I discovered the newly-published NIV, God opened up the Scriptures to me in a way that the KJV never did. BTW, my preferred translation now is the NET, v 2.1.

May I suggest that you open your mind to the messages of the Bible and stop worshiping a particular book?

 

[1watchman]

I surely DON'T worship a book, as you charge me, friend; but I am very sure and confident over my many years of Bible study, in what I stated about the Bible and other bible-type books. The Authorized KJV (and especially with what the Scofield KJV Study Bible reveals) is honorable before our God I am VERY sure. The KJV has been studied by scholars over 300-400 years and what we have in helpful studies as shown in the Scofield book stated, will show an earnest seeker its worth; for it holds and explains clearly what God has shown us in His Word as our Authorized KJV has held forth ---not including here the so-called New KJV book ---which is also a modern failure.

Man's efforts to keep simplifying God's wordings for modern worldly ideas, is not at all a good thing. Go in peace!

 

[pescador]

I surely DON'T worship a book, as you charge me, friend; but I am very sure and confident over my many years of Bible study, in what I stated about the Bible and other bible-type books. The Authorized KJV (and especially with what the Scofield KJV Study Bible reveals) is honorable before our God I am VERY sure. The KJV has been studied by scholars over 300-400 years and what we have in helpful studies as shown in the Scofield book stated, will show an earnest seeker its worth; for it holds and explains clearly what God has shown us in His Word as our Authorized KJV has held forth ---not including here the so-called New KJV book ---which is also a modern failure.

Man's efforts to keep simplifying God's wordings for modern worldly ideas, is not at all a good thing. Go in peace!

Obviously you don't know much about the origins of the King James Bible. It was translated 409 years ago into the common Englyshe of that time into a language that even the lowest "plowboy" would be able to read. It followed a number of earlier translations and, as they said in their lengthy preface, it was not meant to be the original or final rendition of the Word of God.

If the meaning of the KJV text is so clear, why do you rely on the Scofield "helpful studies"? Does God need an interpreter? Do you really think that He wants only those who rely on the notes of others to understand what the Bible books say?

The "books" of the Bible were originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The latter was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus and Paul; it was written in plain language so that it could be understood by as many people as possible. That was the intent then, was the intent in 1611, and should be the intent now.

BTW, I notice that you don't write your posts in early 17th Century English. Why not?

 

[1watchman]

Obviously you don't know much about the origins of the King James Bible. It was translated 409 years ago into the common Englyshe of that time into a language that even the lowest "plowboy" would be able to read. It followed a number of earlier translations and, as they said in their lengthy preface, it was not meant to be the original or final rendition of the Word of God.

If the meaning of the KJV text is so clear, why do you rely on the Scofield "helpful studies"? Does God need an interpreter? Do you really think that He wants only those who rely on the notes of others to understand what the Bible books say?

The "books" of the Bible were originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The latter was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus and Paul; it was written in plain language so that it could be understood by as many people as possible. That was the intent then, was the intent in 1611, and should be the intent now.

BTW, I notice that you don't write your posts in early 17th Century English. Why not?

You obviously are unable to understand what I have shared. I remember the saying: 'a mind persuaded against its will is of the same opinion still' so I will just leave you to your erroneous conclusions, friend!

 

[pescador]

You obviously are unable to understand what I have shared. I remember the saying: 'a mind persuaded against its will is of the same opinion still' so I will just leave you to your erroneous conclusions, friend!

Sorry, but what I wrote is 100% accurate. Thank you for leaving.

 

[splish- splash]

A certain preacher would always say funny things like, " Christians who keep their bibles looking all nice and tidy, aren't searching the scriptures in spirit and in truth. But those who are serious about their salvation, can be easily seen, by the way they leave their bibles in absolute tatters, by the time they will have finished reading through".

I think my first bible, was a good news bible.

 

[pescador]

A certain preacher would always say funny things like, " Christians who keep their bibles looking all nice and tidy, aren't searching the scriptures in spirit and in truth. But those who are serious about their salvation, can be easily seen, by the way they leave their bibles in absolute tatters, by the time they will have finished reading through".

I think my first bible, was a good news bible.

Mine was the Living Bible (1977).