Replies

"I believe the Authorised Version perserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors".

I guess he did not get a copy of that letter that was placed in the front of the 1611, a warning to the readers that there was discourse - argument regarding what words to use in the translation.

Reason that when one uses the King James version one needs (Strongs) to look up the words from the original languages to see that man choose what words to use in their translation.

Reason why we are told what would happen to those who would add or take away from the Written Word.

"I believe the Authorised Version perserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors". I guess he did not get a copy of that letter that was placed in the front of the 1611, a warning to the readers that there was discourse - argument regarding what words to use in the translation.

The King James translators themselves did not know that their translation would be the last English one that God would use.

Reason that when one uses the King James version one needs (Strongs) to look up the words from the original languages to see that man choose what words to use in their translation.

Strongs is not giving all the definitions of the Greek/Hebrew words used.

One has to understand the context and subtle nuances of a language before one can make language decisions.

That is why Tyndale coined english words such as 'passover' and 'shewbread'.

Going to Strongs to decide on what the Greek is, is like a foreign speaking individual going to Websters to 'correct' Shakespeare.

Reason why we are told what would happen to those who would add or take away from the Written Word.

The King James gives you the exact words that God wants you to have.

I read 4 translations: The New American Standard (NASB)and The King James (KJV) for "word for word" translation. Then I read The Amplified Bible to get all the various definitions to passage. Last, I read the New International Version (NIV) for the writer's thought...that is what the thought trying to be conveyed in writer's day to what it would translate to us today. What a writer saw, heard or experienced 2 thousand years ago would be described differently by us today.

LINK TO BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

I am a King James Firster, but not a King James ONLY type.

I do believe it is the best English Translation, in whole, but there are some versions that translate individual words in a more modern way, such a THOU SHALT NOT KILL in the KJV reads THOU SHALT NOT MURDER, which is a more modern way to say the command.

All that being said, to have several different English Versions and all this supposedly 'authoritative ' dialogue makes people wonder whether we have the Word OF God in our own language.

We do, and it was always there in the King James, even through it's series of corrections up until 1769 I think it was, and even in 1611 when it contained the Apocrapha, which was rightly taken out later, are not the original 1611 text.

I am against all these new versions for that alone. It is not that one is better or more modern, it is that these new versions create confusion and doubt, when all along, the KJV has been a blessed version of the Bible in English, and if a person learns to read, and buys a dictionary for the harder words, it is just fine. While there will eventually come a day for a newer word to convey an ancient meaning, there is no need for any new English Translation.