[tommix2]

I'm not familiar with Strong’s and Young’s Hebrew and Greek concordances but in the synagogue we use the Jewish Publication Society 1917 english translation which is very similar to the King James version and of course we constantly study and refer back to the Hebrew Tanach. I agree, the King James version is quite superior to any of the modern translations and it is kind of insulting to the reader to assume he is too stupid to understand the beautiful language of the King James translation. I understand there is a more recent JPS translation than the 1917 translation but it too is quite close to the King James translation. I don't think the Jewish Publication Society will ever be so foolish as to publish a translation similar to these ridiculous modern PC translations. They know we aren't stupid.

By the way I learned the other day how the verses and chapters in the King James version got numbered. They are numbered the same way in the KJV and the JPS translations, so you don't even notice as you go from one to the other. It was the Christians who long ago went through the King James translation and numbered the verses and divided it into chapters and the Jews numbered their copies the same way so they could refer to the verses by number in their discussions. There sre no punctuation marks in Hebrew so they had to add them to the english.

I think we will keep using the King James translation for a long time and these ridiculous new translations will die out.

The Catholics have other translation like the Vulgate in Latin but I'm not familiar with them.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

the chapters and verses were set 300 years before the KJV Bible was translated by an English Catholic Archbishop, Stephen Langton.

[Salvation]

**The Catholics have other translation like the Vulgate in Latin but I’m not familiar with them.**

You’re missing them because they are published every day by annalex on the Daily Readings threads. Stop by someday and read them.