Is the KJV inferior to you?

Not superioroty, but not inferiority either. The 1611 KJV was one of many good translations, and later KJVs continue to be good translations. There is no single English Bible version superior to all other English Bible versions in every way.

Askjo, just which of the KJVs is it that you think is the superior edition? Why is that particular KJV edition superior to other KJV editions? Since there are differences in the various KJV editions then surely you must be able to tell us just which of those editions is superior and which other KJV editions are inferior...

:tonofbricks: :sleep:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mexdeaf
The RV1960 superiority !!! That is why I only use the RV1960.

Askjo:The KJV superiority !!! That is why I only use the KJV.

SORRY, THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER.

 

Let's set the record straight. In my experience, when skeptics disparage the Bible, its against any and every Bible (I recognize that the Islamics and atheists do like to pick on some of the pecularities of the KJV language). I have never heard of a particular conspiracy to stamp out only the KJV text.

Many complete Bibles and New Testaments versions have been burned (with some of their translators, too). But when was the KJV burned specifically because it was the KJV? Also, I am unaware that any of the king's revisors were ever persecuted (rather they seem to have been well honored).

Bibles have been banned, but where was the KJV explicitly banned and others not? Where have men fled because they used the KJV, that they would not have been forsed to run for their lives if they had carried another version?

Yes, God has had His hand on His scriptures for about 3000 years. Of course He was as involved with Moses, the Masorite scribes, and Tyndale as He was with the KJV.

 

Well, please explain why RVI1960 added, omitted and changed any words in the NT alone almost 200 times.

 

Are the others as old as the KJV?

 

Since Spanish is not your language and you are just quoting what others have said you don't need to bother yourself over it.

 

RVI1960 followed these wrong texts. Likewise modern versions.

 

Some are far older than the KJV, such as the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Armenian, the Coptic, and the Georgian, and Luther's German translations, to name a few 'non-English' versions, and all are, I believe, translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic (Chaldee), and Greek.

And the Anglo-Saxon versions, Wyclif's, Coverdale's, Bishop's, Geneva, and Tyndale's English versions, among others, are also all older, and some much older than the KJV, as well. Wyclif dates back to the early 1300s. The Anglo-Saxon versions date to well before 1000.

The Masoretes date to between the 7th and 11th Centuries.

Tyndale's dates to 1525 for the NT and 1536 for the OT which Tyndale translated but never lived to see published as he was betrayed and burned at the stake as a heretic in 1536, and the Bible was posthumously published as "Matthew's Bible" in 1537.

And I'm pretty sure Moses predates all of them by several centuries! :laugh: :laugh:

BTW, the much of the KJV is actually Tyndale's Bible incorporated into the "new" version.

Ed

 

I never once saw the new ones of today listed there Ed.

 

That was not what you asked, nor was it in the post you responded to.

I'm too busy trying to answer posts to attempt to read minds, as well.

Ed

 

No, it's the KJV 1611 reprint. Henderson and Nelson publish it. O Giue thankes vnto the Lord, for hee is good: for his mercy endureth foreuer. Pfalmes CXXXVI. Pretty cool!:jesus: :godisgood: :thumbs:

 

I have the one from Henderson.

 

You think. Since you don't know Spanish you can only parrot what you have read. Have you read the RV1960 from cover to cover and preached and taught most of it? I have and I can say without a shadow of a doubt it is God's inspired, infallibe word, every word of it. Regardless of what Mickey Carter or anyone else says.

I don't slam your KJVO conviction, please don't slam myRV1960O conviction.

 

Okay, I apologize. Lots of folks think they use the 1611 today but they don't. I also have the Hendrickson (that is what it says, maybe a different company than yours) reprint. It will be my 'reading through the Bible' Bible next year.

 

Brother Bob, the age of the KJV is not in question. You made statements about the KJV, and all we're asking is that you elaborate and substantiate those claims with some details.

 

If age is your test is superiority would that make the KJV inferior to the Geneva Bible in your opinion? Would that make the later editions of the KJV inferior to the 1611 edition?

 

If age is the test for superiority then that discredits the TR texts of the KJVs and shows the superiority of those "other" texts. But then there's the problem that the older English Bible versions were generally translated from the newer texts while the newer English Bible versions were/are generally translated from the older texts. Go figure...

 

Ohoh, when one compares the KJV with the Douai-Rheims RCC English Bible you will find an overwhelming occurrence of word-for-word agreement with the KJV. So much so that there can be no doubt that one of them copied from the other.

Problem: The Rheims NT was published in 1582.
So who copied who?

HankD

 

That was a good copy - in Roman Founts not Gothic
Founts like the original KJV1611 Editions.
I gave it away to someone who didn't realise that:

1611 KJV = KJV1611 Editions + KJV1613 Editions +
... + KJV1762 Edition + KJV1769 Edition + KJV1873 Edition
+ etc.

 

What happened to Brother Bob? Won't he answer these questions?