King James Bible Companion

If we had remained true to the ONE Holy Scriptures, we would all be studying Greek and Hebrew instead of arguing about English versions.

As Deacon suggested, you would benefit from reading the 'Preface to the Reader' from the 1611 version of the KJV. No one reading it with an honest and open mind would conclude that the very men who translated the KJV would have any agreement with those who put them and their work upon a throne today.

Here is a link to the Preface:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm

 

Amen Bob, One can get saved through reading most any bible version. No matter how many changes are made or diluted God's word gets as we see more and more bibles meeting the needs of feminists, gays, new agers, etc. etc God still can get through and reach any heart that is open.

 

Yeah,I especially like the line from David Daniell.:"Sometimes the translation is wrong,or clumsy or baffling."

 

Sorry, Jacob, you keep repeating that it (the NKJV) omits things, relies on texts other than the TR, butyou seem reluctant to post examples.

 

I love the KJV and who can argue it's impact on society?

You keep posting differences in translation choices between the KJV and the NKJV but you have yet to show that even one of them is a deviation for the TR. It would be simple to do. Find the deviation, show it in both the CT and the TR as well as the KJV and NKJV so we can see where those chose the CT rendering. Easy enough if there are indeed over 1200 places where they deviated.

Since the site is called Baptist 1611 I assume that they don't think the words 'of God' should appear in 1 John 5v12 since they were not in the 1611 edition of the KJV? Also of interest is the fact that the Baptist of 1611 opposed the modern version - they were happy with their Geneva Bible until the king forbade its printing.

 

It was claimed that King James was the first KJV onlyist - of course he would be - he commissioned it and only the government publishers could print it, thereby lining his pockets!

 

And there would also be no king's translation - the Geneva Bible would have been enough. I am glad that they were not opposed to a modern version and gave us this marvelous translation that is celebrating 400 years this year!

 

Another mulberry bush thread has run its course - pop goes the weasel.