For the Record...

I don't know if I would say that I'm anti-KJV, I just don't understand why it is still being promoted whenever there are so many other translations that communicate God's Word in better, more current English. It just seems to me to be quite silly to use an antiquated translation. In my experience, preachers who use the KJV spend significant parts of their sermons explaining the old and strange English of the KJV. Couldn't that time be better used to actually preach about what the text means and what it means for us today?

 

I am extremely pro KJV.

So much so that I use a new one .

 

I am extremely pro KJV.

I am so pro-KJV that I memorize only the KJV1769 family of Editions.
I am so pro-KJV that 1/4 of my Bible Collections are KJVs.
I am so pro-KJV that I read & study two different KJVs each and every day.

I also am doing for my 2008 Bible read-through the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003) AND my first read-through of the TNIV = Today's New International Version (Zondervan, 2006).

I love the KJVs very much!

 

I'm with you Roger. I have others but I would say 90to 95 % of my study is in the KJV, then comes ASV 1901 and a few times a year I might read a little of the NASB.

 

You have that right ! I have been under a KJV ministry and when the meanings are explained the substitute expresssions sound very TNIV/NLTse-ish . Cut to the chase -- a lot of valuable preaching time has to be devoted to the explanation of antiquated phraselogy before the actual teact is expounded .

 

Like the late "Uncle Miltie" Berle, C4K also knows a good line when he steals one.

Ed

 

Obviously, Bob Alkire missed it.

Ed

 

I like all the explanations of the eloquent word of God, especially when the Greek is incorprated that actually enhances the translation.

When I want things straight I don't water it down.

I believe we are to be provoked to study the word of God and not just take it at face value. So using an MV can cause one to miss out on the depth of the actual words of God and thereby miss many of the applications found in it being alive and not DEAD!:godisgood:

 

This doesn't make any sense.

So you are here equating the Word of God with the KJV? If so, then there is no point in debating you. If not, please clarify.

 

And without any credit you will note

 

I might have, but I thought he was talking about his new NKJV and I was talking about my KJV, but we both are into studying God's Word.

But you are correct, if what I said above isn't correct, I could have read something there that wasn't there.

 

And my new Bible has the softest, most supple leather I have ever seen on a Bible.

Hey, trying to avoid controversy here .

No matter what - I am a solid supporter of the KJV and its underlying textual body.

 

I almost never use the KJV unless I am forced to do so (e.g. memory verses required in evangelism class). I rarely use the NKJV.

I do not prefer the texts behind the KJV family of translations, so I gravitate away from them in general. The KJV's archaic English is an additional reason for me to use another translation.

 

There is residue for me, too, but it generally ends up coming out in the StefanM Standard Version as I update the language.

 

I'm not a pro KJV.

But I'm waayyy up in the amateur KJV ranks.

(ESV and NAS too!)