I love the KJV Bible

I love KJV Bible. KJV is my main Bible. KJV challenges and convicts me more seriously and give me a deep thought in most of the controversial issues. I am sure God will bless the people who read KJV and try to practice as it teaches.

 

I love my King James Bible. It is God's Word, and I need nothing else.

Pastor Mark.

 

I love my KJV Study Bible ,which works out pretty good since I am KJ preferred.

Ed, you crack me up.

 

I love the KJV because of the superiority of the KJV over modern versions.

I love the KJV because the KJV is clearest than modern versions.

I love the KJV because it is used by anyone since almost 400 years.

I love the KJV because it is most accurate translation than modern versions.

I love the KJV because of the Holy Spirit's leading.

I love the KJV because of manuscript evidence -- 99% -- comparing to modern versions -- 1%

I love the KJV because I use it for many years.

I love the KJV because it is the best Bible for English-speaking people available today.

I love the KJV because it is the very Word of God.

I love the KJV because.....

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!
I ditto your post askjo!
Praise God for His Holy Word!

 

Looks like the vast majority here love the King James Bible!

 

The KJV is the one for me

 

I love the 1982 edition of the KJV, aka NKJV

 

I 100% agree with you. The NKJV and the KJV differ each other 2,000 times.

 

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it!

 

I love the KJV any version because the KJV 1611 was the very first Bible I ever owned, and whom somebody opened to me.
The KJV to me is what Muhammad Ali is to boxing, or Babe Ruth to baseball, or Jordan to Basketball. There may be others who will come along that will prove to be superior, but if I need to refer to anything I will refer to my KJV.
Like Johnv I hate its being dragged into the muck of cultism, and equally hate it when others who like other versions seem unable to separate the cult and the cultist from the KJV.
I love the KJV, because......because.....ah, well, because it's the KJV.

 

The NKJV is not a "new edition" of the KJV. It is an entirely new translation. The OT is even based on a different Hebrew text. In my opinion it is dishonest to refer to the NKJV as "the 1982 edition of the KJV." </font>[/QUOTE]You're right, it's your opinion. You are also right, the O.T. of the 1982 isn't the same as the 1611. I'm just calling the NKJV what the translators chose to call it, another edition to the KJV, hence NKJV. Of course this can open another topic, i.e. can the NKJV rightfully claim to be another edition to the KJV, or is it in fact an entirely new translation? Thanks and God bless! (and perhaps others share your opinion, esp Askjo )

 

I 100% agree with you. The NKJV and the KJV differ each other 2,000 times. </font>[/QUOTE]According to your criteria, are the present-day editions of the KJV with over 1800 differences from the 1611 edition "an entirely new translation?"

Is the KJV actually "an entirely new translation" because it likely differs from the Bishops' Bible over 2,000 times?

Is the KJV actually "an entirely new translation" because it differs from Tyndale's Bible over 2,000 times?

In spite of all the many, many differences with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision, the KJV is still more of a revision of them than it is an "entirely new translation."
Likewise, the NKJV is more of a revision of the KJV than it is an "entirely new translation."

KJV-only authors have referred to the KJV as an "edition of Tyndale" and as a "revision of Tyndale's Bible." It is just as accurate to refer to the NKJV as an "edition of the KJV" or as a "revision of the KJV" as it is to make the same comparisons between the KJV and the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles.

The NKJV is actually closer in text to the KJV at many verses than several of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

 

althought I think Doc went a bit too far by calling it "dishonest", it is inaccurate to call the NKJV a new edition of the KJV, considering it used a different source text.

 

Actually, the NKJV followed the same Hebrew text as the KJV. While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew text, they compared that edition to the Bomberg edition of 1524-25 and followed the Bomberg edition in those very few places [some say only 8] that their printed edition differed from the Bomberg. Thus, in effect the NKJV is still based on the same Hebrew O. T. source text.

There were some actual differences in the texts or editions of the texts followed in the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, and yet the KJV is described as being an "edition" or "revision" of one or more of those earlier English Bibles.

 

kinda splitting hairs, isnt it?

 

This thread has goen off topic. It was to be reasons why individuals love the KJV, not a discussion of the NKJV.

Back on topic or it will be closed.

 

I love the KJV for three reasons:

Proven True
Witness to my spirit
Final Authority

 

I also love the KJV, but not because of inconsistent, untrue, or unscriptural reasons. I accept the KJV as what it is: a good translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. I accept the same view of Bible translation as held by the early English translators including the KJV translators.

The Final Authority surely existed before 1611 or 1769; therefore, the 1611 KJV cannot be the Final Authority.

Personal experience is not the standard for truth.

The KJV has not been proven to be more accurate than any other translation at every word and verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.