Featured Is the King James Bible the Word of God?

when one thinks one version is prety much perfect. there is no need to dig deeper to see if it is true or not.

I noticed this myself when I thought the KJV and NKJV were the only trustworthy bibles (it is what I was taught) it was not until I sat under teachers who went into the greek or hebrew and found that even those bibles were not perfect. and I tested what they said to see if it was true, and found for myself.. Both bibles are limited by the english language and its flaws..

any bible canbring a person to faith and help them grow in Christ. That is not the issue. It only becomes and issue in deep studies of the word. while the english text may be adequite. Going to the origionals give us a deeper more complex understand in many areas of what is being said.



But if your not going to investigate because you think it is perfect. You will never see this.

 

I'm age 74. Before I was saved, my word for "nonsense" had the initials "B.S." (I've heard "horse feathers" & "chicken teeth" my whole life. When my mom said horse feathers, I reminded her of Pegasus on the Mobil Gas signs. She reminded me Pegasus isn't real. LOL)

 

3/4 of those words ain't archaic. Maw, husbandman, hoar, harrow, haft, graff, furlong, flagon, fen, suffer I could go on and on are used in everyday speech.

Give me "archaic" and better quality over modern and lesser quality any old day. Dumbing down God's word reduces the overall application of a given passage. With a wider diction you can easily draw more, and better applications from God's Word.

 

I use the NKJV, NASV, & ESV. I use old versions for study.

 

I can honestly say I do not use these words. nor would I know what most of them even mean.

I grew up with a scofield reference KJV, all of my memory verses I learned in sunday school was KJV.

I was given a NKJV when I was in high school, Which I used for many years. (I am 57 now) 10 years ago my mother passed away. and I took her KJV scofield bible as a momento of her. One day I opened it and tried to read it.. It was almost like speaking a foriegn language.. I would not give that bible to anyone who has not grown up with that language (ie a KJV only church) because that person would be lost.

 

NKJV - 9 Now therefore, do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man and know what you ought to do to him; but bring his gray hair down to the grave with blood.”

 

But many words in common use now & then have different meanings now. "Conversation" meant "lifestyle". "Target" meant a small shield. "Let" also meant "hinder", depending upon the context.(Now used as hinder only in tennis.) "Adamant" was a hard, sharp stone. "Armhole" was armpit. "Botch" was a skin boil. "Draught"was a public latrine.
Then, there's "thee, thou, thy, thine" & the "eth, est" suffixes, no longer in common use.

I could go on all day, but let's suffice to say the KJV is not in today's English, & God has caused better translations to be made in OUR language style. The KJV is a "Model T" version. (While the Model T is still a legal car, it's a lot more-inconvenient to drive than a newer car.)

That's why I use modern versions. I want to teach God's word in MY English & that of the audience.

 

I've heard of "hoarfrost" all my life. It means "a whitish-grey frost".
Otherwise, I'd seen it used in old English translations of the tales of Asgard & the Norse gods, E. G. "Odin's beard was hoary with age." That is, his beard was grey or white.

But most people don't study English that closely. Thus, modern Bible versions should be used.

 

I don't know how to account for the difference between y'alls and mine understanding of English. If I honestly know 3/4 of those words and all y'all don't then I haven't the foggiest what to tell you.

My position remains that the KJV has the largest application of verses to modern life, and some of the most expressive diction, especially in an age where Satan is using modern language to redefine, dumb down and corrupt words into an indefinable mire. Modern speech can't even define what a woman is.

If I'm going to teach someone God's Word then I'm going to use diction that can better compass His attributes than modern base and vulgar speech can.

I don't believe pulling out a thesaurus or dictionary from time to time to lookup a word should blackguard a Bible translation. If anything that should be a positive.

 

Probably because you use the KJV all the time, and always have. SO it would be normal to you

To the rest of us. It is not.

Who goes in front of a crowd and says verily verily anymore?

 

You are truly closed minded.
Did you even read the first paragraph in the link? I am not a KJ-onlyist.

 

I never CALLED you anything...I stated that this is a common tactic of KJVO. Get a grip. Maybe you're lax on comprehension skills. I can read just fine, thank you. Also, I'm FAR from "closed-minded." False accusations from you make little to no difference to me.

 

Did you not accuse me of using a said tactic, 'A typical stall tactic of the "onlies."' Or what? I did not stall. I posted a link. Did you read any of that link I posted?

 

Again, you read into what I stated as something hurled at you...I noted that you were using a tactic they used. I know not whether you're a KJVO nutjob or not....don't really care. Seemed to me you stalled....and to be honest, NO, I did not read your hyperlink. Why would I? I don't read long diatribes posted on a message board as a rule. If you've got something to say, spit it out instead of letting others do it for you. People who can't articulate post links....

 

For the record, most variants modern Bibles do not provide any notice. And my argument being typically such footnotes are not honest [IMO]. Luke 4:4, the omission of the words, ", but by every word of God." Which are by less than 1/2% of manuscripts of Luke.

 

Wow! Unlike most, at least you admit it's only your "opinion." And as far as Luke 4:4...again...trying to make the two underlying texts say the exact same thing? Could you explain further your last sentence there.....I must not have had enough coffee or something...because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

If understand what you are asking me. 99.6% or so of copies of Luke's gospel have the words ", but by every word of God." FYI it is the Orthodox Churches copies where Luke's account matches Matthew's reading.

 

You do not demonstrate that what seems to be the typical KJV-only allegation that all post-1900 English Bible translations are dumbing down God's word to be true.

There would be examples where the KJV could be said to "dumb down" God's word since it uses a simpler or easier English word than the word in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles so would you condemn the KJV for the same thing in some places?

 

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.