Is the KJV inferior to you?

1. Count me in. I am in total agreement.

2. I spent two years studying the different text-types and this is what I have discovered above all else:

a. The KJV translators work with the best that they had.
b. Heaven will be populated with people who knew only the KJV.
c. No truth of orthodoxy has been diminished.

3. But it is not my version of choice, but I respect those who use it and do not try to bind it on me.

 

The KJV is far superior to me . It outclasses me in all respects .

 

Man, I wish I'd caught that.

 

Yes, I'm sure many do. Allow me to elaborate upon that answer: any one that does not categorically prefer the KJV is placing it in a secondary position in some manner. The word inferior means --

1. Low or lower in order, degree, or rank: Captain is an inferior rank to Major.
2a. Low or lower in quality, value, or estimation: inferior craft; felt inferior to his older sibling.
2b. Second-rate; poor: an inferior translation.
3. Situated under or beneath.
(...others)​

As several posters pointed out, the OP did not specify the criteria or any parameters. Some have stated that the KJV was superior at one point in time but not today, that is, the opinion is that the language of the KJV text is inferior in its capacity to communicate clearly to contemprary English readership. Some have stated that the KJV is based on subordinate manuscripts, that is, the opion that the KJV's underlying text is inferior in scope or authenticity to other critical texts of more recent origin. These are indicators of ascribing a lesser status to the KJV by comparison.

We make decisions like this all the time: briefs or boxers? Pepsi or Coke? Paper or plastic? The one chosen does not make the other alternative 'evil'; merely secondary.

Although a Bible translation could be subjectively thought (or even objectively shown) to be inferior in some aspect or aspects, it could still be the overall superior version.

 

No Rip, the KJV is NOT superior to you. Jesus died for you, not the KJV. He didn't shed his blood for any translation, just for lost sinners. Humans were not created for the Bible, but rather the Bible was given to humanity. The KJV is a book (the Book), a tool, a means to know God and communicate His way of salvation.

 

Don't you believe the Lord had a hand in seeing the written word was translated so the word reached others besides the Hebrews and Greek?

 

Besides being the Word of God by derivation, IMO, the KJV will stand forever as the monument of English literature, the greatest and best in terms of style and beauty among all the works of the English language. IMO the beauty of the English language reached it zenith with the 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobean periods. And yes God added His guidance (but did not inspire) those 17th century scholars who translated it from the Greek and Hebrew.

But style and beauty are subjective and the "unchurched" of the 21st century find the KJV English quaint and often times hard to understand.

Remember in the beginning the Gospel went out in koine (common) Greek not classical or Attic not in ecclesiastic or classical words but in "the language of life".

The modern versions try to recapture the simplicity of the primitive Word of God intended for the common man.

I am somewhat disappointed with portions of many MV's but they do a better job of communicating with the masses of humanity.

I am also somewhat disappointed with the textual sources of the MV's but the Spirit obviously uses them with power and that's good enough for me.


HankD

 

Once again, I believe God had a hand in it. Look how it has stood the trials and speculation of time. If man could of destroyed it, the KJV would of been gone a long time ago. It is not just a book, but a gift, to which we should give thanks. We don't have to have some Greek or Hebrew scholar read the book to us, we can read it for ourselves. It has been burned, but yet survived. It has been banned but yet survived. Men have had to flee for their lives over it, but yet it survives. Yes, God had and still has a hand in it. (KJV)

 

If man could have destroyed the Bible, (Marcion the Heretic and the Gnostics and other sects would have seen to that, and actually tried, BTW.) there would not have been any texts around from which Luther could translate it into German, or for anyone from Alfred the Great forward, to translate any of it into English, let alone the KJV or any other, to the latest version in whatever language, including the Japanese version John of Japan is currently working on. It goes far, far beyond the KJV, or any other language version.

Ed

 

No the KJV isn't inferior. I use it most all the time, but I'm not what is called KJO, but to me it is the best, with the ASV 1901 next and the NASB next. But use which ever one the Holy Spirit leads you to use, but use it read it study it.

 

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

 

The RV1960 superiority !!! That is why I only use the RV1960.

 

Sorry, it is not true.

SANTA BIBLIA - Reina Valera (RVG 2004) is superior over the RVI 1960.

 

I don't think the KJV is inferior. When I read the Bible for the very first time, it was in the KJV. I am fond of the KJV 1611 edition, but I also use many other translations.

 

Excuse me... when you can read Spanish you will understand that the RV1960 IS the superior translation. You are going on hearsay. I am going on experience and knowledge. God has and will continue to bless His word in the RV1960.

Bro. Gomez is hawking what amounts to a 'one-man' translation. He has very little (almost NO) credibility amongst the missionaries and pastors to the Hispanics in the USA or Mexico. This is just another in a multitude of other KJVO inspired knockoffs that have poisoned Hispanic's faith in the totally reliable RV1960.

Stick to your KJVOism in the USA and let us who deal with the Spanish language everyday follow what is right for us. THANK YOU!!

 

I think what you meant to say was that you use the KJV1769.

 

Do you use the Henderson KJV1611 Edition or
the Nelson KJV1611 Edition? I used to have both
and never found any difference between them.

 

Simply amazing! I would have figured Askjo would never suggest any Modern Version over one that had been around at least 15 times as long. Wonders never cease!

BTW, I think that at least 15 times as long a history, makes a good starting standard for English versions. So I think I'll have to rethink my own practice. Let's see, I have been using the NKJV, which has been around for 25 years. And since 25X15 = 375, I can use the 1611 KJV, but not the 1769 KJV.
And since my bride has (or had) preferred the NIV, with a 34 year record, and 34X15 = 510, I think I'll hafta' steer her to the Bishop's Bible, since even the 1611 KJV falls short of the necessary years.

I'm just thankful I don't use the NASV (47 year history), as I once did, anymore, for since 47X15=705, I would have to go all the way back to the - My Goodness! - the Ormulum, Rolle, Caedmon, and Alfred's translations!

And heaven help me if I used the ASV or DARBY, at 106 years and 117 years, respectively, for then that would have to take me all the way back to 170 years before the Venerable Bede started even the first translation into the Anglo-Saxon tongue, or in the case of the DARBY, before the Anglo-Saxon tongue even existed!

Ed

 

And a MV translated by a man who knows NO Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to boot!

"Brother Gómez readily admits that he is not knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew. When I took him to task on this, he responded by e-mail strangely: “That's an argument used against us by Catholics. Only they are experts in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. We Protestants are a bunch of uneducated folk.” The reviser states in an article, “We have gone verse by verse making sure first
of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV. Every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV we immediately corrected.” How could he go verse by verse with the Textus Receptus if he is not familiar with Greek? Also, the Textus Receptus covers only the New Testament, so how could he have gone through every verse in the Bible if he is also not familiar with Hebrew?"

There is more at http://en.literaturabautista.com/files/Reina-Valera-Gomez.pdf if anyone is interested.

 

Methinks Rob has "shucked it down to the cob" with that statement.