Is the king james bible the only bible worth reading? Are the others corrupt?
nasb bible
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by brobobby, Mar 29, 2004.
Page 1 of 3
-
This question should really be in the Versions forum where it can get a proper discussion.
-
Hello brobobby. As you can see in the topics on the board, there is a whole forum, the versions forum, that has, as it seems, the primary discussion on just this very thing.
The KJVO (King James Version Only) debate is a relatively new thing with the proliferation of newer versions.
You are going to make up your own mind on this, so I can only give an opinion here:
All of them are the word of God.
However, there are those that I prefer over others, and when I discover a new version, I find myself going to certain passages in them to see how they read and if I don't like the reading of those passages, I won't read them again.
What seems, to me, among members here is that many seem to like the NKJV (New King James Version), and I will add my voice to them. It keeps a lot of the beauty of the KJV, while doing away with the archaic and outdated words. For example, doesn't it make sense to convert "furlongs" to miles? "Firkins" to gallons?
The NKJV keeps a lot of what the KJV does right,
Example: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" is the very best way to say that passage.
The NKJV changes some things that the KJV gets wrong,
Example: "The love of money is the root of all evil", which cannot be, is changed to: "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
But, dispite being a good and reasonable upedate, the, shall I say, rabid KJVO's have attacked it, for no other reason, really, than that it is different.
I have rambled on here, sorry. You will make up your own mind, but, IMHO, the KJVO's have a weak arguement. -
I agree that you should be in the Bible Versions forum. We have a lot of fun over there. Come on over and visit with us. You will like it.
Watchman
In answer to their reason is they claim it was really made from the same texts used by the Modern Versions; however, the Bible is clear as to what it uses. I think what they dislike most are the footnotes that may say something to the effect: "certain manuscripts do not contain verses so-and-so". They see this as part of the Bible. ;)
The problem is that at least one revision of the KJV have the same footnote, so they now dislike one of their own "editions", not "revisions" to them! -
I agree that you should be in the Bible Versions forum. We have a lot of fun over there. Come on over and visit with us. You will like it.
Watchman
In answer to their reason is they claim it was really made from the same texts used by the Modern Versions; however, the Bible is clear as to what it uses. I think what they dislike most are the footnotes that may say something to the effect: "certain manuscripts do not contain verses so-and-so". They see this as part of the Bible. ;)
The problem is that at least one revision of the KJV have the same footnote, so they now dislike one of their own "editions", not "revisions" to them! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Phillip for the clarification. -
Let's move this to the version forum.
Murph -
-
-
Ok, I'll play,
Because they aren't. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Since you call other versions that are not the KJV counterfiets, it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise, retract you allegations.
Page 1 of 3