New KJV Versions

They already have. The name "King James Version" is an American "nickname", it is actually an "Authorized Version". The ERV, RSV and ESV are also authorized by the British crown on par with the KJV. The KJV retains the name "Authorized Version" because it has had that name for 393 years, any of the above could equally qualify for that title.

 

BTW, Charles will never be King. He abdicated that possibility in order to divorce Diana.

 

I agree Granny!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Not true:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page389.asp
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

Notice that William and Henry are 2nd and 3rd in line. Charles is still first in line.

Off topic of the thread - sorry.

 

I don't believe the diehard KJVO would accept even a translation carefully made from the texts used by the AV translators if it was written in modern English.

 

Or any christian with any common sense for that matter.

 

Slambo:Or any christian with any common sense for that matter.

Does that include YOU, or not?

Next, can you gimme any reason why any "christian with common sense" wouldn't accept a modern-language BV made only from the TR and Masoretic Texts, and whatever else the AV men used?

 

Not true:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page389.asp
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

Notice that William and Henry are 2nd and 3rd in line. Charles is still first in line.

Off topic of the thread - sorry. </font>[/QUOTE]I stand corrected.

 

Because it would take them out of their comfort zone.

 

This is not exactly true. It was "The Holy Bible". The words "Authorized Version" were placed on the front of the Bible by the printer to show that they (the printer) was authorized by the English government to "print" the Bible.

At first only one printer was allowed, soon another was added.

Bootlegged printings were made in the United States, but they did not say Authorized Version.

This was the same as Microsoft putting a stamp on their software to show that it is a legitimate and authorized version of their software.

It had NOTHING to do with the name of the Bible until later when people picked up on using the name.

The printers wanted people to know that it was an Authorized printing when they purchased it. That is all. This was at the option of the printer.

 

Because it would take them out of their comfort zone. </font>[/QUOTE]The NKJV IS translated from the TR and the Masoretic texts. What's your problem with it?

The fact that a footnote says a manuscript does not contain a certain verse? That is just being honest. So, don't give me the footnote complaint because footnotes are not inspired.

 

Because it would take them out of their comfort zone. </font>[/QUOTE]The NKJV IS translated from the TR and the Masoretic texts. What's your problem with it?

The fact that a footnote says a manuscript does not contain a certain verse? That is just being honest. So, don't give me the footnote complaint because footnotes are not inspired. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you referring to me? Perhaps you misunderstood my post, I agree with robycop. My point was that whether they want to admit it or not, most KJVo's don't want their comfort zones violated by silly things like scholarship and facts.

Personally, I think the problem is that part of their faith rests on their favorite translation rather than fully and squarely on Jesus Christ. They're afraid if the "KJVo" portion of their faith is removed the whole thing will fall.

 

Why would a Christian with common sense adhere to the false doctrine of KJVOism in the first place?

 

The Modern King James Version(MKJV), the American King James Version(AKJV),the Third Millennium Bible(TMB), and the 21st Century King James Version(KJ21) are just a few examples of Bibles based on the same manuscripts as the King James Version, yet these versions are rejected by the KJVO crowd.

 

My kids use the NKJV (yes, I am an O-KJV for my own personal preference)

I have yet to find any problems with the NKJV. I have reviewed the MKJV as well, and find it to be acceptable insofar as I have briefly reviewed it.

*ducks to dodge the flying tomatoes from my KJO buddies*

 

I am an OKJV in that I do not hold to Ruckman's double Inspirtation. I do believe that the KJV is the best translation for English speaking people; With that said, I would endorse a new translation that has withstood the test of time and criticism that the KJV has withstood for almost 400 years. I have not heard of the MKJV or the AKJV. I do reject the NKJV. I believe there are too many discrepancies between the KJV and the NKJV that are not just changes to make it more modern. Can someone tell me where I can find the other two. I would be interested in more information on them.

 

Hi Pastor J...

here's the Modern KJV....

www.mkjvonline.com

I have not heard of the AKJV.


Love in Christ,
Amity