The real reason I am KJVO

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

For me, being KJVO, has to do with God’s warnings in Scripture:
For example......

Ephesians 4:14
“That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

The fact is, that there are people out there, that are cunning and crafty, and are going about to try to deceive us.

Now logic dictates, that if these wicked people, wanted to deceive as many Christians as possible, the place that they would start, would be with our Bible.
(Like drinking poisoned milk.)
--------------------------------------------------
I have been reading the responses in some of the other threads here, and have read how most people here, read every MV that they can get their hands on.

Some prefer these MV’s because they are easier to read; One stated, that he reads them, because he wants all the help that he can get, in understanding what God is saying in his word.

Well the question is, “if” God’s Word is being changed in these MV’s, what does it matter if it is “easer to read” or if “it shows you something you haven’t seen before”.

It’s like feeding your cat, dog food.
Sure, dog food is a lot cheaper, but if we all fed our cats dog food, they would starve to death.
(Because dog food doesn’t have the protein in it, that Cats need.)
--------------------------------------------------
Sure, there are a lot of people here, that will assure me, that these changes are for the better; And that with every change, we are getting closer to the “Bible”, that God wants us to have.

But what if these people are wrong? What if those cunning and crafty deceivers, have just sold them a bill of goods? What if all these MV’s are poisoned milk and dog food?

You could say, “this could never happen”. Because we have learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and we have examined the documents ourselves, and have found them to be accurate.

Well, what if you were shown the wrong documents? Or what if “you” have already been deceived?

2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

--------------------------------------------------
I know, that I may sound paranoid, but from what I read in the New Testament, there is a lot to be paranoid about.

I consider it an advantage, having a Bible, that has not been changed, for so long a time.

Sure, it has a lot of old words, that I have to explain, when I am teaching others.
But I would much rather put up with these old words, than to take the chance that someone is pulling the wool over my eyes.

Merry Christmas

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Dec 25, 2008

stilllearning said:
The fact is, that there are people out there, that are cunning and crafty, and are going about to try to deceive us.

Do you know for certain that King James and his translating team were not of that ilk?

ktn4eg · Dec 25, 2008

Guess it's time for me to again make my assertion that no real KJVO advocate has yet to give me a solidly-based reply:

What about those poor souls who died prior to 1611?

Too bad they didn't even have a chance to read the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God! :tear:

Keith M · Dec 25, 2008

stilllearning said:
The fact is, that there are people out there, that are cunning and crafty, and are going about to try to deceive us.

Now logic dictates, that if these wicked people, wanted to deceive as many Christians as possible, the place that they would start, would be with our Bible.
(Like drinking poisoned milk.)

Good point. Those who want to deceive true Bible believers start with the word of God. They cast doubt on God's ability to preserve His word in more than a single English Bible translation. They cast doubt on God's wisdom in preserving His word in various English translations. And they cast doubt on the word itself, falsely claiming modern Bible translations really aren't God's word. Shame on them!

stilllearning said:
I have been reading the responses in some of the other threads here, and have read how most people here, read every MV that they can get their hands on.

What makes you think most people here "read every MV that they can get their hands on?" Many of us who use modern Bible translations, just like KJVOs, have particular translations we use as our "main" Bible, yet we often reference other translations. Some of us use the NIV, some the NASB, some the NKJV, some one of the other English Bible translations God has graciously supplied for us. I know of no one who reads "every MV that they can get their hands on."

stilllearning said:
Well the question is, “if” God’s Word is being changed in these MV’s, what does it matter if it is “easer to read” or if “it shows you something you haven’t seen before”.

That's the problem. KJVOs have the errant presupposition that, just because some of the English words printed on the page are different that God's word is being changed. If, as you suggest, someone was trying to change the word of God, wouldn't it make sense they would "translate" a Bible that preaches "another gospel?" Maybe they would come up with one that teaches we can be saved by praying to a rock, a tree or the sky. If someone was trying to change the word of God it wouldn't make a lick of sense to publish various English Bible translations that all teach the same fundamentals of the Christian faith - Christ's deity, His virgin birth, His death, His burial, His triumphant resurrection and many other basics. Why in the world would someone trying to change the word of God publish the truth instead of some fabricated "plan of salvation?"

stilllearning said:
Sure, there are a lot of people here, that will assure me, that these changes are for the better; And that with every change, we are getting closer to the “Bible”, that God wants us to have.

What are some of these "changes," stilllearning? Surely you can show us examples of Bible translations that teach "another gospel." Surely you can show us Bible translations that are designed to lead the masses straight to hell. Surely you can show us Bible translations that teach Jesus wasn't born of a virgin or that He didn't arise from the grave.

stillearning said:
But what if these people are wrong? What if those cunning and crafty deceivers, have just sold them a bill of goods? What if all these MV’s are poisoned milk and dog food?

The only "bill of goods" I've seen lately is the one KJVOs try to sell us!

stilllearning said:
You could say, “this could never happen”. Because we have learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and we have examined the documents ourselves, and have found them to be accurate.

God has preserved His written word through the canturies in various Bible translations. The miraculous thing is that His message to us remains unchanged. Sure, there are some minor differences in manuscripts. Sure, there are English Bible translations that use different words to transmit the message. But what it all boils down to is that God's message to us is the same today in the HCSB and other modern translations as it was when it was first written. THAT, my friend, is a miracle!

stilllearning said:
I know, that I may sound paranoid, but from what I read in the New Testament, there is a lot to be paranoid about.

Not paranoid, stilllearning, just confused

by the "bill of goods" you bought.

stilllearning said:
I consider it an advantage, having a Bible, that has not been changed, for so long a time.

Sure, it has a lot of old words, that I have to explain, when I am teaching others.
But I would much rather put up with these old words, than to take the chance that someone is pulling the wool over my eyes.

If you choose to use a Bible translation that has a lot of antiquated words you have to explain to others, that's fine. But the message in God's word is unchanged - no legitimate modern Bible translation I've ever read teaches "another gospel."

stilllearning said:
Merry Christmas

Likewise

Keith M · Dec 25, 2008

ktn4eg said:
Guess it's time for me to again make my assertion that no real KJVO advocate has yet to give me a solidly-based reply:

What about those poor souls who died prior to 1611?

Too bad they didn't even have a chance to read the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God! :tear:

There are a lot of questions to which KJVO advocates can give a solidly-based reply. The majority of them can't even say which KJV (original, Cambridge family or Oxford family) is the perfect, completely inerrant word of God.

Deacon · Dec 25, 2008

Merry Christmas!

I’ve got a friend, a strong believer in the faith.
When he was in college he was confronted with more than he could handle concerning theology’s various disciplines.
His reaction was to retreat into the shell of his core beliefs; he kept his faith.
Unfortunately years later he was still fearful of studying the bible deeply.
What he learned as a child was enough for him and he didn’t need to know more.
I felt sorry for him, he had a child’s understanding of God.

The King James Version is a decent version but I don’t use it because it is a 16th century understanding of God’s word.

It’s time you picked up one of those modern versions you’ve been hearing about and do some comparison work by yourself.

You will find that the ideas communicated in the KJV are the very same ones presented in the more modern versions.

This year I was stretched as I studied through the New Living Translation.
It was different, the words were different, the sentences were strange, it just felt odd.
But I learned that the biblical concepts were often more clearly expressed.

One of our missions as Christians is to evangelize the lost.
I want to communicate clearly to them, I want them to understand God's grace, I want them to know the saving power that God freely gives to us.

God's good news needs to be communicated clearly!
If I can mold myself into His image and find ways that do that, I'm pleasing Him.

May God bless you this day

Rob

Goldie · Dec 25, 2008

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html :

Questions for the KJV Critics

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new [Bible attack snipped] was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/holybook.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[snipped by moderator as inflammatory]

robycop3 · Dec 25, 2008

With all due respect, Goldie, Dr. Lawrence Vance is hardly an authority on bible versions. All he has to offer is OPINION AND GUESSWORK, not FACTS. Vance is an ENGLISH professor. And melton isn't exactly a paragon of BV knowledge, either. he repeats the same stull found in the pro-KJVO literature.

Goldie:1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

Because we're not professional translators. Some have already done so. For instance, the NKJV correctly reads 'passover' in Acts 12:4 rather than the incorrect "Easter". And in 1 Tim. 6:10 it reads(the love of money is A root of ALL KINDS of evil" insteada the incorrect "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil".

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

They are as perfect as God let them be. Each translation is that of God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

There are MANY differences between the OT as translated into our Bibles & NT quotes of OT Scripture. A clear example is the difference between Isaiah 42:7-8 & 61:1-3 as compared to what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 & called "this Scripture". Wanna tell JESUS He was using the wrong version?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

Same as we might refer to a shelf full of boox as "the worx of Shakespeare". Every Bible translation is God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Evidently, the Holy Spirit influenced men to investigate the claims of perfection for the KJV as made by some KJVOs. The goofs of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" are quite hard to miss!

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

COMMON SENSE! Just two generations ago, many infectious diseases were often fatal. And 400 years ago, very intelligent men treated headaches by cutting a hole in the skull to let the "bad humours" escape. And the translators then had none of the equipment today's translators have, as well as the knowledge accumulated over those 400 years; besides that, some 5000 mss or pieces of mss have been found since then.

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

No, He has caused His word to now be translated into over 2400 languages & dialects. but still, these translations are the handling of God's perfect word by imperfect men.

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

Not any more than YOU'D be if you ever say "the human race".

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

This is typical of the poppycock hooey of Melton and Vance, as well as calling GOD'S WORD a perversion, which is against the rules here! But again, that's typical behavior of men who are pushing a false doctrine with no way to PROVE it.The issue of revivals, etc. has NOTHINGTA DO with the Bible version(s) used!

Now, use yer head, Goldie! NNE prints Bibles for free, any version! If the KJV didn't sell, no one would print it! Simple facts of business! Same with ANY version.

Now, Goldie, lemme ask YOU one question. You may forward it to Melton, Vance, Watkins, or any of those goat-ropers you want!

"WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO DOCTRINE?"

I'll even answer it for you: "IN THE SAME PLACE WITH THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR MARIOLATRY, PURGATORY, PRAYERS TO THE DEAD, SALVATION MY WORX, ETC!

But I'd liketa see YOUR answer, please!

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

Good morning C4K

You asked........

“Do you know for certain that King James and his translating team were not of that ilk?”

No, I don’t.

But I do know, the result of there work.

As Spurgeon put it........

“Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly.”

The proof is in the pudding!
--------------------------------------------------
(Take a look at today’s pudding!

Keith M · Dec 25, 2008

Keith M said:
There are a lot of questions to which KJVO advocates can give a solidly-based reply. The majority of them can't even say which KJV (original, Cambridge family or Oxford family) is the perfect, completely inerrant word of God.

Sorry I botched this one, guys...

What I meant to say was "There are a lof of questions to which NO KJVO advocates can give a solidly-based reply." See how the omission of two little letters can completely change the meaning of a statement? Sorry! My bad!

Over on another discussion board one of the most vocal of KJVO advocates deliberately omitted part of one of my posts to make it appear as if I said something I didn't say. It's really sad when people deliberately twist and omit to fit their own evil and twisted intentions. I'm still waiting for an apology or even a retraction from this individual, but I'll probably be waiting until my dying breath for something even resembling an apology or a retraction. So much for honesty...

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

Hello ktn4eg

Nice to hear from you.

You asked........

“What about those poor souls who died prior to 1611?
Too bad they didn't even have a chance to read the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God!”

The way you put it, is as if you have asked this question before.

I will be glad to answer if for you.
--------------------------------------------------
Being KJVO, does not mean, that I believe it to be “the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God”.

If you have read my posts, you will know, that I have NEVER said this.

I also disagree with those hype-kjvo folks, that lift it up as a newly inspired document.
--------------------------------------------------
But to answer your question;

Those people back through the centuries before the KJV(that spoke Greek), had the LXX(for the Old Testament) and original autographs of the epistles and their accurate copies.

And if they spoke English, there were other English Bibles that were available to them.
--------------------------------------------------
All I am saying, is that the MV’s(because of there roots), should not be trusted to be 100% accurate.

And the strange thing about it, is EVERYONE on this board, agrees with me.
(I have not been able to find anybody, that will say, any of the MV’s are 100% accurate.)

This the mind-set, that Satan wants us to have.

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

Hello Keith M

You said........

“Good point. Those who want to deceive true Bible believers start with the word of God. They cast doubt on God's ability to preserve His word in more than a single English Bible translation. They cast doubt on God's wisdom in preserving His word in various English translations. And they cast doubt on the word itself, falsely claiming modern Bible translations really aren't God's word. Shame on them!”

So I am a doubt caster.

Would God confuse us by........
“preserve His word in more than a single English Bible translation?”
No He wouldn’t.

And I never said.......
“That modern Bible translations really aren't God's word.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......

“That's the problem. KJVOs have the errant presupposition that, just because some of the English words printed on the page are different that God's word is being changed. If, as you suggest, someone was trying to change the word of God, wouldn't it make sense they would "translate" a Bible that preaches "another gospel?"

They have tried, but it didn’t work. So they do subtle things, like changing “virgin” you "young maiden" in Isa.7:14, or removing the words “these three are one”, from 1John 5:7.

They have found that just a few little changes, works just as well!
--------------------------------------------------
You continued.......

“Maybe they would come up with one that teaches we can be saved by praying to a rock, a tree or the sky. If someone was trying to change the word of God it wouldn't make a lick of sense to publish various English Bible translations that all teach the same fundamentals of the Christian faith - Christ's deity, His virgin birth, His death, His burial, His triumphant resurrection and many other basics. Why in the world would someone trying to change the word of God publish the truth instead of some fabricated "plan of salvation?"

As I have said, if they did publish a Bible that said Christ wasn’t God, it would be rejected.
But they are still attacking the idea that Christ's deity and His virgin birth, in the ways that I just stated.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said something that hit the nail on the head.........

“God has preserved His written word through the canturies in various Bible translations. The miraculous thing is that His message to us remains unchanged. Sure, there are some minor differences in manuscripts. Sure, there are English Bible translations that use different words to transmit the message. But what it all boils down to is that God's message to us is the same today in the HCSB and other modern translations as it was when it was first written. THAT, my friend, is a miracle!”

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus didn’t say, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every idea and message that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

No, He wisely said, “every word”.

Because Ideas and messages, can be twisted, but Words nail ideas down.

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

Hi Deacon

Sorry to hear about your friend, and his fear of studying the bible deeply.
--------------------------------------------------
You said.......

“The King James Version is a decent version but I don’t use it because it is a 16th century understanding of God’s word.”

What is wrong with “16th century understanding of God’s word”.
God’s word was perfect from the beginning.
And it proved it’s perfection, by “changed lives”.
--------------------------------------------------
You next said.......

“It’s time you picked up one of those modern versions you’ve been hearing about and do some comparison work by yourself.
You will find that the ideas communicated in the KJV are the very same ones presented in the more modern versions.”

I agree. But I am not satisfied with “ideas”; Because men can inflect there own “ideas” upon them.
--------------------------------------------------
You next said......

“This year I was stretched as I studied through the New Living Translation.
It was different, the words were different, the sentences were strange, it just felt odd.
But I learned that the biblical concepts were often more clearly expressed.”

The danger is, the stretching that you experienced, may have stretched you in the wrong direction. All you have to go on is “the odd feeling”, that it gave you.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a judge: I am not saying that you have been deceived.
But I am saying, that I have decided not to trust in my feelings, but in “words”.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....

“One of our missions as Christians is to evangelize the lost.
I want to communicate clearly to them, I want them to understand God's grace, I want them to know the saving power that God freely gives to us.
God's good news needs to be communicated clearly!
If I can mold myself into His image and find ways that do that, I'm pleasing Him.”

Praise the Lord, I fully agree. Therefore I keep studying my Bible, over and over again, because every time I do, the LORD shows me things, that I have never seen before.
This is how He is molding me into His image.

Have a great Christmas Rob

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

Hello again Keith M

Sorry to hear about your bad expeances on those other boards.
Be sure and let me know, if I side step any of your questions.
--------------------------------------------------
You have said several times........

“There are a lof of questions to which NO KJVO advocates can give a solidly-based reply.”

Please, let me hear them.

Priscilla Ann · Dec 25, 2008

stilllearning said:
Hello ktn4eg

Nice to hear from you.

You asked........

The way you put it, is as if you have asked this question before.

I will be glad to answer if for you.
--------------------------------------------------
Being KJVO, does not mean, that I believe it to be “the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God”.

If you have read my posts, you will know, that I have NEVER said this.

I also disagree with those hype-kjvo folks, that lift it up as a newly inspired document.
--------------------------------------------------
But to answer your question;

Those people back through the centuries before the KJV(that spoke Greek), had the LXX(for the Old Testament) and original autographs of the epistles and their accurate copies.

And if they spoke English, there were other English Bibles that were available to them.
--------------------------------------------------
All I am saying, is that the MV’s(because of there roots), should not be trusted to be 100% accurate.

And the strange thing about it, is EVERYONE on this board, agrees with me.
(I have not been able to find anybody, that will say, any of the MV’s are 100% accurate.)

This the mind-set, that Satan wants us to have.

Stilllearning:

Hi! I am new to this discussion, but find it really fascinating. I have a rather odd question: I have a copy of a KJV of the bible; however, I find it extremely difficult to read because of the archaic wording. (I was raised Catholic, so did not grow up hearing or reading the KJV.)

Aside from the KJV, what would be your second and third choices for accurate, reliable translations?

I look forward to your input.

God Bless!

rbell · Dec 25, 2008

Goldie said:
Questions for the KJV Critics

*sigh* how many times do I have to say this...I use and love the KJV. What gives? Do I use words that are too large? Is the font I type this statement in too small, or light-colored? Sheesh.

Goldie said:
Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

You are aware, aren't you, that our account we have of Jesus reading the Scriptures aloud...that the version He read is not the same version which the KJV is based upon? That noise you hear is your apple cart being upset...

Goldie said:
Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

I like how the Baptist Faith and Message puts it:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

I bet it ticks you off good that I feel that way. Hard to get that righteous anger going when I don't fuel the fire, huh?

Goldie said:
Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

Now, that's classy...calling your brother in Christ a liar without cause.

If you want to play, then let's play:

Since there are multiple KJV's, I could make a similar point. However, I shall show class and not call you a liar. I think you're just misguided.

But how 'bout toning down the ugliness in your posts? It is Christmas, after all...

stilllearning · Dec 25, 2008

Hi Priscilla Ann

Nice to hear from you and welcome. The Lord has brought you to a fine forum.

And it is great to here, how the Lord delivered you from Catholicism.
(You have a wonder life with Christ, ahead of you.)
--------------------------------------------------
As for your question, as to which Bible version would be best for you.

You probably already know, what I am going to say. I was a baby Christian once myself, and I had the same trouble with the archaic wording of the KJV, but I got past it.

My suggestion is, go get yourself a nice English dictionary, and keep it with your Bible. Even though those words are archaic, they are still English.

What I have experienced over the years, is after looking an archaic word for the first time, I have never had to look it up again.

As for “second and third choices”, of Bible versions, I just don’t look at God’s Word like that.
Some here might say, that the “New King James version” is the next closest Bible, but I suggest that you tough it out, and after you get familiar with those archaic words, the KJV will be a breeze.
--------------------------------------------------
I have one more thing to share with you(and I am sure that everyone here will agree), and that is the Lord “wonderfully blesses” Bible study.
If you will be faithful, to study your Bible every day, the Lord will respond by opening up His Word to you, is a wonderful way.

I hope that I have been some help.

Have a great day.

rbell · Dec 25, 2008

Priscilla Ann,

There are many good, faithful translations of Scripture that are easier to read and understand than the KJV (this is particularly true if one did not grow up listening to or reading the KJV).

If you choose to use the KJV, that is an excellent choice; I would echo stilllearning's suggestions to get a good dictionary.

However, other translations are also good choices. My preference is the ESV.

I would advise staying away from paraphrases--one man's opinion--such as the "Message" or "Living Bible" for one's study of the Scriptures. They can be helpful as commentaries, but the fact they are one person's translations make them too unreliable IMO to use as a copy of the Scriptures.

hawg_427 · Dec 25, 2008

I was watching my usual TV Bible Study with Les Feldick and he mentioned that in his little talk. He stated that he used the KJV but that the KJV is actually a "Modern Version" it is NOT the Original Language so it is a Translation. I guess unless your reading Hebrew or Greek your reading a modern language. This is not meant to be disrespectful to anybody so do not take offense. Moses and Abraham and Jesus too did not walk around speaking like people here in Florida. LOL
God Bless all and have a Merry Christmas.:jesus:

Samuel Owen · Dec 25, 2008

Well I am not intending to add to the argument; But. I have mentioned it before, Acts 12:4 in the KJV is correct; from King Herods point of view. I wont bother to explain it, but will let you find out as I did.

Also I have an 18 page document, where it shows how the inclusion of words in the MV's, change the entire meaning of certian verses.

I have most of the MV's also, and it took me several years to convince myself that they were incorrect. So I really no longer use them, except for comparison.

I have been around on several Christian boards for years, and have never seen the confusion in doctrines, and general understanding as it is today. There must be a reason, and I'll give you three guesses where it comes from.

When you consult several doctors, you will find they will have a different opinion on how to treat you. If you follow them all, you will never get better, but probably will DIE
Now it doesn't matter to me what version you choose, read what you want. But I would use just a tad of spiritual discernment if I were you, that is - if indeed you have any.

The real reason I am KJVO

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

New Member