The Real Reason I Think People Like the KJV

Are you are saying Palatka51 that Thomas Nelson Co. makes tons of money on the NKJV that it prints and no money on the KJV that it prints?

 

I use the TNIV and have sense coming here folks here seem to think it sounds like the Bible to them. Many still carry a KJV and somehow, miraculously are still able to follow along when I preach.

 

Whichever version I read the most sounds like the Bible to me. At first, that was the KJV. Then I started reading the NIV, and I would start thinking in terms of NIV and recall verses in NIV. Then I switched to the NKJV and now that sounds most like the Bible to me.

 

I got my THE GENEVA BIBLE, 1560 Edition from Hendrickson today.
I've got the 1599 Edition with the original spelling on
my electronic e-sword.

 

What I'm saying is that when a publishing house introduces a new version it will always get royalties from the sales of each copy sold no matter who publishes it thereafter. If Thomas Nelson Co. has published reference material related to or has elected to EDIT the KJV in any way then yes the royalties would be endless. As well as royalties paid to all contributors to the new versions and reference material.
To publish the KJV as it was with no EDITS and no reference material they would not have to pay royalties nor can they charge royalties. What ever profits from the sale of the KJV are theirs for the taking.
My point is that most of the source material for the KJV was from Tyndale and Wycliffe and the only royalty (monetary settlement) they got for their effort was contention and death. This version has gone throughout the world and has brought many men and women to Christ. From 1611 to today it is still point souls to Calvary. It has stood the test of blood and time.
Meanwhile there is no clear move from God to EDIT His Word for our "modern society." So I do question the motivation of all these modern translations for not one of these publishing houses nor their contributers have had to contend unto blood for the distribution of God's Word.
For it was by Blood we were given God's Word and it is by blood we will receive it and by blood it shall go forth.

 

Actually, it was the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles that were paid for in blood. The Geneva Bible, Bishop's bible, and AV1611 were made under the auspices of a powerful human protector.

 

Excuse me? Isn't that what I said?

For me this is proof that this is the Word of God. It is not just the poetics of the text. It's the history of it's inception.
Until all the others are proven by blood and time the KJV will be supreme for mine own studies.
For those of us that love the KJV it is for far more reasons than just poetic flow.

 

So if people haven't been martyred to produce the Japanese Bible we use then it is not the Word of God????

 

The key is found when one translates the English word from the KJB and finds it matches exactly to the context. This is done without any alteration of the word nor is it incorporating new meanings due to language demands to change the true word.

All anyone has to do is look to the etymolgy of any word and realize the root meaning never changes, sort of like God never changes.

Subtility occurs in word changes, learn that.

The serpent was more subtle than any creature in the garden, and still is.:sleeping_2:

 

Wanna know when the real confusion begins? It's when the word of God is publickly read aloud by those present using multiple versions.

What that does is confound the hearing and the understanding of those who are just learning to speak.

It's actually an outright attack to subvert the hearing of the little ones.

Of course no one, well, almost no one, considers THAT implication, they just want to substanciate their fav version.

 

Amen Brother, but what is even sadder is that they might not be aware that they are a stumbling block to the little ones.

 

Please explain. Translates the English word from the KJB into what langauge?

Etymology is the last thing a language pro uses to determine a word's meaning. Current usage is far more important. For example, do you know the etymology of "goodbye"? If so, you know the modern meaning is nothing like the original meaning.

 

//What that does is confound the hearing and the understanding of those who are just learning to speak.
It's actually an outright attack to subvert the hearing of the little ones. //

Question: Which is the correct term?
1. Children's Worship
2. Children's Church

Answer: "Children's Worship".

A 'church' is a body of baptised believers.
I really don't know of any such church
which is composed only of children.
I know the 12-years I worked Children's
Worship, I didn't know of any. The groups
in our church were age 4 to Kindergarden,
and First grade to 4th grade - in other words
readers & non-readers.

I think any non-inept Children's Worship person
who has heard a sermon about the Bible could explain
to a child why they sound different.

 

Did the Church of England translators subvert the hearing of the little ones when they introduced a different translation from the one that the majority of the common people and the majority of English speaking believers used [the Geneva Bible]?

According to a consistent application of your reasoning if it is valid, the 1611 KJV should never have been made. English-speaking believers already had a Bible translation that they loved and accepted [the Geneva Bible]. English-speaking believers can still obtain copies of the Geneva Bible today.

 

Amen, Brother Logos1560 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I see your monikier includes the Geneva first printing
date of '1560'. You are so RIGHT ON!

I got my new 1560 Geneva Bible reprint today :godisgood:

Isa 14:12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer,
sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde,
which didest cast lottes vpon the nations?

(I use the Geneva 1599 Edition because it is electronic
and I can cut & paste better than I can type.
The 1599 version and the 1560 are pretty much the
same. But the 1560 has the 'n' in 'heaven' printed
over the 'e' (which I don't even know how to
do on-line).
The commentary footnote for this verse
say it compares Nebachadnesser with the morning
star which preceeds the sun.

Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition):

How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer,
sonne of the morning? how art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

Note the KJV1611 editors changed 'cast lots'
to 'weaken'. How are we going to explain that
to the pre-readers?

 

If there is confusion, it is a self-imposed confusion. Over the years, I have been in churches where a pastor used the NASV or the NIV or whatever, and I found it a simple matter to bring with me to church the translation that the pastor uses. Are the members of your church that dull that they cannot implement this simple fix to their confusion problem or are they so dull that they don't realize that they are confused? Or possibly a third or 4th reason that I'm not mentioning?

 

I have no prob with having God's word in the same language I use every day.

 

Isn't it uncanny how when we who use the KJV, try to explain why we love it we and the version we love come under attack? I personally do not understand how brothers of the same faith can be so vicious. I have found that I myself have become defensive and vicious and I can't debate in a spirit such as this. It is sad what Satan has wrought amongst the beloved brethren, this should not be and I am very ashamed of myself.
Just a quick point. The King James Bible has 31,174 verses — an even number — so there is no one "center" verse: the center would be a combination of the 15,587th and the 15,588th verses, which do fall within Psalm 118 (verses 8&9 actually). Also note that the center word of these verses are the LORD. If in any of the other translations a verse or word is added or deleted then not only is the LORD become off center so too has the trust in Him. Something to think about.