Featured Which translation?

Why not cut-to-the-chase and have a translation with the more modern words rather than the antiquated ones? There's no use going around the mulberrybush.

You use modern English in your posts. Would you say your usage of the language is degraded?

 

Nice Try....

Thanks but no thanks....I've sampled many of the new Bibles and I'm neither comfortable nor happy with them or their many little authority undermining "footnotes" that can be found in most of them.

As for the english I use in my posts it is what it is and I can do no other. The language I use is (hopefully) at least average, if not a little better than average (I hope). Having listened to some of the language or modern "speak" that is being used in the world (and sadly, within the Churches also) I think it IS safe today that it is being degraded more and more. BUT....thanks to the Holy Spirit, a good Dictionary and my personal favorite...a Strong's Concordance....I have very few problems to speak of with understanding the beautiful and majestic older English of my King James Bible. I trust it, I love it, and with God's help I'm trying to faithfully obey it. THAT is the biggest challenge.

I'll stick with what I got and continue recommending it...ONLY.:thumbs:You are, of course, at liberty to do as you will also.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

You skip over the fact that some so-called "authority undermiining" notes were also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV and also in many later KJV editions even in the 1700's and 1800's.

Are you in effect using divers measures to attempt to smear modern translations for the same type notes that were also used in the 1611 KJV?

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be capivated to one, when it may be the other."

 

Nope

Logos...IF..and I do say IF...I am by chance using any "measures" at all to "smear" anything it is inadvertantly. I'm just saying that the editions of the KJV I have used for the last 30+ years have NOT contained, at least to my memory or recollection, any of the type of footnotes that are found in the newer translations that I personally detest. Therefore, I'm NOT "skipping over" anything...at least not intentionally. In my opinion...the footnotes in question call the authority of many passages into question. They are usually based on the suggestions of "scholars" that think they may be smart enough to correct the Word of God and publishers and editors that are quite possibly looking for a lucrative payday with their new "Bibles". Just look at all the advertising that is done to "promote" the newer, more accurate (supposedly) "Bibles". Like I always say...I'm happy with what I have and will continue to recommend it.... exclusively. I do however, appreciate the extensive nature of your knowledge about these matters. It is impressive. Even if I can't agree with all your conclusions. God Bless You.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Single column paragraph ESV.

 

You didn't give a satisfactory reply to Logos about the face that the KJV had hundreds of notes regarding alternatives and hesitancy regarding what the actual Greek or Hebrew rendering may have been.

So,in other words you can't have it both ways. If the KJV had all those evil foontes undermining the authority of God's Word. (I don't believe that for a second.) The modern versions do exactly thye same thing. you lose big time on that point.

Why don't you put the "E" in caps?

So,is the language you employ debased or not?

 

KJV preferred is reasonable, as one can see the greek text as being superior, or else the style of it, unlike KJVO, which has no real leg of support to stand upon!

 

On the contrary,the KJV revisers did not use the contemporary language of their time,but basically English of approximately 60 or so years earlier. They were forced to do so by the strictures placed on them.

Ironically Tyndale's last revision reads in a more modern sense over all in contrast with the KJV of any stripe.

 

that is why the "Bible of the reformers" to large extent was NOT the KJV, but the Geneva Bible...

The KJV translators were mindful to keep down any critical comments towards Kings in the Bible also...

 

NONE here condemn one for using/favoring the KJV, just comdemn the totaly unsupported case for KJVO!

 

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved bibles of all time.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved books of all time.

 

yes, but one can read with profit other english versions also!