Author	Thread: King James Only
Admin	King James Only Posted : 19 Oct, 2008 01:32 AM Anyone else here King James only? Post Reply
JoshuaSheffield1989 View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 21 Oct, 2008 04:55 AM yeah Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 30 Oct, 2008 09:32 AM King James or New King James, don't really care for the others. Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 5 Nov, 2008 04:16 AM Just wonder why to restrict oneself to only one interpretation of the word...? Post Reply
cranston View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 5 Nov, 2008 12:46 PM yep King James onlY: because most others are copies of KJ: some are copy of a copy: and many decivers are in the world: read 1 John 3,4 and 2 John just to name a few; Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 20 Nov, 2008 09:46 AM OKay, I'm not too deep into English translations. I know the problem that some christians in Germany see one certain translation as the word of God and all others as wrong, while when you compare their bible to the greek/hebrew scriptures, there are som wide differences... I think one has to look at different translations, just to get an idea of how differently the original message could be meant... God bless Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 11 Jan, 2009 09:45 PM I think for me it would be fairer to say that I only use the King James. I say this because there is a view out there that God reinspired the translators of the King James and that you can correct the Greek text with a 1611 King James. I choose the King James because it is the only version translated in entirety from the Traditional Text/ Masoretic Text. Post Reply
jennyrose13 View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 20 Jan, 2009 05:56 PM King James Only or Greek.. I have not learned Greek yet, ssoo King James Only.. I go by what the bible says, not what a religion says. I have seen other versions change the meaning of a scripture. Post Reply
thealphajustin View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 22 Feb, 2009 07:29 AM i have read all the arguments stating that other versions change the meaning of scripture....but the problem with that is that the meaning needs to be derived from the original texts, not already translated English text which excludes many of the manuscripts that have been discovered. this issue is further compounded by the fact that the TR has a large amount of textual variants and had to be filled in by taking it from the Vulgate and translating it back to Greek. the lack of usage of the Alexandrian texts is also a ding for the KJV, which have proven to be much more consistent. it also seems as though KJVO-ism completely removes itself of any form of textual criticism because the translators where inspired......which of course can never be proven. it also then causes an argument against earlier english translations like the Geneva and Tyndale copies. is the KJVO saying that our early pioneers in translation were all uninspired? or are you saying that the Lord inspired a better translation? if that's the case, then how do we know future translators are or are not inspired? where is the line? another issue with the KJV is the use of archaic words. it has been rumored that its supposedly tested at a 5 grade reading level whereas newer translations are harder to read. this of course is a wash since the only place you will ever see this argument fly is in chain email letters. no documentation has ever been provided to support the use of old english over standard. the supposed omitting of the name Jesus in newer translations is also a very weak argument that i come across. for starters, the newer translations are correcting the KJV from the original texts which are sometime close to 1000 years older. furthermore, none of the meaning of the passage is lost. on top of that, this same tactic can be used against the KJV. their are places in the newer translations where Jesus is used and in the KJV "he" or "him" is used. so really in my mind i cannot see a valid argument for KJVO. i think it can be a beautiful read, but lacks many qualities that today's translations have like "dynamic equivalence." if anyone thinks i need corrected please do so. im open to learn. Post Reply
aintsettlin View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 25 Feb, 2009 08:59 PM all i can say is A-MEN BROTHER!!!! Post Reply
aintsettlin View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 25 Feb, 2009 09:01 PM that A-MEN was to thealphajustin Post Reply

First

Page : 1 2 3

Next  10 >>

Last