ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Use Modern Bibles Today

Why do many of today's preachers sermonize using archaic King James English translations of the Bible instead of making the word of God plain in modern 21st century English translations?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Leon on 6/9/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



all of you people that think kj bible is out of date. Will one show me why not. I can show any of you why the new translation is corrupt. The devil has attack Gods Word and new versions leave the diety of Christ out and many verses leave he'll. One such change is John 14. My bible says Jesus is preparing mansions and some of the new versions call mansions a house. God says we will have a mansion and that is what it means. I can show you unlimited instances of corruption. But.... the skepicts still believe in modern versions and guess the devil is winning this battle but he is loosing the war.
---Shira4368 on 6/15/12


"...[It's] ok for ministers to use the KJ English because the Old English is understandable to the hearer [?], [e.g.,] [KJ] English: "Believest thou this?" is understood as 'Believe you this?'"
---Eloy on 6/14/12


Eloy: Do you know anyone who, apart from quoting from the KJ Bible, talks like that in their normal daily life? We don't talk like that in the 21st century, so why are some people holding the KJ English Bible up as if the "language" is holy when what's really holy is the Word of God, period!

I believe the Bible should be translated in plain everyday English so "whosoever" can understand it & just maybe believe, & be saved. Isn't that what it's all about!
---Leon on 6/14/12


God's command to the sinner to repent offends the carnal flesh, and therefore the sinner desires to do away with the KJV and substitute it with diluted noninspired words from man, rather then God's commandments to change and be holy. I have browsed many newer translations and they are worthless for changing the truth into the lie. Many blaspheme the 100% deity of Christ, they remove the trinity, they remove the supernatural miracles, et cetera. These are not even Holy Bibles, but they are misnamed as though they are Bibles in order to sell their unholy books. To the casual layman whom does not research the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, I would suggest the Geneva Bible of 1560 A.D. as the best English version.
---Eloy on 6/14/12


Leon, It is ok for ministers to use the KJ English because the Old English is understandable to the hearer. For example, King's English: "Believest thou this?" is understood as "Believe you this?"
---Eloy on 6/14/12

Saint Eloy, How is it that you are allowed to translate and paraphrase like this but Bible makers aren't? What a hypocrite!
---Jed on 6/14/12


//are talking about the same thing, it is you who do not understand the bible
---francis on 6/14/12//
huh?
---michael_e on 6/14/12




God revealed his law in the Bible. Yet one place tells us that we are subject to it, while another tells us those who teach it are vain. (Mat 5:17, Eph 2:15)
---michael_e on 6/14/12

LOL if you think that Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

AND

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace,

are talking about the same thing, it is you who do not understand the bible
---francis on 6/14/12


The reason that most people think the Bible is too hard to understand is because they do not rightly divide the word of truth.

This means that they think that every verse in the Bible is written for their obedience today.

God revealed his law in the Bible. Yet one place tells us that we are subject to it, while another tells us those who teach it are vain. (Mat 5:17, Eph 2:15)

In one verse circumcision is matter of salvation while on another page it voids the cross of Christ! (Gen 17:14, Gal 5:2)
---michael_e on 6/14/12


You can find two problems with the KJV, but one is really a problem - the other, I suspect, is actually beneficial.

One is that it was translated by a few people, who had only a very few manuscripts to use. That was a genuine problem. That, though, has been largely corrected with the RSV, which was done mostly to fix those problems.

The other, that people mind with the KJV, is that people find the English 'unusual'. I feel that this is actually a good thing - it is better to have to look at your Bible a few times to understand it - you understand the meaning better.

Also-despite the earlier comment about the 'navel', which I've checked is a genuine problem, normally taken to be a problem with the Hebrew manuscripts used....
---Peter on 6/14/12


Eloy, I have worked with kids, adults with learning problems, and adults with mental illness. They would have difficult understanding written and spoken King James English. Only adults of normal intelligence with no mental health problems could understand the KJV.

Speak for yourself.
---Trish on 6/14/12


Leon, It is ok for ministers to use the KJ English because the Old English is understandable to the hearer. For example, King's English: "Believest thou this?" is understood as "Believe you this?"
---Eloy on 6/14/12




Saint Eloy claims to know all truth at all times, yet he doesn't even know the difference between accuracy and precision. He claims that "inaccuracy does not mean something is wrong." That's not true. Inacccuracy DOES mean something is wrong. What Saint Eloy described was precision, not accuracy. Even though he didn't even describe that right. Accuracy is how right or wrong something is. Precision is how detailed the information is. If I weigh 200 lbs and I have two scales and one says I weight 200.0 lbs and one says I weight 196.50 lbs. The one that says 196.50 is less accurate, but it is more precise because it measures weight to the 100th of a pound instead of 10th. Being precise does not make something accurate.
---Jed on 6/14/12


No Saint Eloy, that is not the definition of inaccuracy. Accuracy and precision are not the same thing at all. The first statement isn't even true, because the customer did not spend two whole dollar bills, the customer spend less than two dollars. That is an example of inaccuracy, not inprecision. In fact, it was a precise statement because it gave an exact amount, but it was inaccurate because it was wrong. The second statement is accurate, but not precise. The customer did indeed spend ABOUT two dollars, but the statement doesn't specify exactly how much was spent. The third statement is both accurate and precise. Because it is true and also tells the exact amount. Precision doesn't mean something is right, accuracy does.
---Jed on 6/14/12


An inaccuracy is not equal to wrong. For example, If I write, "a customer spent two dollar bills for buying six items at thirty-three cents a piece." That is a true statement, however it is inaccurate or imprecise, for it would be more accurate to write, "a customer spent about two dollars for buying six items at thirty-three cents a piece." And even more accurate then this, would be writing, "a customer spent one dollar and ninety-eight cents for buying six items at thirty-three cents a piece." Each of the three statements are true, but one is more accurate than the other two. And such it is with bearing truth.
---Eloy on 6/13/12


\\The king James bible has no errors. Please point one. Shira4368 on 6/12/12 \\

OK, Shira. Here is one more inaccuracy in the KJV.

Song of Solomon 7:2 & #8232,Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.

The Hebrew word that the KJV translates as "navel" here is really something else lower down.

That's as delicately as I can put it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/12


Here in Australia I've found many churches use modern 21st century English translations.
In hearing their sermons based on these versions I haven't got a clue what their talking about. It makes no sense.
And it seems the congregation have no spiritual understanding of scripture from these sermons either.
---Haz27 on 6/13/12


\\So any one of these definitions would be correct, but one of these would be more accurate than the others, depending on the context the word is used in.\\

Youm'll say anything to excuse yourm sinuousness, Eloy.

\\Leon, it could also be that the Pastor wants to be true and honorable to the Word, by preaching the printed word exactly as it is written without changing it for possibly changing it incorrectly and then be guilty of corrupting the "holy" words from God.\\

Youm change the Word of God all the time with yourm corrupted UNholy attempts at translating it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Eloy: I went to Dictionary dot com, and the World English Dictionary gives this definition of inaccuracy:


inaccuracy ( & #618,n & #712,kj & #650,r & #601,s & #618,)

n , pl -cies
1. lack of accuracy, imprecision
2. an error, a mistake, or a slip
---Trish on 6/13/12


NurseRobert, that is not true. For example, if I write, I like NurseRobert: this could have more than one meaning, and to find the right meaning I would have to consider the content that comes before this statement, and the content that comes after this statement. Because the word "like" can have various meanings, such as "fond of", "love", "favor", "enjoy", "pleased with", "delighted by", et cetera. So any one of these definitions would be correct, but one of these would be more accurate than the others, depending on the context the word is used in.
---Eloy on 6/13/12


Leon, it could also be that the Pastor wants to be true and honorable to the Word, by preaching the printed word exactly as it is written without changing it for possibly changing it incorrectly and then be guilty of corrupting the "holy" words from God.
---Eloy on 6/13/12


Shira, Im not attacking anything, Im asking questions. There are multiple examples of factual errors in the Bible, be it KJV or NIV or NASV. There are those who say the Bible was written by God and that it is infallible, but, it was written by man, and man IS fallible. There are also those who beleive the Bible is only right in sofar as its been "translated correctly" of those who beleive the writings of thier churchs prophets instead.

Jacob said he saw God face to face, not "I saw God as a cloud." And please point out to me where it says Ahaziah was made king twice?

Eloy, an "inaccuracy" is still an error. Can the Bible be the infallible word of God and still have "inaccuracies"?
---NurseRobert on 6/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


\\Shira, you are right. Consider the source, jed is manifests fruit which are not Christianed. Therefore abiding in darkness he has zero Spiritual discernment, and all his thoughts and ways will be unrighteous.\\

Youm are projecting again, Eloy, because all of these things apply to YOUM.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/12


//The king James bible has no errors. Please point one. The problem is when people who aren't born again can't decipher truth from error.//

I don't think it's an issue of being "born again." However, when people hold so strongly to opinions of error and they can't acknowledge truth, it makes one wonder what else they hold to that is in error. It sounds cultish to me, like some baptists.
---Rod4Him on 6/13/12


Leon, it could also be that the Pastor wants to be true and horable to the Word, by preaching the printed word exactly as it is written without changing it for possibly changing it incorrectly and then be guilty of corrupting the "holy" words from God.
---Eloy on 6/13/12


NurseRoberts, those extractions are not really errors, but exclusion of the various definitions used for the same word used in different places. This was a common occurence when the KJ translators translated the Bible, they took one definition of the Hebrew or Greek word and commonly used it throughout the whole of the Bible, but the more accurate way would have been to select the right definition from among all the definitions of that one word and apply it according to the context of use. This is not an error, but an inacurracy. For as it can be acceptable to use the first or most common definition of a word whenever you use that word, it would be better to use the second or third definition of that word according to the context of it's use.
---Eloy on 6/13/12


Send a Free Holiday Ecard


Nurse Robert. Again things out of context. King hezikah was made king twice there is still no contradiction. I am studying the other non error you point out.
---Shira4368 on 6/13/12


Ok nurse Robert. Moses saw a cloud which simply put he had the glory of God on him. No one has seen Gods face but one day I will see him. I hope you do too. Please don't attack the king James bible. Look a.t how modern versions leave Christ out . They r trying to take the deity away from Christ. No one can do that but Satan knows how to confuse Christians and he is surely doing that.
---Shira4368 on 6/13/12


jed, first you write: "...This happens again in Luke 3:29. Both of these verses are talking about Joshua (Moses' successor), but the KJV says Jesus..."-Jed on 6/12/12
Then you write: "Micha, that is a lie. Luke 3:29 is most definately talking about Joshua, but KJV incorrectly translates it to "Jose"."-Jed on 6/12/12
One of these statements is a lie and both are posted by you.
Again I say, get your facts straight.
---micha9344 on 6/13/12


Saint Eloy continues to manifest dilusions of grandeur and severe mental illness. Saint Eloy actually thinks that Jesus was there in person in the Old Testament carrying the tabernacle into the promised land with the Israelites instead of Joshua.
---Jed on 6/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


The king James bible has no errors. Please point one. Shira4368 on 6/12/12

Shira, I posted this on another blog:

"Jacob said he saw God face to face and lived. (Gen 32). Yet God said no one can see his face and live (Ex 33) Mark says Jesus was cruicified at the 3rd hour, John says the 6th, 2 Kings says Ahaziah was 22 when he became king, 2 Chron says 42."

There are multiple examples of these "inconsistencies" throughout the Bible. Are these errors?
---NurseRobert on 6/13/12


Shira, you are right. Consider the source, jed is manifests fruit which are not Christianed. Therefore abiding in darkness he has zero Spiritual discernment, and all his thoughts and ways will be unrighteous.
---Eloy on 6/13/12


Shira, it makes a big difference. Obviously there is a difference between Joshua of the Old Testament and Jesus. To say that Jesus led the Israelites and carried the tabernacle into the promised land (Acts 7:45) is not correct, Joshua did that, not Jesus. So KJV is error. Modern translations have corrected the error and put Joshua. That is just one of the errors I pointed out. Why don't you actually read the verses in comparison with other translations and see for yourself which ones are correct.
---Jed on 6/12/12


KJV, Acts 12:4"...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Wrong...the NKJV corrected that.
---Rod4Him on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


The king James bible has no errors. Please point one. The problem is when people who aren't born again can't decipher truth from error
---Shira4368 on 6/12/12

Shira, I just gave 3 different scriptures in the KJV that were incorrectly translated "Jesus" when it was talking about "Joshua". Why don't you read the posts that are already hear before asking people for one example, because I gave 3.
---Jed on 6/12/12


If Jesus and Joshua mean the same then there is still no contradiction. Many take the liberty to blast the king james bible. Please study the context before saying there are errors.
---Shira4368 on 6/12/12


KJV is correct in Hebrews 4:8.

lit.Gk=
"Ei gar autouV IhsouV katepausen,
ouk an peri allhV elalei meta tauta emeraV.
"

lit.Eng=
"If for them Jesus gave rest,
he spoke not about whether another after this day."
---Eloy on 6/12/12


Shira: Shakespeare is taught in school as a study of literature. It is studied for the literary devices, as well as the drama of the plays.

The KJV was written for the common man in Great Britain in the 16th century. The Bible is a Spiritual book. As such, a common person should be able to understand what it says.

When I studied Spanish, I learned to read Psalm 23 to recite for my class. I do not study the Spanish translation for my spiritual growth. When I did missionary work, I handed out New Testaments translated in French and Arabic. Those certainly were not KJV.

I cannot grow spiritually if I am unable to understand the content of the Bible I am using. Therefore, I use the NIV.
---Trish on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


\\The king James bible has no errors.\\

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "errors," but the KJ translators themselves did not hesitate to use dynamic equivalence occasionally.

I've already referred to "fetched a compass".

Then there's the list of instruments in Daniel 3. There the translators did NOT use the proper name of the Babylonian musical instruments, but those with which their contemporaries were familiar, such as the sackbut, an early trombone.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/12/12


Jude 1:9 "when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil......he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said "THE LORD REBUKE YOU". Zechariah 3:2 also.

2 Timothy 3:16
"and profitable for teaching, for REPROOF, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (compare all versions of scripture, most say "reproof", the word "rebuke" is not right for a gentle/pure heart).

The word "rebuke" means to 'chew out' (it is an UNGODLY thing to do...a "flesh" desire).

...to "REPROVE" someone means to PROVE WHAT IS RIGHT.

...but you go ahead and do whatever is in your heart (THAT is what THE SPIRIT is).
---more_excellent_way on 6/12/12


\\The KJV contains an obvious translation error in Hebrews 4:8. It incorrectly says "Jesus" instead of "Joshua".\\

FWIW, "Jesus" is the Latin, Greek, and most other European languages' form of "Joshua".

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/12/12


The king James bible has no errors. Please point one. The problem is when people who aren't born again can't decipher truth from error
---Shira4368 on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Leon, that is only a small part of why people favor the KJV. Without considering the "thee's" and the "thou's", the actual translated words from the Hebrew and Greek are more accurate than the newer versions on the market, for the newer versions have taken great liberties in butchering the Holy words and changing them to say what they originally do not say. And there is nothing more repugnant than to take a word spoken in truth and from the Holy Spirit and change it into a completely different word which has now made it unholy or nonspoken from God and then say, "God said this..." When in truth, God never said no such thing that that version reads.
---Eloy on 6/12/12


Micha, that is a lie. Luke 3:29 is most definately talking about Joshua, but KJV incorrectly translates it to "Jose". And Hebrews 4:8 also talks about Joshua and KJV incorrectly translates it to "Jesus". There is even another example of this in Acts 7:45, this one is even more obvious than the other two. Most translations today have indeed corrected this error and you lie when you say they haven't. NKJV is essentially the same as KJV but with more modern language ("You" instead of "thou" or "thee"). Even the King James 2000 Bible Translation has corrected this. Are you really going to read Acts 7:45 and tell me it was Jesus who carried the tabernacle into the promised land and not Joshua?
---Jed on 6/12/12


trish, you have zero power to rebuke a Christian, for first you yourself must repent from your sins before you can teach anybody else the way of righteousness. Get saved, clean your plate, and follow God. For when the blind try to lead, they fall, and when the blind lead the blind then both fall into the ditch.
---Eloy on 6/12/12


You might want to get your facts straight, jed.
Luke 3:29 does not read "Jesus", but "Jose" in the KJV.
In the ASV it does however read "Jesus."
Concerning Heb 4, however, I do see that most newer translations, even the NKJV have translated that "Joshua."
Others have been named Jesus(English), Iesous(Greek), Iesus(Latin) or Yehoshua(Hebrew).
Discernment of the Word through the Holy Spirit is essential.
---micha9344 on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


The KJV contains an obvious translation error in Hebrews 4:8. It incorrectly says "Jesus" instead of "Joshua". This is because Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. But when the KJV translators translated this verse from Greek to English, they mistakenly left the name in it's Greek form "Jesus" instead of translating it to it's Hebrew form "Joshua". To someone who didn't know better when reading this verse, they might think that Jesus lead the Israelites into the promised land instead of Joshua. This happens again in Luke 3:29. Both of these verses are talking about Joshua (Moses' successor), but the KJV says Jesus. Other Bible translations have corrected the error and say Joshua.
---Jed on 6/12/12


Why is shakespear taught in school? Well how about that... Same English and I am a dumb southerner and I truly understand the king James bible.we r to pray for understanding because it is spiritually decerned.
---Shira4368 on 6/12/12


//Because "James" was already considered the English version of "Iakovos" (as the book is called in Greek).//

Yes, it was spelled Iakovos in Greek...when was that translated as James? At some point it has to be translated from Greek.

How does one spell Jacob in Greek?
---Rod4Him on 6/12/12


"trish, the truth and admonition that I posted to jed, also applies to you as well.
---Eloy on 6/12/12"

Eloy:I have not blasphemed God. I rebuked you. You are not perfect. Why don't you repent of your sin, ask God for His forgiveness, and become a Christian? Until then, do not address me.

As for your justification about Jed's choice of words on a different blog, did you ever hear of forgiving others? I do not seek retribution, or legal action in this regard. I have forgiven Jed for what offended me.

Scripture says that we are not to sin in our anger, and to seek retribution is sin. Plus, it says we are not to take another brother in the Lord to court. You are sinning in attempting to take Jed to court.
---Trish on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


\\Concerning the KJV, do you know why the book of James is not called the book of Jacob?\\

Because "James" was already considered the English version of "Iakovos" (as the book is called in Greek).

**jed, after you become a Christian then you will no longer bear false witness or be able to blaspheme,**

Eloy, you are clearly not a Christian, because you post false witness and blasphemy all the time. Everything you say, in fact, is sinuous.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/12/12


There are people who say we should not speak in another tongue, but King James English is not the tongue spoken by Americans.

But I would say there is a problem in doing other translations. Because of copyright issues, ones are not legally allowed to use wording that is correct in earlier translations. So, ones will make a project of rewording their translation work in order to not break copyright rules. And the rewording can be not really how we speak, often enough. But we can get the love meaning, if not always the exactly correct wording.
---willie_c: on 6/12/12


Concerning the KJV, do you know why the book of James is not called the book of Jacob? or that the brother of Jesus is called James and not Jacob?
---Rod4Him on 6/12/12


Eloy, you just called translations other than the KJV "unholy". Then in your next post you boast about having translated scripture for nearly 20 years. How is it okay for you to translate scripture but not anyone else, (except I guess for King James)? What a hypocrite! You need to read the Bible and figure out what blasphemy means. Blasphemy is against God, not humans. I know you show constantly that you think you are God and everything you say is truth, but you are not. Now that is true blasphemy. You are just a mere human like the rest of us, and here's the kicker, you are not right all them time. You're not even right most of the time.
---Jed on 6/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


trish, the truth and admonition that I posted to jed, also applies to you as well.
---Eloy on 6/12/12


jed did not rebuke, but instead bad-mouthed me by rediculing mentally challenged people, of which I am not, and he has also done likewise publicily in addressing you. I have his public postings and suggested that he cease his illegal behavior or face civil litigation in court. I have already contacted the owner and administrator requesting his ISP address for legal recourse.
---Eloy on 6/12/12


Eloy: Jed has not blasphemed anyone. First of all, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is only between the blasphemer and God. Rebuking you is not blasphemy. That is what believers do when they see another believer committing repeated sin. Jed rebuked you, and it was not blasphemy.
---Trish on 6/11/12


jed, after you become a Christian then you will no longer bear false witness or be able to blaspheme, but instead you will post truth, for the Holy Spirit will live within you to cause you to bear witness to the truth, rather than to your falsehood.
---Eloy on 6/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


I posted that the KJV is "more" accurate, NOT "most" accurate. jed, do not add to, nor take away from my words that I post. I have been translating the Holy Scriptures for almost 20 years now. Burglars have stolen all of my work which I was doing for the Christian church, and so I started translating from the beginning again. The basis of the truth I preach is evidenced for all eyes to see by comparing the copies of the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures alongside the KJV, and check word-for-word, and also do this with the other unholy bibles and anyone can see for themself where the many adulterated english so-called bibles have deviated and corrupted from the original words.
---Eloy on 6/11/12


The king James bible is 12th grade reading. No one can beat the bible for English speaking people. This debate still rages.
---Shira4368 on 6/11/12


I agree that there are versions that are more easily understood and I do not believe that we should use only the KJV. But, I do believe that many people don't make an effort to read the KJV or any other Bible. They take the word for their preacher, pastor or televangelist. For those who have trouble with English, I believe "The Living Bible" is helpful.
---KarenD on 6/11/12


I personally use the NASB for study but memorize and quote using the NKJV.

The NASB is a word-by-word transliteration like the KJV and therefore has many tools available with it. It is very easy to read and is grammatically correct. I also use 5 other versions when I study: KJV, NIV, RSV, The Message, and JPS Tanakh.

However, the NASB has changed the way many passages read and sound. The words do not go along with the passages I memorized as a kid and the songs I learned made from Scripture. Therefore, I use the NKJV for memorization and quoting.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


\\Leon...Most intelligent people can understand the KJV. [?] You are selling people short.[?] There are those who are literally challenged [?] & there are versions which help them... most people I know can understand English."\\

In Orthodox and other Eastern Christian churches in this country, Karen, English is NOT everyone's first language.

I'm saying nothing against the KJV, but it is NOT always clearly understood by intelligent people who weren't brought up speaking English, or by many who are not used to its style and diction.

For example, in Acts 28:13, :"fetched a compass" does not mean that someone went and got a nautical or drafting instrument.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/11/12


Most intelligent people can understand the KJV. -KarenD.

So do un-intelligent people not deserve to be able to read and understand the gospel?
---Jed on 6/11/12


"Leon...Most intelligent people can understand the KJV. [?] You are selling people short.[?] There are those who are literally challenged [?] & there are versions which help them... most people I know can understand English."
---KarenD on 6/10/12


Karen what about the other "souls" who don't understand the KJV? Obviously, you nor I "know" everyone & what they understand. However, I believe the intelligent, quasi-intelligent & the intelligence-challenged English speaking people living today would much better understand Bibles written & explained to them in modern (not Elizabethian) English.

Some here seem to be romanticizing the KJV because its what they grew up with.
---Leon on 6/11/12


Eloy, it's interesting how you call any translation other than the KJV "unholy" when you yourself are guilty of paraphrasing and re-translating scriptures on these blogs. For example, the other day when you quoted part of a verse and changed the word "old covenant" to "old testament". This was not only an incorrect paraphrase, it was a perversion of the scripture because it made it mean something completely different that what it really says. Also, I have noticed that you frequently mix little sentence fragments from several different verses and put them together to form a sentence or paragraph made up of pieces of several different verses, often leaving out critical words and even whole sentences.
---Jed on 6/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


\\When I became a Christian, there was a paraphrase that was popular called "The Good News for Modern Man."\\

Keep in mind that the Good News Bible was intended for missionary work where the only means of communication was Basic English.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/11/12


Because if it is complicated that means it is more holy. Didn't you know Jesus spoke in victorian english (sarcasm)

Totally agree with Trish. I like NKJV, NLT, and ESV.
---Scott1 on 6/11/12


There are differences between the translations of the Holy Bible and paraphrased versions. When I became a Christian, there was a paraphrase that was popular called "The Good News for Modern Man." The Army chaplain that led our chapel services referred to the King James as "The Good News for 16th Century Man."

I have studied with the NIV, a parallel version, with three translations and one paraphrase per page, and the Amplified Bible. They have helped me to better understand a passage, as it gives me richer meaning of the Word.
---Trish on 6/11/12


\\The English words in the King James Bible is more accurate than the newer UnHoly bibles.\\

Yourm own translations are unholy, as well.

\\suffix -est, -st= singular (drop this suffix from the word)
suffix -eth, -th= pluralizing "s" (drop this suffix, and add "s")\\

Wrong again, as in everything youm say.

The verb suffix "eth/th" is THIRD PERSON SINGULAR, and never plural.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Also use as many versions as possible to get a clear idea
---francis on 6/10/12

i agree.
---aka on 6/11/12


Eloy, what basis do you have for saying that KJV is the most accurate? And for accusing other versions of being "unholy"? As I already showed, the KJV was translated at least twice from Jesus' actual spoken words to the English. Paul translated Jesus' spoken words from Aramaic to Greek in his letters, and King James translated the Greek letters to Old English.
---Jed on 6/11/12


The English words in the King James Bible is more accurate than the newer UnHoly bibles.

This helps:

suffix -est, -st= singular (drop this suffix from the word)
suffix -eth, -th= pluralizing "s" (drop this suffix, and add "s")
shall= will (occasionally means should)
thine= yours
thou, thee= you
thy= your
ye= you all, all you
---Eloy on 6/10/12


I agree with cluny

I also belive that people should use whatever version they can understand best.

Also use as many versions as possible to get a clear idea
---francis on 6/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


I agree with Cluny. I also agree that the KJV has all the same potential translation errors as any other version, since it was likewise translated from the original. In fact, even the original Greek may have some translation error of what was really said, since Jesus and the disciples spoke mostly in Aramaic, not Greek, as that was the official language of Israel in their day. Paul's Greek letters were a translation of what Jesus spoke in Aramaic.
---Jed on 6/10/12


Have you tried asking them yourself, or are you really making a statement here expressing your opinion of the KJV?

As a matter of fact, MANY preachers and churches DO use more modern translations.

I generally quote from the KJV here for two reasons:
1. It's the version I was brought up on and I have many passages from it memorized.
2. There may be copyright restrictions for quoting from modern versions on line.

ALL standard English versions say the same thing, and have virtues AND faults, including the KJV. It did NOT drop down out of heaven already written in the 1769 recension.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/10/12


Leon...Most intelligent people can understand the KJV. You are selling people short. There are those who are literally challenged and there are versions which help them. But, most people I know can understand English.
---KarenD on 6/10/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.