Why the king james?

[Agricola]

I have question, is it acceptable to print a King James bible with different spelling, for example Color instead of Colour?

 

[John146]

What Joe Blogs needs is a Bible they can trust every word to be right. Then it's just a matter of reading, studying and believing.

What Joe Blogs (the average person) needs is a freaking Bible they can read and understand. It's the message that's meant to be mulled over, not the presentation of the text. As for many Christians not believing in the infallibility of the Bible as God's Word, that has little to do with them reading modern translations and far more to do with the rise of secular humanism (it's at an all-time high) by way of that evil, evil religion - evolution. Also, far too many Christians don't read their Bibles. I understand your frustration, I really do, but the KJV isn't the answer to this problem. Good biblical hermeneutics is the answer.

 

[KJV1611]

Even after all this you still have not proved to me that the King James is the perfect English Bible that God wants all people to read regardless of how many centuries have passed by and you never will, because you are deluded into thinking the King James is some special translation that God has told us we only must use, so where does it say this in the Bible please?

Ok here's the way you know which bible is God's inerrant word but you will never get past step 1.

1) You have to believe the bible is true and every word is right. You believe the bible when it says God preserves his word.
2) You read different bibles.
3) You throw out the bibles that have errors and contradictions because they aren't the inerrant word God promised to preserve.

I assure you if you follow that formula, the only bible left standing is the KJV. But of course that would be true, there is only one Christ and many anti-christs and you know that right? Why would you think God's word is any different? Don't you understand the character of God? There aren't multiple Christs, there aren't multiple Holy Spirits, there aren't multiple fathers, there aren't multiple ways heaven.

 

[John146]

In 1611 the King James Version was "as out of date" as it is today. Compare the writings of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, King James I, and John Lyly with the King James Version and this becomes quickly apparent. The translators avoided the speech of their day for a basic English which would be simple, TIMELESS AND BEAUTIFUL, and they succeeded. Their version spoke from OUTSIDE THEIR AGE AND TRADITION with elemental simplicity. Their wisdom here exceeds that of their successors. Nothing seems more ridiculous than an outdated modern translation....The issue is not that the Bible should speak our every-day language, for THIS INVOLVES DEBASEMENT.

The KJV is innocent until proven guilty.

But it is still in early 17th Century English. YOu still have not answered my question I originally posted and continued to post, show me in the Bible that we are all supposed to read the King James Bible.

 

[John146]

If we don't have a perfect Bible we can trust every word, then we lose against the world.

(Bob is saved, but uses a modern version.)

Bob: "Hey world, can I show you from my Bible what Jesus did for you?"

World: "Your Bible? Is it trustworthy? You don't really believe that book do you?"

Bob: "Well, I believe most of it to be true."

World: "If you don't believe all of it, then why believe what it says about this Jesus?"

Bob: "Oh, because that part is true."

World: "So I'm supposed to trust what you say about a book you don't even believe is 100% trustworthy? No thanks."

Bob would lose the argument every time unless he has a final authority to appeal to. I'm not saying that one cannot get saved reading a modern version or a tract for that matter. The problem is facing a world with something we don't trust 100% to be the words of God.

 

[KJV1611]

Don't you mean to say, 'how many millions have misunderstood the KJV?' I'd say many, not all, but many have. Because it's so freaking archaic. It doesn't help that many who use the KJV don't seem to have a proper education. If they don't have much of an education they should use a translation that they can read and understand! It's not that difficult!

Yes great idea, let's lead them to a son of the gods instead of the Son of God.

 

[Chuckt]

I have question, is it acceptable to print a King James bible with different spelling, for example Color instead of Colour?

It isn't copyrighted except the modern KJV versions have their fonts, spelling, arrangement and other things copyrighted.

 

[KJV1611]

and that is the key. we need more Bible reading overall, not trying to convince people to read a certain translation only. we need more Bible-literate Christians.

Biblically literate Christians don't have to be convinced which translation to read, it's a given. The problem is the biblically illiterate "Christians" trying to lead new Christians to antichrist bibles..... because "it's erasier". Easy don't make it right.

 

[Agricola]

Ok here's the way you know which bible is God's inerrant word but you will never get past step 1.

1) You have to believe the bible is true and every word is right. You believe the bible when it says God preserves his word.
2) You read different bibles.
3) You throw out the bibles that have errors and contradictions because they aren't the inerrant word God promised to preserve.

I assure you if you follow that formula, the only bible left standing is the KJV. But of course that would be true, there is only one Christ and many anti-christs and you know that right? Why would you think God's word is any different? Don't you understand the character of God? There aren't multiple Christs, there aren't multiple Holy Spirits, there aren't multiple fathers, there aren't multiple ways heaven.

Oh boy, well yes I get past step 1 I read KJV NIV and RSV versions. I have no problem and I see no errors in those.

Going back to my question, in light of what you say about every word having to be perfect and exact, if I pick a King James and it says COLOUR in one version and in another it says COLOR which is correct and which one should I throw away and burn for being perverted?

 

[KJV1611]

Oh boy, well yes I get past step 1 I read KJV NIV and RSV versions. I have no problem and I see no errors in those.

Going back to my question, in light of what you say about every word having to be perfect and exact, if I pick a King James and it says COLOUR in one version and in another it says COLOR which is correct and which one should I throw away and burn for being perverted?

You can answer that one yourself. What is the difference between colour and color?

 

[Agricola]

SO you have no objection to this change of spelling? SO in that case can I produce a King James version which has all the occurances of Thou etc changed to "you" etc.? WOuld you object to that?

 

[KJV1611]

SO you have no objection to this change of spelling? SO in that case can I produce a King James version which has all the occurances of Thou etc changed to "you" etc.? WOuld you object to that?

Why would you want to move from something more accurate to something less accurate? The word thou is a second person singular pronoun always. The word you is second person singular or plural. Changing the word to you would make the language less accurate. Why would you do that?

 

[Agricola]

Why would you want to move from something more accurate to something less accurate? The word thou is a second person singular pronoun always. The word you is second person singular or plural. Changing the word to you would make the language less accurate. Why would you do that?

It dosn't though, English language has done very well without using Thou or Thee etc for hundreds of years without any confusion, the word "Thou" went out of use of in English language in the late 17th Century.

What about other languages which use this word in a singular and plural form?

Can you also give an example where using You etc instead of Thou totally corrupts a message in a block of verses?

 

[gb9]

Biblically literate Christians don't have to be convinced which translation to read, it's a given. The problem is the biblically illiterate "Christians" trying to lead new Christians to antichrist bibles..... because "it's erasier". Easy don't make it right.

um, it is not a given. saying this equals saying" well, if you do use the KJV then you are not a true Christian". you ,me, anyone else does not have to use a certain translation of the Word to be a true believer. if you chose to use the 1611 version, that is fine. but implying that every one does is garbage. stop making an idol out a book. worship the God that the book is about.

 

[John146]

Could you please provide an updated word for "dung." Why don't all the modern versions update that word?

I have question, is it acceptable to print a King James bible with different spelling, for example Color instead of Colour?

 

[Agricola]

Could you please provide an updated word for "dung." Why don't all the modern versions update that word?

Why do you have to continually reply with a question? It was a straightforward "Yes" or "No" answer to my question.

As for your question, the word Dung is still in common usage so there is no need to change it, the word Thou and Thee have not been used in common everyday speech for hundreds of years, people stopped saying "Thee and Thou" in late 1600's these words only appear in the occasional literally work such as poems and plays.

 

[John146]

I've never heard of anyone using the word "dung" but other four letter words.

Why do you have to continually reply with a question? It was a straightforward "Yes" or "No" answer to my question.

As for your question, the word Dung is still in common usage so there is no need to change it, the word Thou and Thee have not been used in common everyday speech for hundreds of years, people stopped saying "Thee and Thou" in late 1600's these words only appear in the occasional literally work such as poems and plays.

 

[Agricola]

I've never heard of anyone using the word "dung" but other four letter words.

Not even Manure? So if I were to change Dung to manure in a copy of the King James would you still consider the Bible to be pure?

 

[John146]

Nope, it's not the right word. Words are important to God, not just intent.

Not even Manure? So if I were to change Dung to manure in a copy of the King James would you still consider the Bible to be pure?

 

[KJV1611]

It dosn't though, English language has done very well without using Thou or Thee etc for hundreds of years without any confusion, the word "Thou" went out of use of in English language in the late 17th Century.

What about other languages which use this word in a singular and plural form?

Can you also give an example where using You etc instead of Thou totally corrupts a message in a block of verses?

I don't know of any examples where "you" corrupts anything. If God wants to do away the thees and thous, then let's let him do it. It's not up to man to take it upon himself to change the word of God.