I can't deal with that old English. Like another language to me.
It is not a good introductory bible for most people. I do read a NKJV though.
Can you give an example of what's so hard to understand in the KJV?
I can't deal with that old English. Like another language to me.
It is not a good introductory bible for most people. I do read a NKJV though.
if you go to some of the bible websites like biblegateway you can look at a specific chapter or verse in any of the different translations, it's a really good way to compare and contrast right there on the spot. I do it all the time.On my walk today I was talking to God and the subject of the king james only group popped up, now I have read it and while old english gives it a sense of uniqueness I asked God why the king james only group believe their bibles are the only true bible and others arent, then I remembered one of these people telling me it's because the kj is the closest to the original scriptures written I know the OT was in hebrew and I think the NT was in greek but even if the kj is the closest to the original script it still isn't the original is it?
Is there another reason for kj only people to believe their version is the only true word of God? I am just trying to understand the reason behind this
if you go to some of the bible websites like biblegateway you can look at a specific chapter or verse in any of the different translations, it's a really good way to compare and contrast right there on the spot. I do it all the time.
How do you decide which ones right?
Miri my reading the KJV has nothing to do with preference, I read the KJV because it is the inerrant word of God and the others are not.
What do you want, something that you call "easy to read" lies or hard to read (which is not true) truth. Let me ask you this hypothetical... if you met and fell in love with a man whose language you didn't understand, would you take the time to learn his language?
One of the most laughable things to me that the KJVO bunch says is that it is somehow wrong to produce a Bible that is written in the commonly understood language of the day in which it is written.
And, though they don't seem to know it, that is exactly what the KJV version was written in... the common, everyday language of the late 1500's. It was written so it could be understood in the vernacular of that day. I mean, that is a laugh and a half.
I wonder if they ever asked themselves why it was updated. It was to keep up with the changing English language.
There is no comparison Jesus speaks all languages, most of all the language of love.
John 3 v 16 does not say for God so loved the world.....etc etc but have
everlasting life - but only if you read the King James Version.
You asked also what good is the KJV to a Spanish speaker. But also what good is the
KJV to an English speaker who cannot understand it - the same concept applies does it
not?
I don't mind an updated language and God wants it updated he will do it.
..... and HAS done it.
Which one? I haven't seen an inerrant updated language bible.
I've asked at least a dozen times why we are told so "in-errantly" to hate our entire families as we are told to do in Luke 14:26. But you guys can't seem to be able to tell me. And those are the very words written in the book. To understand differently or to see it any other way, you have to go off to Matthew 10:37-39.... but even then you can't bring yourself to say that the words actually written in Luke, obviously aren't an accurate rendering of what Jesus meant.
If the translators had been true to the intent of the Scripture, instead of trying to insure their own theology was preserved, we wouldn't need these newer translations to correct their biases.
It does not help though, if people cannot understand it or are put off
discoving God by archaic language. See my last paragraph.
I realise that you personally prefer the King James and that is fine,
but to push the King James onto people who find it hard to understand,
or to insist it is the only version to read, may hinder and may be a
stumbling block to others seeking God.
That's all im saying.
Willie was Agar ever your spiritual or symbolic mother?
Willie was Agar ever your spiritual or symbolic mother?
Evidently you don't understand because it's not a crazy question.What the heck kind of crazy question is that?
That's a pretty sorry comparison, if I understand your meaning correctly..... and if I DO understand it correctly, shame on you...
I'm answering the question at hand. You just admitted that Agar was your allegorical mother before Christ. Now read the verse and tell me what part of the verse points to our earthly father and mother. It doesn't, you ADD that part, you wont let the bible speak on it's own.... stop interpretting and let the bible speak. Do you agree that you can't say for certain that the verse is talking about your earthly mother?Very definitely. I lived as a slave child for many decades. But that is just a game with you. Try to stay on task, and answer the question at hand before attempting to detract with rabbit trails.
I'm answering the question at hand. You just admitted that Agar was your allegorical mother before Christ. Now read the verse and tell me what part of the verse points to our earthly father and mother. It doesn't, you ADD that part, you wont let the bible speak on it's own.... stop interpretting and let the bible speak. Do you agree that you can't say for certain that the verse is talking about your earthly mother?
Luke 14:26 KJV
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
This is the very real reason we need to be going to a number of translations and versions. Otherwisse, you could contract the Westboro disease.... LOL