I like my rescued NIV but I also like my KJV, I have a 1560 Geneva and honestly comparing them gives me a a good idea of what the Bible is trying to tell me.
To borrow a phrase I read online that jumped out at me, the Bible don't need rewritten,it needs to be read again. I grew up with the King James and it has never lead me wrong. So I will stick with the King James.
Would you consider doing a comparison between the 1611 King James and modern King James that we use today? because they are not identical to each other. The King James we use today is the 1769 Blaney revision and the oxford and Cambridge editions are not identical. The 1611 also had marginal notes with alternate readings, which actually agree with the modern translations a lot of times. Also, the different editions of the textus receptus are not identical. Erasmus added the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7) to his 3rd,4th,5th editions of the TR... his first two editions didnt have it do to the majority of manuscrips not having it. God bless
Or get a very inexpensive Bible Dicrionary of Archaic words. David Daniels has a great one for about .49 cents. David Cloud also. Laurence Vance has written the definitive work on the subject. I would disagree with many of the conclusions on the Bible researcher website. Very modernistic of the Wallace, Aland school. Much better conclusions out there. David Otis Fuller, David Cloud, D A Waite, Dean Burgon etc. God bless!
Hey bro. I recently purchased the MEV Bible. I also have the csb study bible and the NIV bible. And also a few more. I've been trying to figure which one out of all the newer translations would be 2nd place of coarse with KJV 1st. Which translation would you be comfortable recommending if the KJV didn't exist?
The MEV still has changes consistent with the other translations that are concerning. On the back of the MEV it says this is an update of the KJV or NKJV. Some of these changes change doctrines. The HCSB leaves out verses, and the NIV leaves out a whole lot of them. Here is a video by David Daniels on the MEV....ua-cam.com/video/mgPdYOMppQ0/v-deo.html I don't have any problem with the KJVER cause it just changes the ending of the words and it still shows singular and plurals. I think some of the literal translations, young's and greens are good for use alongside the KJV or KJVER. There are also some other literal translations based on the TR.
To be honest the Authorized KJV is my favourite because it has beautiful language, I see it as divinely inspired and am worried about the omissions. However I do use other literal translations as well in more modern English: NRSV and Lexhams online. However I believe in bringing people to God's word and sadly not everyone is lucky enough to be as educated as I am. Many do struggle with the Jacobean language. Therefore if a more modern translation or even a paraphrase Bible helps people on their journey with Jesus and, more importantly, introduces him to them in the first place then praise be to God. An example would be the Gideon New Testament that started me on the journey to faith. It is NIV and I am grateful for it. (though I don't use it anymore). My Gideon NIV Bible has the omissions (such as the Angel at Bethsaida )in brackets in the actual text block rather than in brackets. I don't like the replacement of Virgin with Young Woman in Isaiah in the NRSV too as it dumbs down the prophesy in 7:14. However people pick holes in even in various KJV versions(Cambridge, Oxford, Counterfeit Nelson etc) they should count their blessings and remember those who don't posess a Bible in their language or can't afford or are forbidden to carry one. I read recently of Christian missionaries who often had to interpret a text in a certain way in indigenous language to help it make sense to them. A literal translation being impossible through linguistic or cultural barriers.
This way YOU are god playing the game of pick and choose or I prefer. Congratulations! You are an official EVITE choosing arbitrarily against the very words of God. You are not entitled to your sinful opinion. For you are bought with a price. Thy words are very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.
I want to be KJV only because I don't like the missing words and verses either. But I was reading second Corinthians in the KJV and had no clue as to what Paul was talking about...lol so I got my GNT bible out and read second Corinthians and it was crystal clear as to the meaning of the text. They say God is not the author of confusion, so to me, and correct me if I'm wrong please...its a good idea to study modern versions till you have a clear understanding of the text THEN move up to the KJV.
shawn stephens It's kind of what I was saying above. People need to understand the scriptures and if they are struggling with the Authorized then I personally would recommend a current English version such as the NRSV or ESV as Bible reading is important and if people are struggling they will stop. It is a matter of debate and myself being an easygoing, chill sort of fellow, can see where both sides are coming from.
Yip, they sure struggled with understanding the bible for the last 1800 years. But now that the pigslop bibles are out even gays can understand in their own format. Froggie in the hot water or what!
The Truth is the King James version of the Bible is taken from 2000 + manuscripts and the others are taken from as little as 2. Common sense will tell anyone the having 2000+ is far better than 2. But looking at it on the spiritual way as we should. The Godly men involved in bringing together the King James version of the Bible were called together by God to give to us HIS church the True Word. It's the sin in a person's heart that makes them choose the wrong bible. Dose the the True member of God's church want the Truth or a false version.
I read each and every verse you quoted from the KJV from my Douay Rheims Version and it listed each verse word for word exactly the same as the KJV. Makes me think the KJV copied the Douay Rheims.....lol
bro I wouldn't even read that bible it will corrupt your ways the niv is a bad direction cannot bring anyone closer takes you away from god I feel bad for who ever wrote that
THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE TRUE ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION. ALL THE MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, PALE IN COMPARISON TO THE KJV. KJV ALL THE WAY!!
this is false information. every Bible translation has its flaws but it doesn’t mean there is one true Bible. the KJV is a very good translation, but not the only true translation. some Bibles are false, like the New World translation and the catholic Bibles, but the KJV is not the only true Bible. God bless you
@@joannechisholm4501 The way you want to control people will always evolve so the book of oppression must change with it. You can only push right field interpretations so far before changes must be made. Of course an all knowing being would see this coming and make his own changes otherwise he is the God of poor publishing practices.
Jesus came with John, they were born in the same year and they have been knowing each other since they were children. If John is talking about “the prophet” who is coming after him then he must refer to Mohammed. He is the only one who claimed to be the final prophet and his revelation was the Final one. For that, some biblical scholars add some sentences to change the meaning such (Yet he was before me) so Mohammed was not before John, voila
I like my rescued NIV but I also like my KJV, I have a 1560 Geneva and honestly comparing them gives me a a good idea of what the Bible is trying to tell me.
To borrow a phrase I read online that jumped out at me, the Bible don't need rewritten,it needs to be read again. I grew up with the King James and it has never lead me wrong. So I will stick with the King James.
I love this guy
Thank You! God Bless You
The "word" is a title. Jesus is THE name.
Would you consider doing a comparison between the 1611 King James and modern King James that we use today? because they are not identical to each other. The King James we use today is the 1769 Blaney revision and the oxford and Cambridge editions are not identical. The 1611 also had marginal notes with alternate readings, which actually agree with the modern translations a lot of times. Also, the different editions of the textus receptus are not identical. Erasmus added the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7) to his 3rd,4th,5th editions of the TR... his first two editions didnt have it do to the majority of manuscrips not having it. God bless
Got it coming God willing my friend!
I've also done a video on Blayneys revision.
And some on Erasmus in another video.
Or get a very inexpensive Bible Dicrionary of Archaic words. David Daniels has a great one for about .49 cents. David Cloud also. Laurence Vance has written the definitive work on the subject.
I would disagree with many of the conclusions on the Bible researcher website. Very modernistic of the Wallace, Aland school. Much better conclusions out there. David Otis Fuller, David Cloud, D A Waite, Dean Burgon etc. God bless!
Hey bro. I recently purchased the MEV Bible. I also have the csb study bible and the NIV bible. And also a few more. I've been trying to figure which one out of all the newer translations would be 2nd place of coarse with KJV 1st. Which translation would you be comfortable recommending if the KJV didn't exist?
Kjver, MEV maybe. I’m just a TR guy, so TR for sure.
The MEV still has changes consistent with the other translations that are concerning. On the back of the MEV it says this is an update of the KJV or NKJV. Some of these changes change doctrines. The HCSB leaves out verses, and the NIV leaves out a whole lot of them. Here is a video by David Daniels on the MEV....ua-cam.com/video/mgPdYOMppQ0/v-deo.html
I don't have any problem with the KJVER cause it just changes the ending of the words and it still shows singular and plurals. I think some of the literal translations, young's and greens are good for use alongside the KJV or KJVER. There are also some other literal translations based on the TR.
KJV will always be available everywhere.
To be honest the Authorized KJV is my favourite because it has beautiful language, I see it as divinely inspired and am worried about the omissions. However I do use other literal translations as well in more modern English: NRSV and Lexhams online. However I believe in bringing people to God's word and sadly not everyone is lucky enough to be as educated as I am. Many do struggle with the Jacobean language. Therefore if a more modern translation or even a paraphrase Bible helps people on their journey with Jesus and, more importantly, introduces him to them in the first place then praise be to God. An example would be the Gideon New Testament that started me on the journey to faith. It is NIV and I am grateful for it. (though I don't use it anymore). My Gideon NIV Bible has the omissions (such as the Angel at Bethsaida )in brackets in the actual text block rather than in brackets. I don't like the replacement of Virgin with Young Woman in Isaiah in the NRSV too as it dumbs down the prophesy in 7:14. However people pick holes in even in various KJV versions(Cambridge, Oxford, Counterfeit Nelson etc) they should count their blessings and remember those who don't posess a Bible in their language or can't afford or are forbidden to carry one. I read recently of Christian missionaries who often had to interpret a text in a certain way in indigenous language to help it make sense to them. A literal translation being impossible through linguistic or cultural barriers.
Amen. Some good points there.
This way YOU are god playing the game of pick and choose or I prefer. Congratulations! You are an official EVITE choosing arbitrarily against the very words of God. You are not entitled to your sinful opinion. For you are bought with a price. Thy words are very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.
Multi perversions is to help you become your own authority above God's pure preserved proven word.
I want to buy my first bible but I don’t know what to buy as there as so many of them
buy the KJV read pray and then read the others tell me idk and you will then understand
Quite interesting differences
I want to be KJV only because I don't like the missing words and verses either. But I was reading second Corinthians in the KJV and had no clue as to what Paul was talking about...lol so I got my GNT bible out and read second Corinthians and it was crystal clear as to the meaning of the text. They say God is not the author of confusion, so to me, and correct me if I'm wrong please...its a good idea to study modern versions till you have a clear understanding of the text THEN move up to the KJV.
I think many people say use the KJV, but use others as commentary's.
shawn stephens It's kind of what I was saying above. People need to understand the scriptures and if they are struggling with the Authorized then I personally would recommend a current English version such as the NRSV or ESV as Bible reading is important and if people are struggling they will stop. It is a matter of debate and myself being an easygoing, chill sort of fellow, can see where both sides are coming from.
Yip, they sure struggled with understanding the bible for the last 1800 years. But now that the pigslop bibles are out even gays can understand in their own format. Froggie in the hot water or what!
a spiritual understanding cannot be obtained by a fleshly understanding
I want to buy my own bible but I don’t know what to buy as there are so many of them can someone help me
Go to the trinitarian Bible society website, or Gideon’s, and they’ll send you one.
The Truth is the King James version of the Bible is taken from 2000 + manuscripts and the others are taken from as little as 2. Common sense will tell anyone the having 2000+ is far better than 2. But looking at it on the spiritual way as we should. The Godly men involved in bringing together the King James version of the Bible were called together by God to give to us HIS church the True Word. It's the sin in a person's heart that makes them choose the wrong bible. Dose the the True member of God's church want the Truth or a false version.
how much pain has been caused by one book.?...treat others as you wish to be treated. much love and respect. feel free to use that . peace
I read each and every verse you quoted from the KJV from my Douay Rheims Version and it listed each verse word for word exactly the same as the KJV. Makes me think the KJV copied the Douay Rheims.....lol
bro I wouldn't even read that bible it will corrupt your ways the niv is a bad direction cannot bring anyone closer takes you away from god I feel bad for who ever wrote that
THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE TRUE ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION. ALL THE MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, PALE IN COMPARISON TO THE KJV. KJV ALL THE WAY!!
this is false information. every Bible translation has its flaws but it doesn’t mean there is one true Bible. the KJV is a very good translation, but not the only true translation. some Bibles are false, like the New World translation and the catholic Bibles, but the KJV is not the only true Bible. God bless you
NIV translators of who the head of the OT was gay, including the stylist Virginia Molencott.
I know about Mollenkott.
If it was a real holy book there should only be one version hahah
Not necessarily. Who defines the standard?
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thats what it should be hahah
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Then whats the point of a bible if there are loads of different ones saying different things
@@joannechisholm4501 The way you want to control people will always evolve so the book of oppression must change with it. You can only push right field interpretations so far before changes must be made. Of course an all knowing being would see this coming and make his own changes otherwise he is the God of poor publishing practices.
That's what I say. They just brainwash people. I stay away from the bible. I just love people and pray to the creator.
Jesus came with John, they were born in the same year and they have been knowing each other since they were children. If John is talking about “the prophet” who is coming after him then he must refer to Mohammed. He is the only one who claimed to be the final prophet and his revelation was the Final one. For that, some biblical scholars add some sentences to change the meaning such (Yet he was before me) so Mohammed was not before John, voila
Because there all fake