/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's a starting point among a ton of modern translations I have no reason to trust. Baptists use the KJV, I know Lutherans use the KJV, Orthodox use the KJV, I'm sure a bunch of denoms use the KJV, why not use the KJV?

>>686445

A thread died for this.

>>686452

Ortho here, I use KJV, ESV and Ortho-bible.

Nothing wrong with the KJV if you understand a few of its limitations.

Our religion isn't like Islam where we take the Bible as verbatim words from God, so there's no need to be autistic about textual variants/translations tbh

The only problem with the kjv is the lack of the deutero Canon. I've heard some versions have it on "apocrypha" (lol).

It is written in a beautiful English though.

>>686445

>How do KJV worshipers even cope with this?

What's the problem? God regularly uses evildoers to bring about a positive end result. It's a point in our favor if we recognize a translation's superiority even though it was not translated by baptists. It shows we are intellectually honest and open to the truth. Also there's the fact that this Bible, though translated by non-baptists, unambiguously teaches the pure light of God's baptist doctrine.

>King James Version of the Holy Bible (lol)

>(lol)

I see you created this thread in good faith

>>686445

KJV style just sounds cool.

It was originally called the Authorized Version. It's not a bad translation and more faithful to the original texts than many others.

Just the idea that a better translation can't be produced is preposterous.

In my opinion the ASV is the best translation and is basically a revision of the KJ that follows the critical text. Generally speaking early modern translations are often more faithful than late 20th century versions and beyond.

>>686546

>In my opinion the ASV is the best translation and is basically a revision of the KJ that follows the critical text.

The problem is that the so-called Westcott-Hort "critical text" was unknown to the entire world until 1881. If you're willing to believe God gave gradual revelation in 1881 of what the original words said, you're also willing to believe future "divinely revealed" versions may yet be discovered and you'll have to throw away your current version. You may find out for instance that Philippians 2:6 or Colossians 2:18 actually says the opposite of what everyone thought it said (this already happened for each of those verses). I guess you may learn some parts of the Bible you always knew turned out to be wrong by these future revelations.

And before you say anything, know that the Westcott-Hort critical text adds the word "Isaiah" to Mark 1:2, and changes "I must work" to "We must work" in John 9:4.

It also adds the extra words "up into salvation" to the end of 1 Peter 2:2. So where were those words if nobody knew about them until A.D. 1881?

>>686546

>It was originally called the Authorized Version

Don't forget the Authorized meant authorized by the Crown to print in return for payments, what we would today call the Copyrighted Version.

>This is the one true Word of God- if you pay us a licencing fee.