6b0345 No.832778
I want to read the KJV, however choosing one has proved more difficult than I thought. I am bombarded with works by Thomas Nelson. Is he a good source to start with?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
76a7c4 No.832780
>>832778
Do you mean the publisher? Yes it's fine
The text is the same no matter who publishes it. If you're getting a study bible or something it matters more.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1f033c No.832790
>>832778
Just stay away from scofield's zionist garbage and you should be fine.
>>832780
>The text is the same no matter who publishes it.
Not necessarily, a lot of them have inserted uninspired headlines/subtitles over each section of text which could mislead people from the Word of God or the meaning of certain passages as well as break up books.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3aeead No.832798
In the MyBible app you can experience the KJPCE - King James Pure Cambridge Edition. Remember that only the PCE is the FULL and holy experience of the KJV.
Other versions contain subtle changes, one letter here and one letter there, from publishers who are freemasons who exercise their magic while jerking off on kids.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c5620d No.832800
>>832790
>inserted uninspired headlines/subtitles over each section of text which could mislead people from the Word of God
Since you've brought it to OPs attention i think he'll be ok. You must be memeing because I can't think of anything less reserved than the headings in a Bible
>>832798
>Remember that only the PCE is the FULL and holy experience of the KJV
Where did you pick that up
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8544a No.832807
Grab something you can understand. Most won't understand the KJV because it was written for another time. I use CSB, but also message, ESV and NIV.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
76a7c4 No.832811
>>832807
KJV is really not a challenge for native English speakers
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
76a7c4 No.832814
>>832778
Op if you're getting a physical copy you should visit a used bookstore
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fbff21 No.832838
>>832778
I use the one released by local church bible publishers for the pronunciation marks, but if you want a basic pew Bible you can go with Holman ISBN 978-1-5864-0944-9. I can confirm it matches the 1900 format KJV, being also searchable easily on the web here: https://biblia.com/books/kjv1900/
>>832790
Yeah the uninspired page headers can be kind of annoying. I guess without those there would be almost no way to tell what publication the book comes from just by looking at the pages.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8544a No.832858
>>832811
Yeah it is. I knew a guy who was taking graduate math and physics classes as an undergrad and couldn't understand KJV. If we understand it, we do, but not everyone does.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
76a7c4 No.832869
>>832858
It's like a 10th grade reading level so your friend was probably just being lazy about it
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7e8185 No.832903
>>832811
>KJV is really not a challenge for native English speakers
I'd have to respectfully disagree. Native English speakers, most anyways, aren't exposed to and aren't familiar with the early Modern English that the KJV was written. Schools today don't teach it. In fact, many schools don't even teach Shakespeare anymore, and if they do, they go to a more modern rendition of it that's written in contemporary English. The point is, when you're not exposed to it your entire life, reading something like the KJV is clunky and difficult because the language has changed so much in 400+ years. Words have changed meaning. Words have been dropped from the language. New words have been created. And most notable, the loss of the second person informal and its verb conjugations.
Unless you've been consistently exposed to it since a young age, it's gonna be a bit of a challenge to pick up that 17th century lingo. Though I will say, if you stick to it, it doesn't take too terribly long to pick up on. But for someone who has read a KJV Bible and wasn't familiar with early Modern English beforehand, I had to constantly look words up in a dictionary because of so many I've just never seen before, and I myself have a quite extensive vocabulary, at least, much more extensive than the average person. And, there was one occasion when reading the Book of Judges when it was describing the rape of a woman. I just couldn't understand what the KJV was trying to say, so I had to reference an entirely different Bible translation for context because the wording in the KJV was just too vague.
I can only imagine it's going to get worse for folks in the future as the English language continues to change. There will be, at some point, a time in which the KJV will be entirely incomprehensible for everyone. Much like how Old and Middle English are incomprehensible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
76a7c4 No.832904
>>832903
The 1769 KJV is modern English, and not early modern english. It's between the last two in your pic, it doesn't say "forgyve" or "delivere".
It's the same language as the declaration or the constitution.
The legitimate challenge is vocabulary, and a concordance fixes that problem.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7e8185 No.832906
>>832778
It depends what kind of Bible you're looking for and what you intend to do with it.
>Are you looking for something for Bible Study?
Look into Study Bibles. They provide notes, cross-references, maps, images, and so much more to aid in your quest to better understand scripture.
>Are you looking for something just for casual reading?
Go for a large and/or comfort print Bible that's easy on the eyes. Red letter is nice too because it highlights the words of Jesus in red.
>Are you looking for something to follow along at church with?
Go for a Bible that's smaller and easier for transport.
If you intend to use it extensively for years to come, look into a leather or imitation leather bound book with a sewn binding. They lay flat and are designed for daily use. Hardcover and paperbacks will degrade much quicker as they're often glued, and they don't lay flat, meaning you're constantly forced to hold down one side of the Bible. Could also go with a Kindle version if you've got access to a tablet or Kindle.
>>832904
>The 1769 KJV is modern English, and not early modern english
Sort of. The update to the KJV in 1769 more so just changed the spellings of words, not so much the vocabulary used in the original 1611 version. That early Modern English sentence structure and vocabulary is largely still present. Because of this, it's not quite as modern as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence even though it's from the same time period.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c8544a No.832908
>>832869
No, he wasn't being lazy. He couldn't understand.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1c260 No.832911
Basically
KJV and NIV are a no-no if you are truth-seeker. Plenty of added lines and is based on the source that traces its origin in ancient Babylon.
http://www.isawthelightministries.com/kjv.html
If you want accuracy, stick as close as you can to Greek (LXX) for OT. It seems most of the contention originates in the OT as the NT seems solid in most translations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fbff21 No.832937
>>832911
>comparing it with the oldest, most complete scrolls/codex, thus the most reliable bibles we have
What if those codex copies were lost until the year 1860? Are you saying God allowed his word to be lost until some guy uncovered the secret "real" version of the Bible then?
What about all of the scripture references that talk about God preserving his word to all generations? How do you explain that???
>the oldest, most complete scrolls/codex, thus the most reliable
This is false. I will accept nothing less than the original preserved and uncorrupted words. The writer of this sentence is implying we don't have it by saying more/less reliable and more/less confidence. He doesn't even have complete confidence in what he is using. I will accept nothing less than absolute confidence in the unchanged original word of God. The person who wrote this sentence seems to think God allowed his word to be lost or partially corrupted. That is their problem. You do not look for slightly better confidence because you found a slightly older copy, that is worldly thinking that denies that God preserved his word as he said. Please stop pretending to be a Christian, you are misleading others and placing corrupt bibles in their hands. Accept the truth or stop coming back here.
>It seems most of the contention originates in the OT
No, there is contention in both Testaments. It takes more than one form. Some of it is disputing bad translations such as people who think Isaiah 7:14 says young woman and not virgin, or people who want to retranslate the word for fornication as "sexual immorality," which is vague. Some of it is disputing removed verses such as Acts 8:37 or 1 John 5:7.
As far as the LXX is concerned, it was edited and written in the 3rd century AD by Origen. We don't have the version that existed before Origen, and it is likely that it only originally consisted of the first five books of Moses according to the historical accounts given on it.
Furthermore, Origen's version of LXX removes the prophecy of the Son in Psalm 2:12 and it makes Methuselah outlive the flood by twelve years in Genesis. It also changes numbers around to match the New Testament, such as in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. It's clearly a product of post New Testament times. Giving it the same name as a more ancient translation is merely deceptive labeling.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
43d895 No.832972
>>832937
So what do you recommend?
I'm just starting my research
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fbff21 No.832974
>>832972
Hi anon. Glad to help. I posted a recommendation up here: >>832838
I would always recommend if English is your first language to get the KJV 1900 format. The choice is easy in this case. The churches of the west have always used it until around the mid-20th century and it's more accurate to the received text than all modern versions. In fact, the first dictionaries of English took word definitions from this translation, so a lot of times it helped define the language.
If you didn't know, the ID field on the post allows you to see if the same IP posts multiple times in the thread.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.