[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / abcu / ebon / k / komica / miku / nofap / random / ytc ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


| Rules | Log | Tor | Wiki | Bunker |

File: 656857f0297afe1⋯.jpg (28.16 KB, 400x599, 400:599, 400px_New_King_James_Versi….jpg)

b5aa4d  No.841758

There are a number of updated versions of the KJV. Here's the short list of ones I've found. There are even more but out of print or fringe objectives.

The general goal is to retain the translation while updating archaic language. Sometimes they're a passion project by one man or sometimes a large publisher is behind it.

The biggest reason to use one of these in my opinion would be if you believe the Textus Receptus NT & Masoretic OT are the best manuscript sources but you want better readability. History has it that the KJV is the best and most revered TR tradition in English. Some of these additionally use more recent developments in manuscripts though, like NKJV, but will have inline or footnote alternate readings.

>KJ21

https://www.gotquestions.org/21st-Century-King-James-Version-KJ21.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_King_James_Version

1994

>NKJV

https://www.gotquestions.org/New-King-James-Version-NKJV.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version

Most popular

Thomas Nelson Publishers

1975

>MEV

https://www.gotquestions.org/Modern-English-Version-MEV.html

2014

>MKJV

https://www.gotquestions.org/Modern-King-James-Version-MKJV.html

1962-1998 (revisions)

>UKJV

https://www.creationism.org/BibleUKJV/00Preface2UKJV.htm

Public Domain

2000

>KJV2000

https://www.kingjames2000.com/

1999

>KJV2016

http://kjv2016.textusreceptusbibles.com/

"Copyrighted for the sole purpose of protecting the text from alteration"

2016 (obviously)

>AKJV

https://studybible.info/version/AKJV

Public Domain

1999

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b75124  No.841761

>>841758

As the KJV says in Psalm 12

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

KJV is a difficult translation to read generally because of when it was written. Not everyone will be able to understand it, that's a simple truth. Therefore I reference the above to say, the Holy Spirit guides you in all truth and if that's the case, as it is, then you can depend on him and he'll help you with any translation. Worrying about which is the best is silly. Grab one you're comfortable with and pray every time that the Holy Spirit reveal things to you and you'll be gold.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a97dcd  No.841762

>>841758

Out of that bunch, I liked what the KJV21 tried to do. It retained the Elizabethan English, but only polished some of the truly archaic words. For example, whenever it lists various tribes and the descendants within them, it doesn't use "dukes", but "chiefs" (see Esau's family line in Genesis 36). The KJV uses "dukes", and it's a bit funny sounding now (even if accurate, we tend to associate "dukes" with more regal contexts nowadays). The same translator did the "MKJV" (Modern King James) which goes further and removes Elizabethan English entirely. But I don't find it necessary.

That all said, none of these are enough to move me away from the KJV.. or come in as many nice bindings or are readily available. I just wanted to say the KJ21 is somewhat in the right direction, and in the spirit of the 1769 KJV we use now (which revised the 1611 in only minor ways).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b5aa4d  No.841764

>>841761

It's not worry to compare the translations, but your approach to exegesis is not trustworthy. You have an unfalsifiable system. That's how pentecostalism or the various cults started.

>>841762

The binding problem can be solved if you visit a bookbinder, even for those on the list that are out of print. I did it myself with a used NASB and got great calfskin.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b75124  No.841766

>>841764

>KJV-only cultist calling other people cultists.

>Wants to be taken seriously.

>mfw you use the KJV Bible to support my position without taking the Bible out of context and immediately called a cultist.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b5aa4d  No.841767

>>841766

1, I'm clearly not KJVO

2, I didn't call you a cultist. I'm cautioning that your approach has led to the formation of cults.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a97dcd  No.841769

>>841764

>The binding problem can be solved if you visit a bookbinder, even for those on the list that are out of print. I did it myself with a used NASB and got great calfskin.

True enough. But maybe "binding" isn't quite the best word here. I should have said "printings" instead. The KJV is available with some of my favorite typefaces (Clarendon especially). I really dislike how so many bible typefaces look these days. Letters tend to look modern and thin and are done on computers instead of old hot metal printing methods like Cambridge does with some. A good ole KJV with Clarendon type just has that "classic bible" look with bold letters, if you know what I mean. I also like having a KJV with apocryphal books around (not because I find them canonical. Just that they are useful).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0ab52a  No.841771

>>841769

Now this is a connoisseur

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bfdbd3  No.841786

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

relevant

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d2f411  No.841793

>>841769

Personally I like a good comic sans myself

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a97dcd  No.841808

File: b6a05d80312fe6a⋯.jpg (2.89 MB, 3968x2232, 16:9, p10105681.jpg)

>>841793

Cool. But I doubt you could fit it on anything but a comic book bible meant for children. And why did you sage me? Harsh. A classic bible type is a thing of beauty.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

555508  No.842159

>>841758

I would stick with the good old KJV 1900. You can't get any more authorized than that.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

555508  No.842164

>>841761

>he'll help you with any translation.

Even when you're dealing with versions that remove or add entire words that change the meaning? How is that any different from shelving the real Bible and instead of studying that, reading some guy's book or commentary that actually changes the words while quoting scripture inaccurately?

Like how are you supposed to learn about not being angry with your brother without a cause from Matthew 5:22, when the modern versions remove the words "without a cause" out of Matthew 5:22 thus changing the meaning?

> KJV But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

>other versions

> ASV but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment

> NLT But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!

These two versions are clearly teaching something completely different from Matthew 5:22 (KJV). In the original version of Matthew 5:22 Jesus is saying whoever is angry with their brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

Clearly, Jesus himself had righteous anger at times just as God has righteous indignation. But he had a cause. Are you saying that Jesus is putting himself in danger of the judgement in this verse if you read those modern versions? In the real version of Matthew 5:22 He is not. In the modern version, He is.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

53e70b  No.842173

>>841758

>KJ21

Get the Third Millennium Bible if you're going this route. It's the same but it has the Deuterocanonical books and it doesn't put random passages in bold like the KJ21 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.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / abcu / ebon / k / komica / miku / nofap / random / ytc ]