thoughts on the KJ21?

[thewallow]

http://www.KJ21.com/

what do you guys think of such a bible?

[Annie]

Looks great. I'd disagree with the "not since 1611" part of the ad, but the rest looks like something I'd be interested in if I didn't already have enough Bibles around the house. I'd like to peek at one sometime.

[Pastorj]

I have seen the KJ21 and though I am open to a modern translation from the majority text, I don't believe this one will meet the tough standards that the KJV went through. They did more than just take out the archaic words.

[John81]

I've not read one myself but from what those who have read this before have stated, it's not just an easier to read KJB, but that things beyond updating of some words has been done.

[Anon]

I don't get it....there has to be a catch. They didn't even change "thee" or "thou" or "ye"....

Proverbs 1:1 was nearly unrecognizable though, although the rest was somewhat close.

Did they translate it from the originals, or from the KJV?

[lettheredeemedsayso]

I love the beauty of the old KJV.

[Truthseeking]

I don't think so ....... it reads.


"It's the King James Bible for the 21st century"

"The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21

[Guest Guest]

[quote="Truthseeking"]I don't think so ....... it reads.


[i]"It's the King James Bible for the 21st century"

"The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21

[John81]

It's amazing that the KJB has so obviously been blessed of God and used mightily for nearly 4 centuries now yet so many want to claim the KJB is flawed and needs replacing.

The very fact of the blessed success of the KJB coupled with the fact that so many are against it today should serve as a witness to the fact the KJB is the Word of God!

[trc123]

While I understand one's consternation; I would say that it is hypocritical to degrade this particular KJV version IF one allows their Pastor or others to explain (by using various newer words) the meaning of those old English words using the same method, but doing so verbally. I don't see what is the substantial difference; even Peter Ruckman corrects (whoops he would call it explains) the KJV when what he is preaching on calls for it.

[Guest Guest]

While I understand one's consternation; I would say that it is hypocritical to degrade this particular KJV version IF one allows their Pastor or others to explain (by using various newer words) the meaning of those old English words using the same method, but doing so verbally. I don't see what is the substantial difference; even Peter Ruckman corrects (whoops he would call it explains) the KJV when what he is preaching on calls for it.

The difference between a pastor trying to explain a passage to make sure everyone understands and actually changing scripture is that the pastor is giving his view of the passage as he believes it to mean but he may or may not be right. Change the actual wording of scripture to make it "clearer" and you have actually made a change to the bible if you are mistaken in what you think it means. It is a different thing all together.

[Truthseeking]

The difference between a pastor trying to explain a passage to make sure everyone understands and actually changing scripture is that the pastor is giving his view of the passage as he believes it to mean but he may or may not be right. Change the actual wording of scripture to make it "clearer" and you have actually made a change to the bible if you are mistaken in what you think it means. It is a different thing all together.

:thumb

[FundieGirl02]

It is false like all other modern Bible perversions.

[Truthseeking]

It is false like all other modern Bible perversions.

That would be straight and to the point. :thumb