Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'kjv'.
Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the language is basically 400 year-old English. So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified. In Christ, Joseph
Brethren, One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference. Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV). After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly. The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate. Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance. Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage. Regards, Alan