I prefer the RSV. There are not that many noticeable differences in the KJV, although there are some. The KJV is not a bad Bible, it’s just not the best Bible.1611 edition is nice!
Nevertheless, its still based off manuscripts that are far from early in date.
The Holy Spirit for starters would be a good place to look.
I do not think there are problems in the KJV with the Trinity. Other areas may be problematic, but not that one. From the KJV:
I have to spend more time on this than I can now.
As long as you don’t start demanding that*** every*** Christian has to use the KJV, I see no problem with you using it. I happen to think that the KJV has a beautiful, poetic quality to it but I had difficulty understanding it when I was a Protestant. So, I liked other translations.It is through my training by learned men of scripture that the American Standard 1901 edition is very reliable. I have learned that it comes from the original Hebrew and Greek texts of scripture. I am currently utilizing the New King James version. It seems to be quite accurate. As far as being a “fundamentalist”? I am simply, a Christian. A member of the church of Christ (Romans 16:16). Baptized after I repented and confessed Jesus as the Son of God. I had a priest baptize me, a fellow Christian (Rev. 1:6). I have since been faithful but alas, it hasn’t been easy (James 1:12). The only creed I follow is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified (1 Corinthians 1:18). “The Way, The Truth, and The Life.” "John 14:6 (from Bible.com)
Jesus said to him, “I am [John 10:9; Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Heb 10:20] the way, and [John 1:14] the truth, and [John 1:4; 11:25; 1 John 5:20] the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” mmm, I guess that settle it.
This is really incorrect…
The Douay Rhiems is better. The Vulgate is still our official bible, has been since 397AD, no real need to go back any further than that to me because of that fact… The Douay Rheims is the straight literal word for word english translation complete with Genesis 3:15(She), and it’s in the same style of language as the KJV, having arrived a few years before 1611.
It would be more accurate to speak of KJVOs when you say that they “want to believe” something about the KJV. The rest of us are quite content with whatever is historically true, despite whatever love we have for the translation.
It is certainly true that the KJV translators consulted the Vulgate, just as they consulted all the available witnesses in their attempt to decide exactly what the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (“handwritten documents”) said. But to suggest that the Vulgate held a higher place in their estimation that did the other sources just isn’t true.
The KJV isn’t “very different” from modern translations, unless you consider “Christ Jesus” to be very different from “Jesus Christ” (which is the kind of variant most likely to be found).There are approximately three places where the actual text is in dispute; the rest is details; and even those details, if the really undecidable ones were collected together, would fill only half a page.
The textus receptus is not a manuscript, it is a “family” of New Testament manuscripts which all resemble one another in a way that makes them distinguishable from other “families” of NT manuscripts. Only a few (compared to today) Greek manuscripts were available to the translators who produced those English Bibles which began with Tyndale and ended with the KJV. And since every manuscript differs to some degree with every other manuscript, work had to be done to compare them all together and establish “the text” of the document they were translating. Most of the work on the New Testament text had already been done by Erasmus, but the translators were willing to consult any available witness in their attempt to do the job aright. The Vulgate would be one ancient Latin witness to the original texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament.
True; after all, it adds an entire Trinitarian phrase in 1 John 5. The Jewish community is largely aware of this error and has used it against Christians for some time. It is a lasting scar.
It includes numerous lines of Scripture that should not be in there because it is merely a revision (to my knowledge) of the AV, and thus uses the same flawed manuscripts.
Even though I was saved only about a year ago, when I was younger, I asked my mom, “What’s a good translation of the Bible?” She wasn’t (and isn’t, for the most part) a Bible-reading Christian, and all she’d known was the KJV, so that’s what she recommended. I took her advice and at that age despised reading the Scriptures because of the complex translation. NOW I love its poeticism, but I wouldn’t recommend it to any who are looking for serious study. A quick glance at the JPS and KJV in regards to the OC books demonstrates quite clearly through the many, numerous discrepancies as proof of the original translators’ (who were largely non-Christian to begin with) ignorance of the Hebrew language. What’s more, the Textus Receptus isn’t the ideal document to base your conception of what the original Autographs said on … Not so at all.
Yeah … The Apocalypse of Peter was also considered as a very serious opponent for St. John’s Apocalypse … Obviously, we know the outcome, however.
This was also Jewish tradition, which made its way into Tobit. So one might argue for the possibility of the tradition itself simply making its way into the Scriptures, rather than being incorporated from a secondary, deuterocanonical source like Tobit. Also, Romans 9 might show some reliance on Sirach and Wisdom. HOWEVER, the passages from these books that it might refer to draw from canonical books of the Protestant/Jewish canon like Psalms and Jeremiah, so the whole deal is debatable.
Thats the point, it was canonised AFTER the deuterocanon was Canonised by the christian world. Thus if one considered the early church to have thought Revelation/Apocalypse may not have been canon and it was in fact canonised at the same council as the Deuterocanon, Naturally it follows that despite the fact that the early church was unsure of the christian canon, what finally materialised as the full canon, was very much right, after all Revelation actually came along AFTER the deuterocanon was universally agreed on. The same church that accepted Revelation and canonised it, is exactly the same chruch that accepted and canonised BEFORE that time, the Deuterocanon.