[Re: Why is the KJV Bible better than modern translations?]
The "proof is in the pudding." The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined. All your great revivals have ended in America since the new version came out. Except for Sunday and Graham who both used KJVs. (We'll, Graham was quoted once as saying, "When I want results I use the KJV").
The men behind the translation. Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally they were some of the holiest and God-fearing men. And they were very, very intelligent. Many of your new versions were had unsaved reprobates and perverts TRANSLATING the bible. (Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV).
The KJV is the only version that claims preservation and has supporters who claim it is pure and without error. You will not find this with any other English version that I know off.
Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND. There is something about the King's English that is very clear and to the point. The English launguage was at its best at this time in history.
Wilchbla, Online Baptist 69 Comments
[1/3/2011 5:45:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 56
1 2 3
1/3/2011 11:33:36 PM
"The English launguage was at its best at this time in history."
Actually, the form of English in the KJV was old even when it was written. They wanted it to sound ancient so that it had authority.
1/4/2011 1:55:02 AM
"The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined"
KJ was a man lover was he not? Hee hee hee
1/4/2011 2:43:42 AM
"The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined."
Only in the nutty as a fruitcake sense.
1/4/2011 6:41:57 AM
Yes, I'm sure we can all agree that King James didn't actually translate the Bible. Massive history fail on the rest though.
This rant is presumably from someone who thinks that 'helpmeet' is all one word and is an actual thing.
1/4/2011 6:46:12 AM
Set aside the content and the King James version of the Bible is a good read if you like the style of english at the time. It is close to the languge of Shakespeare and unlike more modern and accurate translations its authors had ears for poetry and poetic language. I'd say the same for the Anglican book of common prayer. Fictitious content but great to read.
1/4/2011 8:12:55 AM
@ Old Viking
1/4/2011 9:00:08 AM
"The men behind the translation. Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally"
And King James I wasn't straight. Period. Thus your Holy Writ, and therefore your beliefs based on such, Wilchbla, is gay.
It's not known as the Queen James Version for nothing.
1/4/2011 9:17:11 AM
And here I thought God's original languages were Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
1/4/2011 10:37:05 AM
1/4/2011 8:57:46 PM
[Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV]
You don't even know the history of your own religion.
1/4/2011 10:52:14 PM
There is NO perfectly accurate translation of the Bible. Such a thing is impossible. You will ALWAYS lose something in translation, or imprint your own biases. The only TRUE version of the Bible is the original Hebrew.
(This post paid for by the International Association of Hebrew Teachers)
1/5/2011 4:32:38 PM
The KJV has produced more fruit
I think you're confusing fruit with "intellectual vegetables"
... doh. Ninjar'd by Jezebel's evil sister..
1/5/2011 4:40:24 PM
But the King Games err James version was edited for content by said king, because he didn't like some of it. It's about as accurate as other 'modern' versions of said fairy tale.
1/5/2011 5:51:07 PM
"The KJV is the only version that claims preservation and has supporters who claim it is pure and without error. You will not find this with any other English version that I know of[f]."
That's because the KJV is the only version that has supporters who are batshit insane enough to believe such nonsense.
1/5/2011 7:00:51 PM
My head is just shaking and I am going to puke.
1/5/2011 7:04:57 PM
Has it produced........ bananas?
1/7/2011 8:52:25 AM
Even though I disagree with this guy's arguments for the KJV, I like it. It's not the best translation, sure, but it's wording, though archaic, has a nice ring to it. I do not believe it is without error- all translations of any work have errors. But, they did a good job. However, this is not the only translation I like. The NRSV is wonderful as well. I would argue it's the best. I'm an agnostic, and I'm not terribly religious. Just putting my 2 cents in.
5/3/2013 6:42:23 AM
That's a lot of words to say "because it's the one that I read."
5/3/2013 8:19:50 AM
1 2 3