![]() Why didn’t they change “manger” to, they laid him in “a wooden feeding trough ” where the animals ate …? That ruins the Christmas story for me. I hate the new translations where “swaddling clothes” is replaced with” strips of cloth”. I love the Christmas story read from the KJV because that is how I first heard it as a boy. After years of studying the Bible, I have a better understanding of what the writers of the Holy Bible are saying, I love to pick up my KJV and read from it. They only took out some of the old english and made the KJV more readable. I don’t care for the NKJV because they didn’t make changes in the KJV that should have made to update it and correct mistakes. ![]() When the KJV was publish it was the greatest Bible in the world for the English speaking people and it has been the back bone for many a Christian, but if a person living in 2012 cannot understand Old English, it would be better for him to get a NLT to read for his daily Bible reading and pleasure and get a NASB or ESV study Bible to help him dig deeper. I hate to tell you KJV lovers, but mistakes have been found in the KJV! I too grew up with the KJV and I love it, but Jesus Christ did not speak in the 1811 Old King James English. I would go to Borders, Barnes and Noble, or the equivalent large bookstore in my area, looking personally at the quality of the binding (and whether you get bleed through of the text from the backside of the page or not). And a Strong’s Concordance, (with Greek and Hebrew dictionaries) keyed to the particular bible version you get. I have a MacArthur study bible (along with a bunch of others study bibles), but I use such helps only as sources of documentation.įor actual study of God’s word, I would recommend a basic bible with cross references (with no commentaries) in comfortably readable type. So along with such “helps” come man’s inherent deficiencies in understanding the depth of God’s word. But he, as with all men, myself included, are still subject to error. Personally, I very much appreciate MacArthur’s stand in defense of God’s truth, especially in today’s theological climate. MacArthur’s is basically his theological commentaries in the foot and marginal notes. Both do generally promote the “flavor” of the author or publisher. I’ve found “study bibles” to be generally of two basic types:īoth can have advantages and disadvantages. “And we’ll make sure we get it right this time,” says Keith Danby ![]() Some interesting info about the NIV from those who translated the NIV. “Masoretic/Texus Recepts only” maybe in the future, perhaps. I’m not not “KJV only”, but I don’t think I would ever be. I grew up with the KJV, and tried other translations for several years ( have some NIV and NASB verses and passages memorized), but now I am back to KJV unless I learn otherwise. I am currently considering the manuscript debate as part of my choice (as far as I know so far, KJV uses one set of manuscripts, NKJV uses another set, and all other translations uses yet another.) This may explain why KJV has some verses and sections of verses (compare 1 John chapter 5 with other translations) that others do not (they are inserted, or put with the footnotes. So far, I prefer the KJV because it has a stronger support for the Deity of Christ, His Virgin Birth, and the Trinity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |