I read KJV ONLY

Posted by David John Maxfield in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

I read many translations including the NKJV & ESV, but I am yet to find a bible as good and trustworthy as the KJV. I’m not a kjv only person, its just my preference. I know that I can take this bible on face value and believe 100% ever word written in it. God bless you all

Michael Morrison Jr. [09/13/2015 6:43 PM]
Well… If you learn some of the Greek, you may determine differently.

David John Maxfield [09/13/2015 6:53 PM]
Same same to me, the Greek to me reveals the fullness of what was written, but it doesn’t change it, just opens it up. Are you well studied in Greek Michael Morrison Jr.? đŸ™‚

Edwin Mendez [09/13/2015 8:39 PM]
Kjv is awesome. ESV is pretty good. Have you tried the NET? With the NET, if you know Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, you’ll understand why Greek scholar Daniel Wallace said it is every translators favorite version.

Andrew C Lomp [09/13/2015 8:52 PM]
The Vulgate(Latin, and the Septuagint(Greek)_

Edwin Mendez [09/13/2015 10:33 PM]
I would choose the NET, more for their notes. Although I don’t always agree with their decisions, it’s awesome to just know what is going through the translators mind during the process.

Shawn Herles [09/13/2015 11:08 PM]
I like the KJV for it’s aesthetic value, and use it for my devotions and prayers, but it’s not a great translation, at least in some places. For study purposes I use the ESV.

Ed Boardman [09/13/2015 11:25 PM]
Why not

Ed Boardman [09/13/2015 11:25 PM]
Another reason to be kjv only

John Ruffle [09/13/2015 11:26 PM]
I read the New King James text-only at home and for personal study but for public reading in the Church I always read the New Jerusalem Bible. Both are laid out very well indeed, which is very important to me.

John Ruffle [09/13/2015 11:27 PM]
My Bible Society edition of the NKJ – printed in China!

Ed Boardman [09/13/2015 11:27 PM]
So doctrine don’t matter to anyone

David John Maxfield [09/13/2015 11:32 PM]
of course Ed Boardman but what exactly are you meaning when you say that? care to elaborate ?

Edwin Mendez [09/13/2015 11:35 PM]
Most of what KJVOS promote as absolutes hinge on various conjectures. Please let’s not get into this.

John Ruffle [09/13/2015 11:40 PM]

Kenneth Kindle Jr. [09/13/2015 11:42 PM]
I like my king James version but I like to read the HCSB as well

Ed Boardman [09/13/2015 11:49 PM]
Sure so errors are OK with you just saying

David John Maxfield [09/13/2015 11:54 PM]
With me personally ? You have to give me a bit more than that Ed so I can understand where you’re coming from and what you’re getting at???

Shawn Herles [09/13/2015 11:58 PM]
There are some errors in the KJV text. Modern translations have access to much earlier texts than the translators of the KJV did. There is also the issue, as far as public worship goes, of the language of the KJV. Now, aesthetically I like it, but it’s archaic and of the times. People don;t speak Elizabethan English anymore. That said, I don’t think choice of Bible translations is a doctrinal/orthodoxy issue, but purely one of personal preference.

Ed Boardman [09/14/2015 12:31 AM]
I gave you a bible time line it appears you didn’t see it

David John Maxfield [09/14/2015 1:30 AM]
I just saw it then sorry Ed, I actually use that already a lot when talking with people. I agree with you that the KJV is the most accurate bible there is. Knowing the differences between the versions empowers that as well. However I would never deny the revelation that others get just because they read another version, that’s where I draw the line

John Kissinger [09/14/2015 1:39 AM]
David John Maxfield Yet you’re probably reading some new KJV revision and NOT the original 1611. Is this correct? Rick Wadholm Jr

David John Maxfield [09/14/2015 1:41 AM]
1769 AV version đŸ™‚

John Kissinger [09/14/2015 1:43 AM]
pls you provide a snapshot of an actual page – like 1Jn 5:7?

David John Maxfield [09/14/2015 1:46 AM]

David John Maxfield [09/14/2015 2:06 AM]
Yes it’s still the same đŸ™‚

David John Maxfield [09/14/2015 2:08 AM]
Only difference between 1611 and 1769 is spelling. For example Heaven in the 1611 is spelt Heauen instead of Heaven, but it’s the same text

Nelson Banuchi [09/14/2015 2:10 AM]
Read from the New American Standard Version?

Thomas Jackson [09/14/2015 7:01 PM]
Please define “accurate” for us peasants. The KJV is not the most literal and it contains material not in earlier manuscripts. Every scholar I have ever read says that the earlier the manuscript, the closer to the original writings. Most of the KJV appears to have been translated from manuscripts from 1000 CE and later. Not being either a Hebrew nor a Greek scholar, the idea that the KJV is the most accurate given its reported sources seems at odds with facts. Thanks.

2 Comments

  • Reply September 18, 2016

    Louise Cummings

    I read mostly KJ. V. I mostly read foot notes in NkJ V. I look at some of the Bible reading in it sometimes. But I understand The KJV best. I think it’s loser to the original writings.

  • Reply September 18, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    I give new converts a NIV and a KJV.
    I tell them to compare the text that they are reading in both and if they have trouble with the comparing the two come to me for help.
    It gets them used to studying scripture, it increases fellowship, and it gives a chance to explain the differences in the texts and translations.

    I prefer the NASV.
    (There are 26 differing translations that I look at from time to time).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.