[bibleprotector]

The KJB is the Word of God for America. Many people who uphold the name of the "Saviour" and believe the KJB are in the USA. I know God has no problem communicating to the Americans with the KJB as it stands, with no need to resorting to unauthorised modernisation.

[magicref]

I have a few different copies of this edition of the Scriptures, but I haven't cared much for the physical presentation. The "full" one is very large and the pages so thin the print shows through from the other side of the page, making it hard to read. The smaller editions are so small they're hard to use. For some reason the publisher didn't seem to make a medium sized edition.

As to the modernization, I do find it "smoother" to read. They index whether a "you" is plural or not, so even though it is easier to read, you can still see if it is a singular or plural usage of the word. The large version includes a list of every "modernized" word.

I certainly like it better than J.P. Green's Modern King James version, which is very wooden and has what seems to me a few strange translations (though it has been so long since I've read from it that I can't recall any right now).

I do know that when reading the Scriptures before my children (now ages 10, 12, and 14), that they seem to comprehend better when reading from the NKJV (in general). While I tend to stick with my KJV Bible, there are portions that leave my head reeling. This is a good thing, though, as it makes me look into Scripture all that much harder! Also I (usually) be sure to read the KJV before using the NKJV and will point out where the NKJV is using inferior wording.

Hope this helps. If what BibleProtector claims is true, that the KJV is the perfected Word of God in English, then we really should work harder at just using that version, though...

Doug A.

[PaulB]

Hi Premio
I admire your honesty and willingness to understand the concerns that you hold to but for me there are just some things that are set in stone. If the subject of the “Word of God” is approached from a mere collection of historical documents that hold valuable spiritual lessons, then yes, I would feel free to communicate them as I could word them. But if a king gave me his word to go and proclaim then I would be miss quoting him if I put it into my own words.

It is one thing to go and preach the gospel to all creation, but another altogether when we try and reword “the Scriptures”. I have written one or two articles explaining my position and don’t want to run through them all again for the sake of anyone else who may read this.

Who understands words such as; “holy” - “Propitiation” – or even the concept of a blood sacrifice? When we “update” we are doing more than we realise, and the question is – who gets to determine the need for updating? If it is the believer then I am sorry, I don’t think that the KJB is written in mandarin Chinese it is in a form of English that is understandable. Yes, I admit that it isn’t as easy as I would like in places but my desires are not the determining factor of what God has put into the Bible.

I don’t understand everything that I come across in maths, does that mean that it needs to be changed so that I can benefit – or should it remain as it is and challenge me to answer its demands upon my mind?

If I made the archaeological find of the century and unearthed the Ark of the Covenant, looked inside it and found the two tablets of stone. And just for arguments sake, I discovered that it was written in olde English (I speak hypothetically). I wouldn’t dare to think of taking a hammer and chisel so that I could reword the 10 commandments to those who don’t speak like that any longer. It would be sacrilege to do so.

If the KJB is seen as a mere outdated translation then this site is nothing other than a forum without a purpose, but if it is seen (and it is) that it is the work of God then it is a totally different ball game. There is no way that anyone can convince me that “the message” or the NIV etc are the work of God, as the issue is far greater than updating archaic words etc. If we are to say “it is written” then on what authority can we do that unless it is written?

We are either guardians of truth who believe in the promise of preservation or we aren’t – if we are, then we guard it – if we aren’t we change it! The question is this; did anyone at any point in time possess the Scriptures where they could call out in total confidence that “It is written” or did they not? If so then that is the side we stand with – if not then there is no word of God in written form today!

God bless

PaulB

[PaulB]

Just an after thought - Many today don't understand that a lamb's blood (especially that of Christ) is substitutionary. Does that mean that we just preach that Jesus passed away so that it is easy to understand that He died for them? No,we declare the whole council of God - thus we trust that God will work with that. but if we change it, we don't have that promise!

God Bless

PaulB

[Samuel]

I just posted this reply, on another forum where the same question was asked.

"I have both the Oxford 1769 KJV, and Pure Cambridge KJV Bibles. Also a 1967 Scofield NRB-KJV, that Bible up-dates a lot of words, and does not remove any. But is by anyone in the know, not considered a KJV.

So how could an easy reading KJV, which probably does more than the 1967 Scofield in changing words, be considered a trustful KJV."