tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29526561.post8540094969662493618..comments2023-11-02T15:47:08.643+07:00Comments on Borders of Faith: King James Only?Joeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135557597523377513noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29526561.post-24915193781747470702008-09-14T00:48:00.000+07:002008-09-14T00:48:00.000+07:00"KJV was a good translation for the early 1600s be..."KJV was a good translation for the early 1600s because it was written for people during that time."<BR/><BR/>Often repeated misinformation. The KJV was <B>NOT</B> written in 1611, Elizabethan English. Compare the KJV to Shakespeare (or even to the KJV introduction); the language is very different. Note the different usage of 2nd person pronouns.<BR/><BR/>The KJV is still a very good translation. The revisions between the 1611 and 1769 are almost entirely spelling. There are also a few corrections is wording and punctuation, but it is not a new translation.<BR/><BR/>Yes, there are a few obsolete words, like "aforetime," but face it...they're usually not hard to figure out. An if you need help, just do what you normally would when you read <I>any</I> book...look it up. Just type it into Google, and there you go.<BR/><BR/>The real difference between the KJV and newer versions is that they are based on completely different manuscripts. The new manuscripts are extremely sloppy and missing many verses. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=4&inputControl=420&lid=en&quireNo=36&side=r&zoomSlider=0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com