Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

yeah, like where the NIV leaves countless portions of scripture out of it.

Check with 1st Bible about a Hindi translation. I suppose it is only in the 1 st works. Of course it would be akin to the KJV:smilewinkgrin:

 

Oh, and explain agape' without referring to our English word "love":smilewinkgrin:

 

There are no places where scripture is omitted in the NIV. None. Your premise is flawed.

There's no exact English word for the Greek word "Agape". The closest one can translate it is "perfect love without condition", but a full definition would require significantly more verbage. It's the kind of love God has for us.

 

It would be equally fallacious to say the KJV/NKJV added words to the Bible. We're chasing our tails again. If that's new to you, then you must be new around here.

 

It sure does help to read the word in context.

 

I started out with the KJV because that is what was used. I heard horror stories about the NIV and wanted nothing to do with it.

As a young Christian I was introduced to Moody Radio. I listened to many wonderful teachers of God's word, but I noticed that the majority read from a bible that, although it said what the KJV did, it was much easier to understand. I started invetigating and looking it this. I found the NASB, NKJV, and *gasp* the NIV.

The NIV was the first translation I read that I could readily understand. You see, I wasn't raised on the KJV; I was raised heathen, just like the rest of the world. "Thee" and "thou" and all the "-ests" just confused the smack out of me. But the NIV... I could read it and see what it said.

I have used the NKJV for several years now, but am begining to move to the ESV. The NKJV was a gift, a McArthur's Study Bible and I have gone through it several times. Our pastor uses the ESV and I was given a ESV as a gift D).

I still have several KJVs and will use one as a comparison at times... but those times are few and far between.

 

If it ain't in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, all kinds of words have been left out.

Does EVERY thread have to be harping about this?

 

I use the KJV, its not an inspired translation, but its a good one. Ultimately, I trust the Textus Receptus, not the manuscripts that were used for the others. My greatest reason for doing so is that the TR matches almost exactly the extant copies coming from Asia Minor, where the churches Paul started remained largely unaffected by the Catholic heresies. If there came an accurate translation of the TR that was easier to read, I might consider it. Maybe not though, our family has memorized much from the KJV.

 

prove the Trinity to me from ONLY the NIV.:sleeping_2:

I didn't even ask for an exact word. I asked you to define agape' without using the English term "love" and you CAN'T!:smilewinkgrin:

 

Only when they are left out due to a demand for a word for word equivelency do we get left holding a version which is wanting of the complete thought we need as Christians to fight the good fight.

Johnv proved we need the whole thought to define the receptor tongues, without it we DON'T have an inspired Bible but merely a version.:smilewinkgrin:

 

And where is it in the context you DON'T find the term "love"?:smilewinkgrin:

 

Well, I guess I just paid closer attention to my English teachers and of course I got saved before i ever understood the Bible from anything other than an intellectual mindset that wwas going to the very hell Jesus preached more upon than the love so many demand preachers to be "ahrping" on.

I'll stick with the KJV.

 

Exactly 100% have been left out.

 

Oh, let's just keep this simple; I'll just display three verses from one of the Gospels --

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in* the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Matthew 28:19, NIV)

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:16-17, NIV) ​

That should do it. But if ya' need more the NIV has got 'em.

 

When I read the Bible for the very first time, it was KJV, back in the 1980s. In 1999, I decided to read the One-Year Bible in the NIV. I liked it. I was tired of reading that archaic language. My favorites are the Modern Language Bible and the NASB. I also like the HCSB. :thumbsup:

 

Based on your frequent improper use of English in numerous threads, that's obviously incorrect.

 

I have not switched.

 

Thanks, JohnV. Being a college graduate and having perfect scores in English, literature, and composition must not have done me a bit of good. My mother will be so disappointed in me...

 

My point was that Harold Garvey's use of the rules of English grammar and is often poor, yet he claims that the only the KJV renders the source texts into today's English perfectly (citing the claim that he paid close attention to his English teachers). And when refuation of that claim is posted, he simply dismisses it on the notion that however it appears in the KJV is how English is used today.

 

I started with the NKJV, then NASB, now the KJV. I am not KJVonly, but..

1. I like it because of the language..helps me read other older works such as John Owen, et.

2. I like it because it makes people mad.