by Iamallcool 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
There's no such thing as a "current" King James version. It isn't open to revision. It's kind of a "once and for all time" thing, a bit like the declaration of independence.
Well, not really. We actually KNOW who wrote the Declaration of Independance....
The names of the KJ translators are recorded somwhere. Wasnt one of them a cuckold?
Jeffro.
I do not think I want discussion with you now, regarding the English word "Jehovah."
Even if someone says a sarcastic comment that "it is a trademark of Jehovah's Witnesses", but Jehovah's Witnesses did not invent it (the English word "Jehovah") clearly.
Therefore, the ASV and the Derby etc are irrelevant to Jehovah's Witnesses.
I did not think as follows.
"They are JWs, because this revised edition of the KJV uses the word "Jehovah.""
Rather, when I read an explanation on their website, I thought that they are possibly JWs.
http://www.dnkjb.net/preface_dnkjb_online.htm
I feel that they have hidden their true character.
This is my own opinion.
Well, it is OK even if you do not agree with my opinion.
possible
Well, it is OK even if you do not agree with my opinion.
Too late, lost interest.
Well, my friend who is an active JW said like this.
"The spelling/pronunciation of the name "Jehovah" is wrong/incorrect completely. Therefore, Satan will be glad if we teach that name."
And he said, "the divine name is Yahweh, and it is correct."
Probably, even if one of JWs translate it, he/she does not necessarily replace to "Jehovah."
possible
Too late, lost interest.
It's all right.
In my country/Japan and your country/England, time is not the same.
We are not doing the "chat."
And we cannot necessarily do a reply immediately.
Of course, we may sometimes be able to do so. :)
It does not appear to be an authentic King James Bible. The website is called the Divine Name King James Bible. I have never heard or seen a Divine Name King James Bible. I suspect the copyright expired. If there were a copyright.......
Since the copyright has expired, as you mention, it makes little sense to talk about this edition not being a "authentic" King James Bible. It is just as authentic or spurious as any other new edition of the King James version that makes alterations to the text. Probably what you mean to say is that you simply disagree with what they have done, which is your privilege, but your personal preference has no bearing on how authentic the Bible version is.
In my country/Japan and your country/England, time is not the same.
I am not in England. I was in England a few years ago. The option to alter one's location no longer seems to exist on the forum.
I am not in England. I was in England a few years ago. The option to alter one's location no longer seems to exist on the forum.
lost interest. LOL
I am certain that any book on the King James Bible or the Stuarts in general has the name of the translators. It was not an only religious event but a state event. State and religion were one. The Stuarts are a very interesting ine but most people know King James b/c of the King James Bible. There were too many people at court who were influential enough to know about the work. Life and death were at stake. Keeping up with the latest religious dictates was multigenerational task in England. People had to be very sharp in terms of current events and influences.
I don't understand the criticism of the translation. They did the best they could with the available knowledge. The language can be soaring in a way that no modern translation can meet. I admit it is very hard to read in consecutive verses b/c of the dated language. It is nice to have some solidity and tradition, esp. since with the Internet we can access so many different translations, including a literal translation of the Koine Greek. The King James Bible may even become before Shakespeare when it comes to classics of English literature.
