The problem I have with the "King James is the only bible that should be read" crowd is that it is divisive.

Matthew 12:25-26 And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 And if Satan is casting out Satan, he has become divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

The other problem is If you want to really know the text, it is imperative to learn ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek... and... because a text out of context is a pretext... you must also learn and understand the ancient cultures of the old testament... in the different areas it all took place, understand the culture in the time of Christ and the early church after the resurrection (new testament), read the thousands of manuscripts yourself (papyri , uncials, minuscules , and lectionaries) and compile a full picture of what it all means and put it all together... in your own language. Luckily, there is a rich, documented history of this tedious work already being done with the ultimate goal of spreading the good news.

But for those who need more... The King James bible writers didn't have the number of manuscripts we have today. We have a better picture of the text now than the King James translators.

The most important manuscripts of the new testament are probably the uncial codices that date from around the fourth century. Notably, A, B, C, and Aleph being the most important. These were not available to the King James translators. The best Greek uncial manuscript available in 1611 was D, and it was barely used in the preparation of the King James Version. Based on that fact alone, the King James version needed to be, at the very least, revised because of the earlier better manuscripts.

The bible is not God and to treat a translation as such misses the point. I am a proponent of accurate translations that communicate what the author was actually saying. This is why translations are important, and if one needs to be corrected because of better copies and evidence of the authors intent, then that version needs to be corrected and revised. We can only go off of the evidence we have in front of us.

I do believe the bible is special, but here is what is special about it... it tells us a story of the redemptive grace our God has for His people through the gift of the King. We are the ones who have fallen, and our God has given us a gift to stand, be protected, and thrive in the Light of life. From dark to Light.

Anyway... Why is was post about the KJV stickied?

The problem I have with the "King James is the only bible that should be read" crowd is that it is divisive.

Matthew 12:25-26 And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 And if Satan is casting out Satan, he has become divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

The other problem is If you want to really know the text, it is imperative to learn ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, learn and understand the ancient cultures of the old testament... in the different areas it all took place, understand the culture in the time of Christ and the early church after the resurrection (new testament), read the thousands of manuscripts yourself (papyri , uncials, minuscules , and lectionaries) and compile a full picture of what it all means and put it all together... in your own language. Luckily, there is a rich, documented history of this tedious work already being done with the ultimate goal of spreading the good news.

But for those who need more... The King James bible writers didn't have the number of manuscripts we have today. We have a better picture of the text now than the King James translators.

The most important manuscripts of the new testament are probably the uncial codices that date from around the fourth century. Notably, A, B, C, and Aleph being the most important. These were not available to the King James translators. The best Greek uncial manuscript available in 1611 was D, and it was barely used in the preparation of the King James Version. Based on that fact alone, the King James version needed to be, at the very least, revised because of the earlier better manuscripts.

The bible is not God and to treat a translation as such misses the point. I am a proponent of accurate translations that communicate what the author was actually saying. This is why translations are important, and if one needs to be corrected because of better copies and evidence of the authors intent, then that version needs to be corrected and revised. We can only go off of the evidence we have in front of us.

I do believe the bible is special, but here is what is special about it... it tells us a story of the redemptive grace our God has for His people through the gift of the King. We are the ones who have fallen, and our God has given us a gift to stand, be protected, and thrive in the Light of life. From dark to Light.

Anyway... Why is was post about the KJV stickied?