My new quandry-The KJV bible

by Junction-Guy 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Mysterious

  I believe some of the newer KJV bibles do NOT have Jehovah in any of the four places. Instead in the foreward there is a blurb talking about how it was removed due to superstition of pronouncing the divine name or something. I remember because when we stayed in motels for the assembly my mom used to always check the bible in the nightstand drawer and leave a tract in psalms 83:18. She flipped out when she saw they had removed it from newer translations because it was one that she always used at the doors to show people that they were right about God's name.

  I personally like the flavor of the KJV text, however, I do feel that the NIV and other more modern translations are more accurate.
• 

  truthsearcher

  Hi guys: I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion. First of all, the Bible translations issue is a huge one, so it is hard to have a really good discussion, in just a few words.

  I was brought up using the KJV, so it has a familiarity to it that I like, as well as a poetic flow. However, the old English can be tricky to navigate, and sometimes makes meanings obscure. I have been using the NKJV which has updated the language but maintains that familiar flow. I checked Psalms 82:18, and it doesn't have Jehovah but LORD instead. Some KJVers don't like the NKJV because it footnotes alternate manuscripts, but I actually like that--we know there are alternate manuscripts out there, so I find it helpful to know where the variations are.

  It is wrong, wrong, wrong to teach that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as the original biblical authors were. It is wrong, wrong, wrong to teach that you must read the KJV only in order to receive true salvation. It is wrong, wrong, wrong to teach that the KJV can correct the original manuscripts. These are beliefs that can be held by the extremists in the KJV only camp, which makes it cult-like.

  However, this doesn't necessarily make it a bad version in itself. It is based on Textus Receptus and there have been scholarly arguments put forth why this is a more reliable basis for translation than the Alexandrian texts.

  As far as your discomfort with the name Jehovah, that is only natural, but perhaps time and the Lord will help this to fade.
• 

  Sunspot

  I get a warm feeling reading the KJV, when I read other versions I just feel like they are knockoffs similiar to the NWT (not quite as bad-lol)

  As for me.....this is what I base things on....logical or not! If this version makes you the most comfortable (as it does for me), then by all means stick with it! Isn't this the whole point of a personal bible reading?

  I too, avoid using "the name" in prayer or pretty much else any other time---simply due to all the negative connotations associated with it.....but coming across it on occasion in a bible---doesn't stab me in the heart as it once used to. I just don't "speak" it any longer.

  hugs,

  Annie
• 

  Narkissos

  A big part of the psychological issue imo lies in the exceptional use of "Jehovah" anywhere but among JWs in the English- (or French-)speaking world. Spanish or Portuguese speakers would hear Je(h)ová all the time in Evangelical churches because it is consistently used in the OT of the "classical" versions, i.e. Reina-Valera and Ferreira de Almeida. In this context it is probably less distinctive of JWs, hence less traumatic to xJWs...
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Interestingly the KJV was the Bible mianly used by JW's until they brought out the NWT.

  I have a KJV printed by the Watchtower Society.

  I don't have that KJV version, but I have an American Standard Version that was printed by the WTB&TS.