Current King James Bible now has 6,972 Jehovah's name restored.

Advertisement

Viewed 23344 times

    Iamallcool posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:01:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1560 of 4002
    Joined 11/24/2010

    http://www.dnkjb.net/

    Band on the Run posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:16:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 3555 of 9802
    Joined 12/18/2010

    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.......

    Azazel posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:20:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 200 of 586
    Joined 12/1/2011

    thx lamallcool looks like a good translation and they havent replaced "Lord" in the new testament with Jehovah as the NWT did.

    Az

    M james_woods posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:21:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 6823 of 12292
    Joined 10/26/2005
    I suspect the copyright expired. If there were a copyright.......

    I suspect that King James was the copyright.

    You are correct - this sounds bogus.

    wannabefree posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 02:51:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1717 of 2776
    Joined 4/5/2010

    I read the site. It is simply the 1611 Authorized King James, public domain, with all of the original errors, the only thing these nameless people (want to be anonymous like the NWT) did is put Jehovah in, by doing this, they are claiming copyright to their version. It is electronic only. They say it cost them $25,000 to accomplish this task. (I think anybody can accomplish this pasting the text into Word and searching and replacing LORD and GOD with Jehovah, can't see why it would cost $25K.)

    M possible-san posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:15:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1478 of 1485
    Joined 6/18/2008

    I evaluate that work.
    http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link03.html
    (This is my website)

    But, there is a part which I feel doubtful.

    First, isn't that webmaster (or they) a Jehovah's Witness?
    In the NWT, Jehovah's Witnesses have restored the divine name 6973 times.
    But in this translation, it is 6972 times.
    If they are JWs, since they are wearing the mask, they are insincere.

    Secondly, that website aims at collecting donations clearly.
    Today, if people have their own PC, it is easy to replace "LORD" to "Jehovah."
    And their work is only about the Old Testament.
    The New Testament is not related to their work.

    Thirdly, they only did that easy work, and assert copyright.
    I feel that this is hypocritical.

    possible

    M Jeffro posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:31:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1896 of 4495
    Joined 5/21/2005

    It is a misconception that JWs have a monopoly on the name Jehovah. The Sacred Name Bible Movement is not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses.

    M possible-san posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:43:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1479 of 1485
    Joined 6/18/2008

    Nobody has mixed up the "Sacred Name Movement" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses", Jeffro.

    M Jeffro posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:20:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1897 of 4495
    Joined 5/21/2005

    You claim

    Nobody has mixed up the "Sacred Name Movement" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses", Jeffro.

    and you claim

    If they are JWs, since they are wearing the mask, they are insincere.

    Let me know once you've made up your mind. However, I'll get bored of this topic awfully soon, so you'll have to be quick.

    cedars posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:51:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1074 of 5837
    Joined 8/7/2011

    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.

    Cedars

    M Terry posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:12:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 11955 of 16480
    Joined 6/19/2004

    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....

    hamsterbait posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:35:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 3837 of 4885
    Joined 7/7/2004

    The names of the KJ translators are recorded somwhere. Wasnt one of them a cuckold?

    M possible-san posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:56:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1480 of 1485
    Joined 6/18/2008

    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

    M Jeffro posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:50:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1898 of 4495
    Joined 5/21/2005
    Well, it is OK even if you do not agree with my opinion.

    Too late, lost interest.

    M possible-san posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:16:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1481 of 1485
    Joined 6/18/2008

    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

    M possible-san posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:20:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1482 of 1485
    Joined 6/18/2008

    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. :)

    M slimboyfat posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:49:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 4872 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004
    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.

    M Jeffro posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:52:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1901 of 4495
    Joined 5/21/2005
    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.

    M possible-san posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:03:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 1484 of 1485
    Joined 6/18/2008

    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

    Band on the Run posted Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:23:00 GMT(12/28/2011)

    Post 3558 of 9802
    Joined 12/18/2010

    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.

      Close

      Confirm ...