King James Only

I did consider that. ;) She can ask Noah if she won't get a dictionary, he's pretty good with words.

She won't ever get a dictionary. :p

sigh
Would a dictionary app help, you think?

You're right, Evie - he is good with words! I like it, Noah!

We love it when people compliment us! Keep it coming!

:D

Can anyone tell me the difference between the Authorised Version and the Revised version? Its that we have KJV and then (Authorised) KJV .

I thought the same. But some KJV Bibles do not have Authorised written on them whereas some are specified. So I was not sure if they really are same.

Thank you Leah for the clarification.

Y'all are hilarious ;) . I use the KJV because it's more accurate, but it would be nice if someone would create an accurate version in our modern English language. I love William Tyndale's heart to have the Word of God in the common language, and I believe that it should be the same now. However, until I find a version that stops taking out verses and or switching the context of certain passages, I'll stick with the King James. After a while, you kind of stop noticing the thees and thous.

The NKJV is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV, and it's English is more modern. That's the version I use.
I'll just put in a word for some other versions like ESV and NASB though. Occasionally, they do omit verses that are in the KJV, but that does not necessarily mean that they are less accurate. They are based on ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that do not have certain verses, while the KJV is based on manuscripts that do have those verses. There's not really any way to tell which manuscripts are correct. The ESV and NASB could be omitting verses that were in the original text, but it is also possible that the KJV has extra verses that were not in the original text. Unfortunately, the original manuscripts that the apostles actually wrote were lost a long time ago (they probably were completely worn out by the early Christians). We only have copies, and often, those copies vary slightly. The KJV was based on a certain set of copies, and the ESV and NASB were based on a different set of copies.
I personally think the KJV/NKJV are more accurate, but that's just my personal opinion (and many Biblical scholars believe that the ESV and NASB are more accurate). Some people get very worked up over this issue and teach that the KJV is the only inspired version, but there is nothing in the Word of God that tells us which version to use. All arguments for the KJV's superiority are ultimately based on human reasoning and not on the Word of God. The Bible warns us about arguing over words (1 Timothy 6:4). The KJV/NKJV and the ESV/NASB only differ on small points. The apostles quoted from the the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which is slightly different in many places from the Hebrew manuscripts that the KJV is based on. For these reasons, I would have no problem using the NASB or the ESV.

Certain words are omitted from some versions, and this may render the Scripture inaccurate or hard to understand. An example is John 7:8 - where the Lord told his biological brothers he wasn't going to the feast yet, and later went sort of incognito. The crucial word 'yet' is missing from some versions, and this has led some to conclude that Jesus told a lie!

We also see that Acts 8:37 is missing or reduced to a mere footnote in many Bible versions. The question is why? The missing reply to the eunuch's question to Philip is is not a mere anecdotal take it or leave it thing - it is crucial to establish that someone seeking to be baptized is truly born again or it is a mere sham. Romans 10:9-10 tells it most simply - we only get saved by believing in our hearts that Jesus was raised from the dead by God, and openly declaring that Jesus is Lord. With the heart we become righteous by identifying with Jesus' death in our place and in his resurrection to justify us and reconcile us to God, and with the mouth - by speaking out / declaring that we believe that Jesus is Lord - we are saved us (ours is a 'speaking' or 'declaring' faith - 'I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak' 2 Corinthians 4:13b - from Psalm 116:10a).

It was important therefore that we have a proper record of what Philip told the Eunuch in reply to "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (or 'What stops me from being baptized right now, look, there's a body of water here!' - in my own words).

That verse (Acts 8:37) says "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. " Note well the eunuch's answer. He plainly confessed Jesus Christ. The name Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua means 'God the saviour', 'God is salvation' or 'God saves' as it is written in Matthew 1:21 - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. The name Christ is a title - the Greek version of Messiah - the anointed one - as it is written in Isaiah 53, Isaiah 61, etc)

Philip first ascertained that the Ethiopian eunuch truly believed in Jesus Christ with all his heart, before dipping the man in water (also note the baptism was not by sprinkling water on the man, but by fully immersing him, else there would have been no need for them to go into and come out of the water).

There are several other omitted scripture from some non-KJV versions such as these two, I have other examples if people are interested.