Internet Bible reading surges, now 4 in 10 read God's words digitally
God is still great in the eyes of Americans, even on the internet. While an amazing 88 percent of the nation‚Äôs homes own a Bible, more and more are switching to the internet, cell phones and iPad for their weekly inspiration, according to a sweeping new survey of Bible use.
In their latest survey of Bible use, the American Bible Society finds that 41 percent of Americans used the internet to read the good book on a computer. Some 29 percent said they searched Bible verses on a cell phone and 17 percent said they read an electronic version of the Bible on a Kindle or iPad.
The trend is similar in the news business, with the readers shifting to digital over paper....
Dorcas, I'm glad you're not confused, you can somewhat grounded in God's Word, even using the KJV, though I would still say to anyone at least use a copy of The Ryrie KJV Study Bible Hardback-Red Letter, if you're going with a printed Bible. Most computer programs, including the AND BIBLE for Android, Strong's Concordance/Dictionary downloaded at the same time as the KJV. Something you'll really need if Elizabethan is not your native tongue. A comparative Study Bible which includes other Bibles besides the AV, or a copy of the NKJV can also be used to translate the KJV into understandable English.
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: ...if you are a Christian who uses the King James Version, if you understand what you read and are comfortable with it, then by all means, continue to use it....What if you are a Christian who uses a modern translation? You also should feel free to continue reading a good modern translation. Don‚Äôt be deterred or intimidated by those who would tell you that you do not have the Word of God in your hands.
Need Cambridge (and probably Oxford) edition of the "unchangeable" KJV? Go to, Crosswire Applications, I know that E-Sword has the real 1611 KJV, don't bother with all those false revisions after that, like the 1769. Oh, but of course if you have a PC and want an accurate Bible as the KJV isn't then get a free copy of NASB from The Lockman Foundation -- Free Downloads have a first rate Bible in actual English instead of one in bombastic Elizabethan. So, Dorcas do we have you sorted out now?
Dorcas wrote: We must have got Jim in a real lather.....he called me Dolores! lol Or maybe it is senility.
Dorcas, it is certainly senility. You can tell someone the same thing dozens of times, and they will still ask you the same question again. And now confusing people just because their name starts with D, it's a wonder he didn't call you David.
Ah well, I'm not going to mock the afflicted. Perhaps a prayer that he stops eating and promoting the GM tripe.
I realise it is not easy for a senile person to take God seriously, nor his word, but there are no mitigating circumstances at the judgment seat of Christ. If he mock God's words, Jim will discover that God is not mocked, for God takes his words very seriously; they are God's words to men, they are promises, warnings, exhortations.
Jim Lincoln wrote: John U.K., I still haven't found out which of the Authorized versions of the KJ, you guys use Cambridge or Oxford? Everything after 1611 has to be a corrupted version of the AV, so I also assume you use the one of that date?
I didn't realise you'd gone senile Jim.
Ah well, you were told to eat your proper veggies.
John U.K., I still haven't found out which of the Authorized versions of the KJ, you guys use Cambridge or Oxford? Everything after 1611 has to be a corrupted version of the AV, so I also assume you use the one of that date?
Jim Lincoln wrote: The AV is recognized as a great literary masterpiece, what is it many catch phrases still come from it, it sounds great, which is one reason the NKJV sounds great plus being in contemporary English which makes it better than the AV, but for accuracy you have to use its marginal notes. ---
I could be mistaken, but doesn't great literature have to say something, to be considered great, not just sound good? Birds sound good to me.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The AV is recognized as a great literary masterpiece, what is it many catch phrases still come from it, it sounds great, which is one reason the NKJV sounds great plus being in contemporary English which makes it better than the AV, but for accuracy you have to use its marginal notes.
The "United Bible Societies" is the ecumenical movement of Bible publishers which enfolds nearly every Bible Society throughout the world. Alert? Yes!
Think about it.
The marginal notes in the New King James Version often have the letters NU by the side of them. What does this mean? NU is short for:
N = The Nestle/Aland text (which is different from the Received Text)
U = United Bible Societies
Ahem. So Jim is supportive of The United Bible Societies and the Nestle/Aland text, which evolved from the text by Westcott and Hort, who arrived at their peculiar greek text by using the Vaticanus Text (found in......The Vatican Library!) and the Sinaiticus Text (found in......a monastery in Sinai!)
All in all, if you dip your foot in ecumenism, you will eventually turn ecumenist, and if you turn ecumenist, you will also turn apostate.
The AV is recognized as a great literary masterpiece, what is it many catch phrases still come from it, it sounds great, which is one reason the NKJV sounds great plus being in contemporary English which makes it better than the AV, but for accuracy you have to use its marginal notes. This fellow says it as good as I could,
Christopher Pope wrote: Translations Not Recommended
Advances in understanding the text of the New Testament, as well as changes in the English language, have made the Geneva Bible (GEN), King James Version (KJV), and Young's Literal Translation far obsolete. Their rating is lower for the fact that, while the most formally literal, none of them pay enough attention to the nuances of grammar and syntax. The KJV would have done better if it had kept to Tyndale's simple style instead of the elevated language that soon became outdated. The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) might have outdone the NKJV if it had been more consistent in updating the KJV's archaisms and correcting more obvious errors such as Easter in Acts 12:4....
However, you still have told me which version of the KJV is the true version? Oh, and how about the changes after 1769, So, do you prefer the Cambridge or Oxford editions? Do we use a 1769 KJV?. You can get both versions in the AND BIBLE, if memory serves.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Of course for us who want an accurate representation of God's Word
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Oh Jim what a sense of humour you have.
Modern versions "accurate"
Westcott and Hort's versions "accurate" ???? Where do you get them from Jim?
Jim. You really need to get yourself and your churches congregation to the REAL Word of God King James Version. Remember that is what GOD Himself has been using for centuries. HE didn't need to change Books. As they say if it ain't broken don't fix it.
Now think about it Jim - Would the Lord use a couple of heretics such as W&H to change what HE is using to build the Church? Of course HE wouldn't every Christian knows that for a fact.
AV1611, I have good news for you! Considering were 10 or 11 revisions of the AV from 1611 to 1769, you can get a very good copy of the 1611 version via e-Sword. No doubt you would think that the 1769 version is quite corrupt, but the 1611 version not only has the marginal notes, but the apocrypha as well! I doubt if it has the list of Saints' Days. It will also be amiss if it doesn't have the full preface, but I doubt if it was left out.