tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post1993082874712512120..comments2023-12-28T01:11:49.188-08:00Comments on Cum Lazaro: King James Version and the OrdinariateLazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5078331897510807942.post-41324884713207286782013-11-04T19:32:02.420-08:002013-11-04T19:32:02.420-08:00i celebrate your entry here. I have been somewhat ...i celebrate your entry here. I have been somewhat of a humble Scripture scholar, and I see no reason why the KJV cannot and should not be redeemed and rescued. It is more orthodox than the RSV. Modernism in Holy Scripture study had so proceeded apace by the time the RSV came out, that it is chalk full of inaccuracies. The only reason this is disputed is because the liberal-modernists in Bible translation outnumber the orthodox. The Orthodox Church understandably, and correctly in my opinion, prefers in the majority, the KJV to anymore modern versions. Of course the same has usually been true for traditional Lutheran and evangelical churches. I can firmly attest that there is NOTHING in the KJV that wither supports heresy or schism. Many people today have no clue as to the scholarly translation process, painstakingly carried out, by arguably better scholars in Hebrew and Greek than there have been in modern times. Because they were a deeper Christian than most today. And that is reflected in the bottomless depth and mystic integrity of God's Holy Word in the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures. And i include in this analysis the separated but same scriptural quality in their translation of the Apocrypha. joannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02313479959447420783noreply@blogger.com