Grade Level

[AntennaFarmer]

...

I did ask why one should reasonably "be expected to become a 'master of Jacobean English' " and why should one "be expected to have a field of concentration (or in other words, a 'Minor') in a generally unused language" if you actually read the post.
...

I took your "master of Jacobean English" to be hyperbolic.

It is my opinion that an ordinary education prepares one to read the KJV.

It is not my purpose to take anyone's choice away. I don't actually care what you read (That is to say that I trust you to make responsible reading choices).

I do object to incorrect comments which suggest that the Holy Bible can't be read unless one has special training. That kind of comment (in effect) takes away the choice from others by unfairly biasing them against the KJV.

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

The KJV was not written on any grade level because there were no grade levels in England in 1611.

You seem to have a point there.....

A.F.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is my opinion that an ordinary education prepares one to read the KJV.

I do object to incorrect comments which suggest that the Holy Bible can't be read unless one has special training. That kind of comment (in effect) takes away the choice from others by unfairly biasing them against the KJV.
A.F.

You are entitled to your opinion, but in all honesty the KJV is beyond the understanding of the "Computerman" of today- "Computerman" would be the contemporary of Spurgeon's "Ploughman", of course.

I highly doubt that you could grab a high school student (ok- college grad student, or even a Ph.D.) and thrust a KJV into their hands and find that they they read it with understanding unless they have some experience with that type of language. It would be like handing me a computer programming manual and expecting me to comprehend it.

Now I am sure that someone will jump in here and say, "Well, that's because the Bible is 'spiritually discerned'. They cannot understand the KJV because they are not Christians yet." If that is true regarding the KJV, why should it not be true concerning the Scriptures in any other language? I was a missionary to Mexico and I had to learn Spanish in order to read the Spanish Bible- what happened to my "spiritual discernment"?

Fact is- understanding the Bible in ANY version (or language) requires training. Sometimes training happens when we study on our own led by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it happens when we sit under the teaching of others.

To say that "an ordinary education prepares one to read the KJV" assumes facts not in evidence.

That's MY opinion for whatever it is worth.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

...

I highly doubt that you could grab a high school student (ok- college grad student, or even a Ph.D.) and thrust a KJV into their hands and find that they they read it with understanding unless they have some experience with that type of language. It would be like handing me a computer programming manual and expecting me to comprehend it.

.....

Fact is- understanding the Bible in ANY version (or language) requires training. Sometimes training happens when we study on our own led by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it happens when we sit under the teaching of others.

To say that "an ordinary education prepares one to read the KJV" assumes facts not in evidence.

That's MY opinion for whatever it is worth.

Yours is a wonderful opinion indeed. I agree with about half of it.

I would say that understanding the Holy Bible takes study in all cases. The modern versions don't eliminate that. It follows then that a person will not fully understand the NIV (for instance) without significant study.

I am not saying that an individual will know all of the verb forms or pronouns of the KJV on first sight. What I am saying is that it is easy to learn them with a little standard education, a modern dictionary and a willingness to learn.

Who would want to learn to read the KJV though? After all, it was translated into obsolete English by a bunch of ignorant Hillbilly Redneck pedobaptist Anglicans using second hand Jewish scholarship from a defective text compiled in a rush by a Catholic half-heretic from a few new worn-out manuscripts. (Which of your favorite BB points did I miss?)

Well, this ignorant Hillbilly Redneck Baptist appreciates the work of the Anglican KJV translators, the Catholic Scholars and Orthodox scribes whose collective work delivered into his hands the written word of God. And since the KJV is the Holy Bible and the written word of God, I don't appreciate one bit your (collective) willingness to discourage its use by your claims that it is defective, obsolete and unreadable. Those are the claims that can't be supported. That is my opinion.

A.F.

 

[gb93433]

I don't need to "go and read the KJV". I've been reading it for 48 years! :thumbs:

Some people read their Bible for many eyars but have not ever read it once.

And I'm NOT "tring":smilewinkgrin: to say today's versions are dumbed down, I was saying the public school system has dumbed down our children.

I do not know what myth you have been led to believe. If you believe what you do then then can you explain why the SAT scores have continued to rise for about the last 30 years. Can you explain why students can get one year of college calculus in high school? How many high schools do you know that was teaching that fifty years ago?

When I began teaching high school I was surprised how many parents told me that I gave their children too much homework. I have had parents tell me that kids should have fun in school.

It is also surprising how many parents will remove their kids from school to take them on vacation. Do you blame the schools for that?

In the state I once lived, the state came in and interviewed me about the success of my program. Even though my students won every competition, the parents provided me with a regular diet of complaints about how hard I made their kids work. Not one student ever complained about how much work I gave them and about winning competitions. It was the parents who complained. There was also a lot of parental support for me though. I noticed that it was the parents who expected little who complained.

 

[Baptist4life]

Even though my students won every competition, the parents provided me with a regular diet of complaints about how hard I made their kids work. Not one student ever complained about how much work I gave them and about winning competitions. It was the parents who complained. There was also a lot of parental support for me though. I noticed that it was the parents who expected little who complained.

You just gave more evidence for my statement. If you think the average high school student today has learned more than the average high school student of 75 years ago, then you're lying to yourself. Sorry. I have two children who teach high school, I have three family members who teach high school. Everyone of them is amazed at how they have lowered the standards for a high school diploma! They always talk amongst each other how really lazy, and dumb the kids that are supposed to be high school graduates are! So the school boards, because of parents like you described, LOWER the standards to accommodate. Check the United States rank against the rest of the world when it comes to education.


If all the claims about the KJV being too difficult to understand were true, why is it that children for the last 400 years learned, grew, were saved, and read it without that much trouble. According to you guys, Christianity should have died, because NNE could understand God's Word in the KJV, so they would never have come to know Christ. Your BIAS against the KJV is plain to see, no matter how much you deny it. I just don't understand WHY? You claim it's anti KJVO, but the majority of your posts are anti KJV, not KJVO. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make.

 

[gb93433]

You just gave more evidence for my statement. If you think the average high school student today has learned more than the average high school student of 75 years ago, then you're lying to yourself. Sorry. I have two children who teach high school, I have three family members who teach high school. Everyone of them is amazed at how they have lowered the standards for a high school diploma! They always talk amongst each other how really lazy, and dumb the kids that are supposed to be high school graduates are! So the school boards, because of parents like you described, LOWER the standards to accommodate.

It is a pity that you focus on the lowest level rather than what is going on at the top level. What you wrote is exactly my beef about Americans. Too many focus on cheap and pay just enough to get low quality. I have always focused on raising the bar and what it takes to get to the top. Proverbs says, "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings. Some of the best quality products in the world come from America.

Doesn't what you wrote say something about what their parents and the local community expect? The local schools are a reflection of the local community. There is a huge difference in communities. That is the reason why I am in favor of national standards. When I taught high school I never once had to stand up against an administrator because I was hard and held high standards. Continually I did had to stand against parents. In fact I was responsible for helping to raise the state and local standards at the high school level in the state where I taught. I left because my rent was over ½ of my take home pay. What does that say about the willingness of the public to support teachers. I have relatives who think school should be fun and I have seen the results of their expectations. In almost every parent-teacher conference I had with parents I had an even worse problem with the parents. Eventually I had very few of those kind of conferences because I found that in most cases they were ineffective because I did not get the support of the parents for a student’s bad behavior.

Check the United States rank against the rest of the world when it comes to education.

According to what you say the foreigners are stupid for coming to America to study. I find foreign students to be very poor in thinking through areas of study which require an application of what they read. Their studies in their home country were much like reading a novel. While they can do work on a computer, few of them can actually apply it in the real world. They have had little or no practical experience in what they teach. When I was in industry few of them could think past what they already knew from a book. While what you said may be true of a high school diploma on the lowest level it is not true of what colleges expect. However a high school diploma is almost useless today. The college I graduated from only accepts one out of about five applicants and it is a public university. Perhaps we should do that with high schools and dump the failures onto the street and let the parents complain. There is far more opportunity for students to excel that there has ever been. The success of students has much to do with the teacher in the classroom and the expectations of the public. The first math class I taught in high school I failed about 1/2 of my students the first quarter. They did not take me seriously until they got their grades. Then they started working. Did I ever get parent complaint! I stood my ground and those students came up to the task. My daughter just graduated from high school and she had one year of college calculus in high school. I teach college students every day and I find that their writing has improved greatly. There is a simple solution to the problem. If we had the same situation as 75 years ago we would have a lot of students who would not graduate because they would have to work at home and would not be in school. I can assure you that I could write better than anyone in my family and way ahead in math compared to anyone in the previous generations in my family. My daughter graduated last year from a high school in Iowa and learned more than I did at the same time when I graduated. She had about three to four hours per night of homework. I graduated as the top math and science student in high school. The opportunities are there for students if they want them.

Your BIAS against the KJV is plain to see, no matter how much you deny it. I just don't understand WHY? You claim it's anti KJVO, but the majority of your posts are anti KJV, not KJVO. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make.

Could you show where I made any claim against the KJV? However the KJV proponents never speak in KJV English when they explain the text. Why?

 

[gb93433]

If you think the average high school student today has learned more than the average high school student of 75 years ago, then you're lying to yourself. Sorry.

Average? What good is average? Useless unless you need ditch diggers who have hands. Too many Americans think average is good enough. Average car. Average TV, etc. Average has always been mediocre. The Bible talks about the values of excellence.

There is a lot "average" mediocrity and laziness in churches today. 2/3 of the churches are dead and dying. They are not led by students in high school. How old do you think those leaders are?

 

[Baptist4life]

Don't you see that your last two posts only AFFIRM my statement that American schools are "dumbing down" our children?

 

[Baptist4life]

Could you show where I made any claim against the KJV?

Thousands and thousands of words are missing from the KJV. The languages that the OT and NT was written in are missing from the KJV.

Somehow the experts who claim to have corrected those languages have chosen to use the English language in all of its ambiguity. I wonder why they think God spoke in 1611 English. Those poor Canadians, Germans, and Chinese people.

The translators didn't make very good decisions though. Obviously they lacked a lot of wisdom because they have not make life very easy for the KJVOs. The KJVOs of today have wisdom the translators did not have. The problem started with the language of the KJV 1611 and then as the English language was modernized the translators replaced the archaic language with modern English of the time. Those moderns just ruined the whole thing! If only a few lies would have come along the way then the KJVOs would not have any trouble today. At least the words would have been exactly the same. Maybe we need to learn English better so we can really know what scripture says. Certainly theological schools are so useless because if we learned English well then we would have that perfect word of God that God inspired in English. The others nations in the world are so foolish for not training the people in their churches to read English so they can have the perfect word of God. Today the word of God only comes in KJV 1611 English. If anyone wants to know the perfect word of God they would be so foolish to not learn 1611 language. They should learn it well enough to preach and teach in it too because the 1611 language is sacred and only God speaks that language. It is too bad that the KJVO preachers have not learned the 1611 English language well enough to avoid mixing the modern English language with the sacred English of 1611.

I wonder which KJV Jesus used?

If you came into my classroom using a few particular words from the KJV, I would ask you to leave until you cleaned your mouth up.

The first Bible I was given was a KJV. The problem I have with the first MV I bought is that I was no longer in the fog anymore. The real problem I had was that I understood some of what I read and I needed to obey it and do what it said. I could no longer use the excuse that I did not understand anything and therefore there was no need to read it. I wrestled with God with many things for many years.

Just a few, but I'm sure you'll deny them.


BTW, I'll REPEAT once more. I'm NOT KJVO, but I consider it the BEST translation we have, and I'll continue to defend it when I think it's being attacked.

 

[robycop3]

Yours is a wonderful opinion indeed. I agree with about half of it.

I would say that understanding the Holy Bible takes study in all cases. The modern versions don't eliminate that. It follows then that a person will not fully understand the NIV (for instance) without significant study.

I am not saying that an individual will know all of the verb forms or pronouns of the KJV on first sight. What I am saying is that it is easy to learn them with a little standard education, a modern dictionary and a willingness to learn.

Who would want to learn to read the KJV though? After all, it was translated into obsolete English by a bunch of ignorant Hillbilly Redneck pedobaptist Anglicans using second hand Jewish scholarship from a defective text compiled in a rush by a Catholic half-heretic from a few new worn-out manuscripts. (Which of your favorite BB points did I miss?)

Well, this ignorant Hillbilly Redneck Baptist appreciates the work of the Anglican KJV translators, the Catholic Scholars and Orthodox scribes whose collective work delivered into his hands the written word of God. And since the KJV is the Holy Bible and the written word of God, I don't appreciate one bit your (collective) willingness to discourage its use by your claims that it is defective, obsolete and unreadable. Those are the claims that can't be supported. That is my opinion.

A.F.

The KJV was written in the best English & spellings of its day, meant for plowboy & courtier alike. However, that was 400 years ago, & God has surned this globe around many times since then. That's why we have His word in OUR English now. It's GOD who allows/ causes the changes in the various languages, and who causes/allows men to update His word within those languages to keep it fully understandable to day laborer & CEO alike.

And, NO, the KJV is NOT "THE" Holy Bible-it's merely ONE VERSION of it. God's word in English is NOT limited to just ONE valid version, and there's absolutely **NO** SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for such an idea. The entire KJVO mess is MAN-MADE & therefore incorrect. CORRECT tenets of worship are from GOD, not man.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.................

The "grade level" thingie is relative. I'm sure there are some first-graders around who could read the AV1611 with understanding, but the majority of them couldn't. But I believe in supplying them with Bibles written in the language that's taught to them in schools, & by their parents. In the USA, that's CURRENT English.

 

[EdSutton]

If all the claims about the KJV being too difficult to understand were true, why is it that children for the last 400 years learned, grew, were saved, and read it without that much trouble. According to you guys, Christianity should have died, because NNE could understand God's Word in the KJV, so they would never have come to know Christ. Your BIAS against the KJV is plain to see, no matter how much you deny it. I just don't understand WHY? You claim it's anti KJVO, but the majority of your posts are anti KJV, not KJVO. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make.

I'm not sure gb93433 necessarily needs or would even want me to defend him, in responding to your post, which is apparently intended as an answer to him, but I'm gonna' put in my two shillings worth, anyway.

When it comes to bias, I will agree that bias is usually fairly easy to spot.

However, I do not see this as apparent with gb93433, as I just looked at the last 200 posts he made, and out of those, a total of maybe 20 were even on any "Bible versions" thread. That is hardly a majority of his posts being "anti-KJV" by any stretch of the imagination, since most did not even address any version, and as this was so apparent, I simply quit looking at any additional posts. 10% is not a majority.

However, I did notice, from reading a short time ago that, by contrast, you, Baptist4life, had made nearly 250 posts in about 1 yr, 9 mos.) and at the time I looked, well over 230 of them were in this 'versions' forum. I posted this, actually. In addition, I noticed that the ONLY version for which I ever seemed to see you voice any support in virtually every instance, seemed to be the King James Version. (FTR, I have read every post you have written, on the BB.) 90% is a majority.

Point is, you appear to make a majority of posts, on one general subject, and even for one POV, contrasted with one who makes 20 out of some 200 posts.

Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

I'm not sure gb93433 necessarily needs or would even want me to defend him, I wasn't attacking him in responding to your post, which is apparently intended as an answer to him, but I'm gonna' put in my two shillings worth, anyway.

When it comes to bias, I will agree that bias is usually fairly easy to spot.
Yes, I AM biased, I like the KJV. At least I admit mine, while you on here continue to deny yours.
However, I do not see this as apparent with gb93433, as I just looked at the last 200 posts he made, and out of those, a total of maybe 20 were even on any "Bible versions" thread. That is hardly a majority of his posts being "anti-KJV" by any stretch of the imagination, since most did not even address any version, and as this was so apparent, I simply quit looking at any additional posts. 10% is not a majority.

However, I did notice, from reading a short time ago that, by contrast, you, Baptist4life, had made nearly 250 posts in about 1 yr, 9 mos.) and at the time I looked, well over 230 of them were in this 'versions' forum. SO WHAT??I posted this, actually. In addition, I noticed that the ONLY version for which I ever seemed to see you voice any support in virtually every instance, seemed to be the King James Version. (FTR, I have read every post you have written, on the BB.) 90% is a majority.
You sure have more time than I do, or are you obsessed with me?
Point is, you appear to make a majority of posts, on one general subject, and even for one POV, contrasted with one who makes 20 out of some 200 posts.

Ed

The majority of my posts ARE in the Bible Version forum because that is the main interest I have here. What does it matter how many posts someone has anyway? It's the nature of the posts I'm talking about. I DO defend the KJV, as I said before, I feel it's attacked on here, and people have a "blind eye" to it. My statement "your posts" was not meant to be specifically for one person, but meant to include almost all the people supposedly posting about the KJVO, when in reality they are posting against the KJV.

 

[Mexdeaf]

My statement "your posts" was not meant to be specifically for one person, but meant to include almost all the people supposedly posting about the KJVO, when in reality they are posting against the KJV.

Pardon me but your bias is showing.

You obviously cannot separate the KJV from KJVO, whereas we can. KJV is God's WORD. KJVO is man's erroneous belief.

I have never seen anyone on this forum deny that the KJV is God's WORD, but I have seen numerous comments that claim that any version that is NOT the KJV is NOT God's WORD.

 

[Baptist4life]

Pardon me but your bias is showing.

That's almost funny! That is EXACTLY what you people are doing. I have no problem with your attack, and rightfully so, on the KJVO position. But it seems the WAY you attack it is by demeaning the KJV with all the "it's out of date" "nobody can understand it" "why should we have to look up words" bias that has NOTHING to do with being KJVO.

 

[EdSutton]

The majority of my posts ARE in the Bible Version forum because that is the main interest I have here. What does it matter how many posts someone has anyway? It's the nature of the posts I'm talking about. I DO defend the KJV, as I said before, I feel it's attacked on here, and people have a "blind eye" to it. My statement "your posts" was not meant to be specifically for one person, but meant to include almost all the people supposedly posting about the KJVO, when in reality they are posting against the KJV.

No, number of posts is actually irrelevant, and this was mentioned simply to demonstrate percentage, hence "majority" figures, when you happened to be the person that brought up and mentioned "majority" in that sense.

I do not agree that the KJV is usually 'attacked' here, at all. (You have made this charge more than once, so I would ask for 'chapter and verse', for a change, instead of merely some spoken general platitude.)

Not one regular poster that I have seen here has ever said that the KJV is not the written Word of God. (Again, if you have seen such, please cite it and I will publicly admit I was mistaken, here,)

Several have suggested that the language is somewhat outdated, or at least somewhat dated, and I have also suggested that the language forms of the !611 and even the 1769 readings is somewhat dated, as well. That is why I use a genuine 1967 Oxford KJV Edition, and the NKJV of 1982, which is also based on the exact same text as (is assumed) was that of the KJVs. There are many updated words and spellings, over the 1611 edition, in both the NKJV and my 1967 KJV.

FTR, I do not use, as a regular practice, any of the "counterfeit, pirated, and American-published" KJVs, but much prefer the use of the genuine English articles of the Oxford (and occasionally the Cambridge) editions. They are fully entitled to any royalties generated by any such sales, and I fully respect that. Although I do wonder how many BB members can say the same thing, here?

How euer ʃence I do notte ʃpeake, ʃpelle or wryte mine wordes in ye maner of 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and euen 18th Centurie olde Engliʃhhe, iuʃte why ʃhouldeʃt I (or any othere) be euen expected to uʃe such dated wordes & phraʃes in ordre to vnderʃtondeth ye ʃcripturis? That seems to make less than no sense, to me anyway.

Were and are the WYC, TYN, MCB, GEN, KJ-1611, KJ-1769, etc., valid translations of the written Word of God. I certainly believe they are.

Is the language contained therein somewhat dated? I believe that to be the case, as well.

And may and should the Bible be understood in an easier manner and more clearly in the common vernacular of today's "ploughboy" just as the amazing William Tyndale, et al., set forth to accomplish, in the early 1500s, and as the outstanding John Wycliffe, et al., set forth to do in the late 1300s? I surely believe that should be the case, in addition.

If one prefers to place themselves under the 'limitations' of the language of the days of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Rainolds or Blaney, more power to them, I would say. However, i do not consider it a reasonable proposition to expect me or some other necessarily to do the same.

And unlike what is being suggested by many of the advocates of the KJV, especially those who are of the "ONLYest" sort, don't expect me to assign to any KJV some "special status" above any and all other versions, which is exactly what is being done, even if sub silento.

Some here have suggested that they can and do 'accept' the GEN, MCB, etc. on the same manner as their preferred KJV. Yet I almost never see any quotes from any of these versions, by advocates, and suggest I, by myself, have cited the TYN, GEN, and MCB probably more than any 10 ONLYests together on the BB, and I know Ed Edwards has cited the GEN at least 10 times as often as I have. What's wrong with this picture??

How is that any "attack" on the KJV?? Especially when I am using one, myself?

However, I also disagree that the refusal of some (including myself) to "elevate" the KJV to any "special status" above any and all other versions and editions amounts to being "against" the KJV, in any manner.

Where is such nonsense as this written or even hinted at??

FTR, I also do not necessarily hold to any TR primacy (and not that of the CT, either) for the NT text either, leaning much more toward the MT position.

BTW, I might suggest that you not overly flatter yourself, by assuming I am in some way "obsessed" with you (although I admit to sometimes being 'obsessed' with the truth and mischaracterizations).

And frankly, how much time I may or may not have, is not really any concern of anyone, outside of the Lord, my family, my employer, my church, and me, personally.

And one final word, since the BB knocked me off log, and I then had to log back on - To place any KJV on exactly the same footing as the GEN or BIS in the early 17th Century, the WBS, YLT, RV or DBY of the 19th Century, or the ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV or HCSB in the 20th Century, to merely name a few of the better known English versions is not to "demean" any KJV in any manner, and personally, I resent that entirely undeserved implication.

Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

Hey, Ed, what part of Ky. you from? I was born there.

 

[EdSutton]

Hey, Ed, what part of Ky. you from? I was born there.

I'm a farmer in rural Central KY, located roughly an hour's drive south of Lexington, and about 3 miles from the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, which happens to be the 3rd oldest extant Baptist church (or any Protestant church, for that matter) "West of the Alleghenies" which was constituted in 1782, and where I grew up and am a member.

The old format gave my location as Central KY.

I just now noticed the new one does not list this as "Central" anymore.

Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

I'm a farmer in rural Central KY, located roughly an hour's drive south of Lexington, and about 3 miles from the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, which happens to be the 3rd oldest extant Baptist church (or any Protestant church, for that matter) "West of the Alleghenies" which was constituted in 1782, and where I grew up and am a member.

The old format gave my location as Central KY.

I just now noticed the new one does not list this as "Central" anymore.

Ed

Beautiful country there! I love Lexington. I have family living there. We were at the Creation museum last Christmas time. Anyway, I was born closer to Ashland, Ky. A little, two stop sign, town called Garrison, near Vanceburg. My mom's parents were from Paintsville, actually Blaine, Ky., but it's even smaller than Garrison. :laugh:


Sorry, if this is "off topic" I was just trying to "take the edge off" this conversation which seems to be getting confrontational, which I don't want.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I do not agree that the KJV is usually 'attacked' here, at all. (You have made this charge more than once, so I would ask for 'chapter and verse', for a change, instead of merely some spoken general platitude.)

Not one regular poster that I have seen here has ever said that the KJV is not the written Word of God. (Again, if you have seen such, please cite it and I will publicly admit I was mistaken, here,)

Several have suggested that the language is somewhat outdated, or at least somewhat dated, and I have also suggested that the language forms of the !611 and even the 1769 readings is somewhat dated, as well. That is why I use a genuine 1967 Oxford KJV Edition, and the NKJV of 1982, which is also based on the exact same text as (is assumed) was that of the KJVs. There are many updated words and spellings, over the 1611 edition, in both the NKJV and my 1967 KJV.

FTR, I do not use, as a regular practice, any of the "counterfeit, pirated, and American-published" KJVs, but much prefer the use of the genuine English articles of the Oxford (and occasionally the Cambridge) editions. They are fully entitled to any royalties generated by any such sales, and I fully respect that. Although I do wonder how many BB members can say the same thing, here?

How euer ʃence I do notte ʃpeake, ʃpelle or wryte mine wordes in ye maner of 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and euen 18th Centurie olde Engliʃhhe, iuʃte why ʃhouldeʃt I (or any othere) be euen expected to uʃe such dated wordes & phraʃes in ordre to vnderʃtondeth ye ʃcripturis? That seems to make less than no sense, to me anyway.

Were and are the WYC, TYN, MCB, GEN, KJ-1611, KJ-1769, etc., valid translations of the written Word of God. I certainly believe they are.

Is the language contained therein somewhat dated? I believe that to be the case, as well.

And may and should the Bible be understood in an easier manner and more clearly in the common vernacular of today's "ploughboy" just as the amazing William Tyndale, et al., set forth to accomplish, in the early 1500s, and as the outstanding John Wycliffe, et al., set forth to do in the late 1300s? I surely believe that should be the case, in addition.

If one prefers to place themselves under the 'limitations' of the language of the days of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Rainolds or Blaney, more power to them, I would say. However, i do not consider it a reasonable proposition to expect me or some other necessarily to do the same.

And unlike what is being suggested by many of the advocates of the KJV, especially those who are of the "ONLYest" sort, don't expect me to assign to any KJV some "special status" above any and all other versions, which is exactly what is being done, even if sub silento.

Some here have suggested that they can and do 'accept' the GEN, MCB, etc. on the same manner as their preferred KJV. Yet I almost never see any quotes from any of these versions, by advocates, and suggest I, by myself, have cited the TYN, GEN, and MCB probably more than any 10 ONLYests together on the BB, and I know Ed Edwards has cited the GEN at least 10 times as often as I have. What's wrong with this picture??

How is that any "attack" on the KJV?? Especially when I am using one, myself?

However, I also disagree that the refusal of some (including myself) to "elevate" the KJV to any "special status" above any and all other versions and editions amounts to being "against" the KJV, in any manner.

Where is such nonsense as this written or even hinted at??

FTR, I also do not necessarily hold to any TR primacy (and not that of the CT, either) for the NT text either, leaning much more toward the MT position.

BTW, I might suggest that you not overly flatter yourself, by assuming I am in some way "obsessed" with you (although I admit to sometimes being 'obsessed' with the truth and mischaracterizations).

And frankly, how much time I may or may not have, is not really any concern of anyone, outside of the Lord, my family, my employer, my church, and me, personally.

And one final word, since the BB knocked me off log, and I then had to log back on - To place any KJV on exactly the same footing as the GEN or BIS in the early 17th Century, the WBS, YLT, RV or DBY of the 19th Century, or the ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV or HCSB in the 20th Century, to merely name a few of the better known English versions is not to "demean" any KJV in any manner, and personally, I resent that entirely undeserved implication.

Ed

To avoid "confrontation" I'll just say that Ed has done an excellent job of stating the case here.