Retiring the KJV

I certainly do not agree with this opinion.

 

The writer makes excellent points. English today is vastly different than the language was in the 17th Century. Words change meaning or fall by the wayside, thus we lose some of the subtleties and nuances, as well as major points.

 

Dave Miller's article just reflects common sense. There is nothing new in his remarks.

I liked some of his lines though:

''...offer the KJV a gold watch,shake its hand,and let it fade into history.''

''Even the traditionalism of KJV-preference can be a little oppressive.''

His article was inspired by Andrew Wencl's ''resolution''.

 

I am 60 years old. I have used the KJV since I was old enough to read. Probably age 5 or 6. It has served me well for some 55 or so years. I see no reason to change. Those of you who want to "retire" it are ridiculous.

 

You are welcome to retain the inaccuracies of your version of the Word of God.

Perhaps the reverse is true.

 

I believe you've been told not to state your OPINION as FACT. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Is that a fact?

 

No single ''proclamation'' will retire the KJV. People will still buy and should be able to with no restrictions. People will accept gifts of the KJV as well.

But it's just plain common sense that there are many other superior alternatives when it comes to faithful translations of the Word of God.

 

There you go stating OPINION as FACT again! Geez!

 

:sleeping_2: :sleep: :flower: :1_grouphug:

 

I'm not going to tell Rippon was bible to use. I'm not that arrogant. He can use what he wants, and I don't think any less of him.

That being said, allow me to illustrate one point. People beat up on the KJV for being "inaccurate." I'll give the old KJV this much - at least it is consistent in its treatment of biblical chronology. Most modern "more accurate" translations (by the way, you are free to use as far as I'm concerned) say that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt. According to Genesis 46 and Exodus 6, this is chronologically impossible. But yes, throw away the old inaccurate KJV for the more accurate modern translations.

Here's a better thought. Use your translation and I'll use mine.

 

Perhaps your edition of the KJV is missing Ex.20:7. In the 2011 NIV it reads thusly:''You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God,for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.''

 

Well,since about 99% (at most) of KJV users don't own a 1611...

 

Perhaps in your haste and presumption you didn't bother to read my post number 11.

 

The KJV is so inaccurate that ALL the noted theologians of the 1900's used it to develop their Systematic Theologies. Odd, innit!

We used it throughout old fundamental Christianity in defence against the march of liberalism in the 40's, 50's and into the 60's.

I will stand by my 1945 copy of the KJV (Cambridge) to my dying day. Every copy of the bible has errors, grammatical and otherwise. Don't be lazy in study and sort them out. It is not that difficult.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You mean some theologians of the early 20th century referenced the KJV.

And by your own admission you have heavily edited it. It could be called the Jim1999 Version.

Okay,but the KJV is especially noted for the above and more.

Our aim is not to ''sort out'' the problems in the KJV. Why jump through those hoops? Go to a faithful modern version in one's own tongue (said for the benfit of KJV fans) and you will find more accuracy in all respects.