Retiring the KJV

So what committee is going to do this? I can't imagine it will be accepted. Maybe another pointless non-binding resolution from some conventions. Who cares?

The reality is there is absolutely no reason to do away with the KJV. It isn't worth the effort, it is a good translation, and there is no reason to soil the faith of the millions of faithful Christians who still use it.

Besides, this is a free market thing. If you're in full time ministry or actively involved in your church name foor me 10...no 5...ministers outside fundamentalist groups that are under the age of 40 and still using the KJV. You can't do it.

Our elders in the church are the final legacy that consistently use the KJV. As they continue on to receive their reward their influence and use of the KJV with dissipate. I'm not being mean just being honest. This is a fine generation that did so much to build our churches they deserve to be honored and least thing my snarky generation can do is leave them alone about this.

If you use the KJV I applaud you. I love people who use the KJV. (It's the ones who say its the only legit translation that bother me) Keep using it and thanks for your years of faithfulness to the Kingdom of God.

 

The author of the article makes some good points about the AV. But to retire it is silly. I don't use the KJV at all, it is hard to read for me, and I agree the new manuscripts used since 1611 get us much closer to the autographs. The KJV has probably been the most printed and read than any other translation and it should be regarded as a wonderful Bible.

 

I don't disagree that I have made many corrections in my copy of the KJV, but I have totally discarded some of the modern works. Any living language is subject to change. I cetainly don't want an American language version of scripture. I understand English far better.

I just think some pick on the KJV far more than they should. The inaccuracies are based on dubious old manuscripts, and we just can't prove which are the more accurate.

On theologians, I will stand with Hodges, Strong, Berkouwer, Hendrikson, Kuyper, Warfield and such theologians of my day lonf before I would even trouble with the modern writers of to-day. The above all substantiated their theology with KJV quotes. The Bible of our day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

By the way, Salty, the pilgrims brought the bible that was prominent in Holland, where most of them came from. In Canada, where the majority of immigrants were from Great Britain, the KJV dominated the clergy and the people.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You don't understand ancient English better than so-called ''American English'',do you?

How about the fact that the CT editions are based on the oldest manuscripts? Older is better than the late manuscripts that Erasmus was foced to use because many of the discoveries of the much more ancient texts were yet to be unearthed.

There are far too many harminizations,pietistic expansions interpolations etc. in the manuscripts that the KJV was based upon.

Hendrickson was on the original NIV team and used that version in his commentaries.

Warfield quoted not only from the KJV but the ERV,ARV and Weymouth.

 

They also quote Hebrew and Greek.

By the way, many in our group of Baptists, are using the NIV...the original NIV. The younger people are making the change. All the older people, my age group, are strongly KJV. And I quite agree that even English people would have difficulty with the 1611 language. English changed drastically over the years,,,,,even to-day.

In England to-day there are 18 different dialects of English and you would have great difficulty understand the difference between East London and Liverpool, Cocknies and Scousers.

Cheers,

Jim

 

But it is a relic; a museum piece. It has served us well. It is the most influential volume in history, but its time is passed. There are 20 versions at least that serve us better than the KJV.

Put it in a glass case. Refer to it occasionally. My copy was my first very own Bible, which my parents gave me at age 6. I wouldn't get rid of it for anything. But we know now all of its failings, and, having been blessed by it, must now use one of the obviously more accurate translations for our serious study.

A believer who only uses the KJV is playing shorthanded. Get out the gold watch.

 

So, if Jimmy John doesn't like the NIV, and thinks that it is written like a fairy tale, he then should lead a crusade to abolish it?

If Freewill Jeff hates the ESV because it tends to be the bible of choice of the predestanarians(sp?)/DoGs, he then should find a mob to burn them all?

See what I am getting at? There are many good translations out there. Lets thank God that His Word is contained in all of them. All of these are "versions" of the Word of God, and will have some failures in them. None of them will be perfect because it is man who did the translating. If you use the KJV, good for you. If you use the ESV, kudos. If you use the NIV, attaboy. If you use the ASV, go get'em. If you use the NLT, way to go. If you use the CEV, amen. If you use the GNB, hallelujah. If you use the YLT, good going.

I could care less which version you read, as long as you are reading the written Word of God. But to those of us who cherish the KJV(I am KJVP, not KJVO), please leave the desparaging(sp?) remarks about it to yourselves, okay??

 

20 versions at least better than the KJV? I would love to see your list and rationale for what makes each better.

Failings? Any more than any other translation? Do have any evidence where it fails to produce the word of God any more often than the NIV, the ESV, the NKJV, or any of the more contemporary translations? Could you document those for us please?

Obviously more accurate? How do you know that? Unless you have copies of the original manuscripts in front of you and are a Hebrew/Greek scholar you are basing that statement on your opinion or the opinions of other men.

A believer who only uses the KJV is playing shorthanded? Really? Does that make those who only use the KJV less godly/spiritual/mature in their faith?

Retire the KJV? The whole concept is just a bit silly, IMNSHO. I will agree that the language is antiquated, though even that card is overplayed, but millions of believers are still, built up, and edified by this marvelous translation.

 

Excellent post, and I am not ever KJVP .

Just because there is a small segment of KJVO users who make despairing and unsupported criticisms of any modern version, does not mean that folks need to become ABKJV (I'll leave that and interpret it later ). When we do that, we fall to the lowest common denominator and the body of Christ is further damaged.

I think the guy who wrote the satirical proposition referred to on the article had it right - it is a ridiculous idea.

 

I personally have NO problem with those who wish to keep using theurKJV as their favorite version...

Just have problems when they say that its the BEST or the ONLY version for today!

God knows that it was the Most influencial book ever made in History...

BUT

based upon advances in knowledge and technology and new discoveries, not the best or only English version available today!

 

You say this like you have proof? Do you? Any more than me saying 'more is better than few?'

 

My KJV Bible is the Word of God....so if someone says that it is inaccurate, there is a term for denying the truths of the Bible....it begins with HERE and ends in TIC.

Every story, every parable, every word is true. I believe the Word of God, and it is preserved in my Bible, which just happens to be a KJV.

 

Stating that a translation has inaccuracies is not heresy. It is a fact. It applies to every translation.

 

believe that the ONLY "text" that was completely free of any errors were the original documents Inspired down by Holy Spirit of God!

 

ALL of us ojn the BB adhere to this, its just that preservation refers ONLY to the hebrew/Greek texts, NOT any translation from them!

 

That is just simply not true. CK4 is correct when he says all translations have inaccuracies in their translation. The KJV just has more than most modern translations.

Is it still God's word? Absolutely, but it's not the most accurate English rendering.

 

More than most? Could you evidence this please? I would still like to see your list of at least 20 English translations superior to the KJV with some kind of rationale as to why they are superior.

 

Think MAIN problem with KJV is that English usuage and understanding really changed past 400 years!

Also think that the NKJV would be the best choice for one "devoted" to the KJV as primary Bible...

 

That is my translation of choice.