Featured Thinking about attending a KJVO Church

I wouldn't set foot in a sanctuary that has "KJV Only" on its shingle in any form, especially if it reads "Psalm 12:6-7" as well, as I would know that congregation was infected with at least two false doctrines already.

 

I enjoy the NASB, and think it more accurate than the KJV. HOWEVER, there is really nothing of doctrine or emphasis that makes the KJV a lesser Scripture. (I'd go with NKJV, though).

So, I'd just fit in, and make certain that my family discussed the teaching of the church and not just accepted it - no matter what is being taught.

If I became a teacher, I would use the KJV, but also show how renderings from the NASB would be useful. Not to bear contradiction, but to show further insight. That builds encouragement for folks to seek other outside sources for information and clarification.

What I would NOT do is endorse the NIV! There is just not a good way to show that as comparable to the KJV or NASB, and frankly, if the folks were used to the KJV, they would be more uncomfortable with the NIV than any other translation (imo). It is very difficult to go from a more word for word to paragraph thought type translations, especially if one's ear is "tuned" to the rhythm of the KJV text.

 

Fair enough.

You wouldn't fit in long if the below took place.

That would fly over like a lead balloon and your former 'fitting in' would be undone.

KJVO's would be uncomfortable with any other translation than their 'KJB'.

 

You mean translation.

Horrors!

Yeah, the NIV does not line up with all that archaic language and awkward syntax of the KJV.

However there is more of a kinship with the NASU.

You must be living under a rock. Can you really be THAT uninformed? You just don't know what's out there --do you?

The KJV is not an example of that.

You are struggling.

Most editions of the KJV (there are exceptions) have every verse set off as separate units. That is a very poor way of setting things up. Verses, for understanding need to be grouped together when characterized by a particular theme or context.

Most Bible translations render things sense-by-sense in phrases and sentences.

 

LOL!!!

THAT was my thought exactly! Quite presumptuous and naìve on his part.

Yep.

 

Given that you've got an interest in languages and translation technique, you might have a problem going to this church. OTOH, maybe you are supposed to go here to educate the leadership?

 

Admittedly, I have attended many churches of many backgrounds, and back in the day (before the KJV controversies) there was very little "time explaining the 400 year old language of the KJV" because each edition of the KJV used updated spellings and language structures understandable at about the high school graduate level. Bibles printed 150 years ago, and those printed from England would have varied spellings, but there was little confusion. No one used one from the time of James I of England, or could even find one in the typical church.

The biggest controversy was seemingly at times over the importance and use of the appocrapha, than the version. Latter, the controversy spread to the "Good News for Modern Man" and after that it all has gone down a road of nonsense.

Frankly, the whole "understandable" issue is really (imo) greatly overblown. A typical fifth grader reading the book of John has little problems with understanding the KJV. Admittedly, more time in some of the IFB "worship" was given over to reading a passage and departing from it, and so doctrine was cheaply treated in some situations. But, ultimately, the readability of the KJV (imo) is just not an issue and is so only in the mind of some who desire to make it an issue.

I agree.

Personally, I preferred and taught from the KJV and graduated to the NASB. Now, I rarely read or use the KJV, but I would have little problems in fellowship with an assembly that used it and preferred it.

 

I don't recall arguing for the KJVO position. Such a position is unsupportable.

And as far as lead balloons, MANY IFB preachers would read from other translations when explaining a more difficult passage, just as they do in this day. A couple weeks ago, I sat in the assembly and listened to a pastor do that very thing, and then used his own work in Greek to further express the importance he was getting across.

The typical KJV preferred church is not unaccustomed to that kind of teaching, at least not that I have encountered.

I kept up with "what's out there" for many years. But, admittedly, have little interest in the last couple decades.

I was pointing out that the rhythm, and flow of the KJV is more like that of the NASB, and that the assembly would be less troubled with reading it than trying to jump to the NIV which is more like reading a paraphrase when one is steeped in reading exclusively from the KJV for years, and so easily rejected.

Not sure why you brought this up. It has little to do with the readability or likability of those who are KJV tuned. The one problem that does make a bit of a difference is when one is using "proof-texting." It is harder to maintain an argument based on "proof-texting" from a reading that is in paragraph form than in the verse form.

 

Nowhere did I accuse you of arguing for it. Pay attention.

 

Did you not say, "KJVO's would be uncomfortable with any other translation than their 'KJB'." to a post in which I made no mention of the KJVO?

Perhaps I should take less thought of what you post so as not to assume you are misrepresenting either the OP or my response.

 

Are you speaking of the Scofield Reference Bibles?

You are being vague. You will have to try to be more specific.

Yes, you will have stop living under that rock. The moss has grown impeding your vision.

The Twentieth Century New Testament came out a bit before the orginal Weymouth. A primary reason was that children of that age had a difficult time with the antiquated English of the KJV. The same thing applied to the Phillips. Young people needed to have a readable translation in their own language. How much more does it apply in 2016!

 

Why would I speak of the Scofield Reference Bibles?

Being vague, where I live, and the condition of my eyes are all within your power to determine?

Actually, for decades, I used the Thompson Chain Reference Bible, and one day gave it way to a new believer who needed a Bible.

Rippon, you seem to tout the NIV above either the KJV or the NASB, and is that not reflective of your own bias?

All I have done in this tread, is state that folks who are used to the rhythm and structure of the KJV, and prefer keeping something more tuned to their ears, will find more agreement with using the NASB than with the NIV.

You view the KJV as using "antiquated English" and that the "young people need a readable translation." Either that just showing how very poor readers the young people have become in the last few decades, or a personal bias expressed. I would suggest that the typical 5th grader and perhaps even the high school graduate can read with as much clarity the KJV as he can the NASB or NIV. Read-ability level (imo) presents a very minor problem because it is the Holy Spirit that illumines the truth of the Scriptures, not human intellect, and there is very little read-ability level difference in those three translations as another thread expressed.

I moved away from the KJV not because it is "antiquated" but because of the presentation of hierarchical placement of the presbytery that was insisted in the rendering of the translation. There was direct orders (as you remember) from the king of England in which the text had to conform. The king desired a translation that could be uniformly agreed upon and understandable to the people when it was read, and it must conform to the established church hierachy.

I also wanted a translation that was (imo) more faithful to the original wording. I found that to be the NASB. Others may conclude it to be found in some other work. It matters so very little.

What mattered in this thread was how an assembly that was used to the tempo and tuned to the KJV would embrace another work, and (imo) the most agreeable would be the NASB.

For the readers:

The original 1611 does not use the same spelling nor structure as the current printing of either that done in England nor that done in America. Time has changed, and so has the KJV.
Here is a list of revisions done by the editors and printers of the KJV. The list is mainly a list of errors, but is given to show that the KJV did not remain a static translation.
KJV changes

 

You spoke of the KJV gradually updating the language of the text and the SRB did that a bit. Actually, most KJV translations are variations of Benjamin Blayney's 1769 edition. So you are still stuck with old-fashioned phraseology.

Your posts determine what I know about you. The condition of your eyes? Don't you understand figurative language?

Normally I "tout" the NIV as being a perfectly acceptable Bible version. I react negatively when others slam it by using lies. I then defend it with facts. Everyone has a favorite version. I am no different than anyone else on that score.

Not only more readable, but based on a more accurate textual basis.

I have told you that it is not a recent phenomenon. I had said that the reason that the Twentieth Century New Testament Translation was made was young people could not understand the antiquated phraseology of the KJV. And that project was launched in the 1890s.

That's nonsensical on your part. There's huge gap between the NIV/NASU and the KJV in that regard. Your bias is glaring.

 

Let me set the record straight prior to dealing with your deceitful attempt to twist the conversation to make you look right.

Here is what really happened. You said this:

And I replied with this:

Now you start with this nonsense as a response to the above:

I don't take much thought for what you post as most of it is off track theologically and is typically not true. Just like now.

You're the one misrepresenting what was said and being dishonest. What you said directly above had absolutely nothing to do with what I said previously, but that is what you do. By the way your post that you made was of you arguing about what you would do if you entered into a KJVO church so quit being deceitful as if this were not what you were addressing. That in itself is dishonesty on your part. It's anything for you to appear right, no holds barred for that obviously. Now I have a clear picture as to why you rush in to threads to defend those who are dishonest. Try honesty for once yourself and stop twisting the narrative as you do. Now why not just man up and admit you made a false statement about what I said all along and I called you on it. You were wrong, it's hard for you to accept.

 

This type of posting from you seems to be consistent.

This attitude of yours has continued with others is well, and seen in multiple threads, and, misguided as it is, it continues, even when others have attempted to clarify and correct your misconceptions.

You obviously have been offended by what I post and the manner of my posts.

For that I am sorry, more sorry that, what made you be offended, did not work for your own introspective growth in Christ and do more to change the attitude you display on the BB towards those with which you disagree.

Perhaps, if you stop reading my posts, it would bring you less discomfort.

That you don't like how I seek to find agreement between believers and that I make attempts to draw believers to an agreement based upon Scriptures seems to trouble you. You seem to think that dishonest. I do not.

Perhaps, because you engage in such, you enjoy posts that demean and ridicule a person or a person's view, but I do not.

Rather, I seek to show how I would agree with a person and also specifically draw the question of disagreement to a focused area. Often the area may be of ultimately very little purpose, but one of the direction a person is facing on the landscape.

Perhaps you see such posts as agreeing with the deceitful, or wicked, of me being dishonest. But I do not.

Perhaps you will find it in your heart to either modify your posting to be more edifying, or withdraw from the BB. This is not the place for sixth grade school yard bullies.

 

What little I've read the NASB, I really liked it.

And you'd use their door as they shoved you out of it.

Life for you must be unbearable. I kid...I kid!!

Well...imo, your opinion is wrong. I was KJVO for years but now use the NIV more than any other translation.

 

This is my experience as well.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

I am not a KJVO reader, I have many versions that I read equally. About 10 years ago we did attend a KJVO church. Long story really short is that they really meant it. There was a time that we shared our DVD of Mathew which was word for word from another versions (NIV I think), with another member from the church which we were friends with outside of church. They were recovering from surgery, so it was good on our part. They went to the leaders of the church and told the pastor that we were sharing other versions with the people from our church. It wasn't long before we were called in front of the elders. From that, and other experiences I have learned that a lot of KJVO churches are pretty strict. So I would find out just how strict they were before I personally would attend, I decide if I was ready to be KJVO myself.