news flash nobody talks that way today. Not sure why that needs explaining
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Real Reasons to Use the KJV
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
news flash nobody talks that way today. Not sure why that needs explaining
The five reasons given in the first link:
1) KJV based on better text. Subjective as modern scholars disagree in that they use the Majority Text (WEB) and the Critical Text (NASB) over and against the TR.
2) KJV is a "more accurate translation." Subjective as modern scholars disagree and translate the text in what they see as a more accurate translation.
3) KJV is in "more appropriate English." Subjective as modern scholars consider archaic words and phrases inappropriate.
4) The KJV "bears a stronger testimony." Subjective as modern scholars present the divinity of Christ more clearly.
5) KJV is the "standard English translation." Subjective as the claim looks at past views, not modern views.
1) KJV based on better text. Subjective as modern scholars disagree in that they use the Majority Text (WEB) and the Critical Text (NASB) over and against the TR.
2) KJV is a "more accurate translation." Subjective as modern scholars disagree and translate the text in what they see as a more accurate translation.
3) KJV is in "more appropriate English." Subjective as modern scholars consider archaic words and phrases inappropriate.
4) The KJV "bears a stronger testimony." Subjective as modern scholars present the divinity of Christ more clearly.
5) KJV is the "standard English translation." Subjective as the claim looks at past views, not modern views.
I agree that the KJV is useful. All legitimate translations are useful.
But saying it is a better Bible is too subjective.
Yes, there are words indicating tense in the older English. But in the English language today this is provided by context.
I only read the first link. I'm afraid that all five of the claims are invalid. I cannot claim them as truth at all. In fact, I found them based on subjectivity and in the case of the KJV being "the most accurate" - it was just plain wrong.
I was raised on the King James and that's all my mother would read as much as I tried to get to to try another. She would always claim that they had a couple of King James Only members in her SS class and didn't want to offend them.
If we could take a look at the first English scriptures to the present - it would be proof positive that language changes over time to the degree that new and VALID ONLY translations must be written.
I was raised on the King James and that's all my mother would read as much as I tried to get to to try another. She would always claim that they had a couple of King James Only members in her SS class and didn't want to offend them.
If we could take a look at the first English scriptures to the present - it would be proof positive that language changes over time to the degree that new and VALID ONLY translations must be written.
37818
Well-Known Member
From your understanding all five claims are false. They're being made by the Trinity Bible Society. Please bear in mind, I am not a KJVonlyist.
Can we address each claim. But, please one at a time.
37818
Well-Known Member
That is not understanding the old English remaining value in our Bible for the singular pronouns.
Ok.- I understand that you are not KJVO.
#1 - "The King James is based on a better 'text'".
I do not believe this to be true. I also do not believe that the KJ Bible text translated from is a worse text. It's just a different text.
I've been studying the history of the Bible ever since I came on the internet two decades ago and saw the fussing and feuding between good and decent Christians about which Bible is "best".
Here's all I know.
The King James is based on a latter text. The modern versions are based on an earlier text.
The fight as been about the modern versions not having all the verses that the King James has. That's because they are based on different texts.
I truly believe that God has miraculously used MANY Bibles - the Geneva, Wycliffe, King James, ESV, NIV, Holman and a whole lot more.
How can this be if the ancient texts vary? How can this be is scribes, as the years went by, added, not subtracted to the texts?
God is in charge - 100% in charge. All I know is that the handful of places that are not in the most ancient of texts, but are found in the latter ones do not alter the Word. If it did, THEN there would be a problem.
I say, the texts are DIFFERENT, not inferior or superior.
37818
Well-Known Member
I think you might not understand.
Wycliffe was translated from the Latin.
The Geneva essentially used the same TR text as from Tyndale to the KJV. The ESV, NIV and Holman and most others do not use the TR. One can make the argument we are talking about three different NT source texts besides translation differences.
Last edited:
Brother, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Different source texts - God guides it all.
Your obsession with this doesn't justify sticking with the "old English" further even the KJV today is a variation of the old English. Have you ever actually seen a 1611 KJV Bible? You can't hardly read it today.
Characters and Contractions Used in Early Printed Books
¯ The macron. A horizontal stroke printed over a letter to indicate that the following letter or syllable (usually an n or m) has been omitted. For example, the is put for them. A curled macron (tilde) represents an omitted a. By this means, scribes and early printers often abbreviated a word so that their columns would be neatly justified.
The "Y" character, which came to be used to represent the runic "thorn" (þ - see above) was often used as an abbreviation for "th" in early printed books, and when it was used in this way it was normally printed with a superscript "e" or "t" as an abbreviation for "the" or "that."
Up till about 1790 the "long s" was used for s at the beginning and in the middle of words. In Roman type the long s looks like an f with the cross-stroke on the left only, and in italic type it looks like a stretched round s.
u v The "U" and "V" are not distinguished phonetically in early English spelling. The "U" character is used for both the v and u sound when it occurs in the middle of a word, and the "V" character is normally used for either sound at the beginning of a word.
& The ampersand, often used for "and" in early books.
e The silent "e" occurs much more often in early English spelling than it does now. It was often used by printers simply to expand the length of a word in order to justify their columns of type.
Changes in the English Language
¯ The macron. A horizontal stroke printed over a letter to indicate that the following letter or syllable (usually an n or m) has been omitted. For example, the is put for them. A curled macron (tilde) represents an omitted a. By this means, scribes and early printers often abbreviated a word so that their columns would be neatly justified.
u v The "U" and "V" are not distinguished phonetically in early English spelling. The "U" character is used for both the v and u sound when it occurs in the middle of a word, and the "V" character is normally used for either sound at the beginning of a word.
& The ampersand, often used for "and" in early books.
e The silent "e" occurs much more often in early English spelling than it does now. It was often used by printers simply to expand the length of a word in order to justify their columns of type.
Changes in the English Language
37818
Well-Known Member
Really? The RSV, NWT, NEB? God does preserve His immutable word, Psalms 119:89. But men corrupt it, so God keeps His promises, Proverbs 30:5-6.
37818
Well-Known Member
Brother, you can think that.
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, brother, you can think that.
Brother, there is only one set of flawless manuscripts - the originals and they are no more.
Everything else is a translation. Everything else is flawed in terms of some grammatical mistakes, misspellings, poor translation choices, wrong translation choices, and additions.
I like the King James. I like the ESV and NIV. All have flaws - but all contain the Word. I have no problem with this.
He's right. I don't know anyone who reads the 1611. I'm sure you read the 1769. The 1769 is a good Bible, but not a perfect one. Just as the ESV, NIV, and more are good, but not perfect.
Here's from the book of Judges in the 1611. It's almost unreadable.
It is not as hard as it seems. Confusing an u for an n and an n for a u is the biggest problem. But a few 20 minute practice sessions will have you reading it or any other black letter Bible easily. A little difficult at the very beginning, but with a little practice you will master it. Start with a passage you are already familiar with like John 1.
37818
Well-Known Member
There are reprints of the 1611 KJV.
KJV Bible: 400th Anniversary Edition Genuine Leather Burgundy over Hardcover, Cloth Slipcase
Last edited: