That is why having different versions at your disposal is more beneficial than relying on just one.
-
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!
Is the KJV too difficult?
- Thread starter Anthony Pritchard
- Start date
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The issue is not simply having more than one Bible available. The issue is that modern versions are built on different translation methods and different underlying texts, and they do not say the same things. That is where confusion arises. God is not the author of confusion, so the problem is not quantity but inconsistency. When the foundation changes, the result changes. My point is that Scripture’s vocabulary and categories deserve to be preserved, not replaced by competing systems.
Besides all that, we are getting away from the original question, and we need to stay on topic.
Mike B
Active Member
I have never had any issues reading or understanding the language of the KJV,
however just as with any book or text, there are odd times I need to look up a word
to get a clarification on its meaning.
Aside from a couple classes at a Jr. college and a semester at a local IFB Bible
college, my formal education ended at high school graduation 49 years ago; everything
since is self-taught.
however just as with any book or text, there are odd times I need to look up a word
to get a clarification on its meaning.
Aside from a couple classes at a Jr. college and a semester at a local IFB Bible
college, my formal education ended at high school graduation 49 years ago; everything
since is self-taught.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Autodidacticism is often the most effective way to learn.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Some members here insist on collapsing my position into KJVO, but that is not accurate. This avoids the real issue I am raising, which simply stated is my rejection of modern English versions.
Threads ebb and flow but eventually get back on topic. My point is this; if the KJV is the standard or perfect [I am not saying you are advocating either/both, just making my point], then I am right there with you. But since it is neither, then no one should be afraid of the other mainstream versions out there, NWT notwithstanding.
I don't think its too difficult, but it is on the same plane with other translations in that it is not inerrant.
However, the language you are using seems to appear you are KJVO. I am not accusing you of holding that position while refuting it as well, but your language seems to speak like those who are KJVO.
Are you TRO?
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
I disagree, I have never said KJVO, ever. I hold to the preserved text only. I reject modern versions. I hold to the TR/Byzantine/Antiochian line as the preserved text. That is the foundation of my position. My concern is the underlying text and the consistency of transmission, not the exclusivity of one English translation. The KJV stands within that preserved stream, but it is not the only member of it. My rejection of modern English versions is based on their mixed textual base and their differing translation methods, not on any claim that the KJV is the only Bible God ever preserved That is the issue I am addressing.
Well, would a non English speaker find it easier to read the NIV or KJV? My wife from Beijing finds the NIV easier.
FYI, I clearly stated that I did not say you were KJVO, only the language you use is along the same line of reasoning they used.
I don't buy the superiority of the TR/Byzantine. And besides, there are no key doctrines affected by this CT vs RT debate.
Tough! She'd had to struggle to read the 17th century Elizabethan language, as the NIV is corrupted.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The question is not native versus non‑native English speakers. The question is whether a reader is willing to elevate to the language of the preserved text. Early modern English is learnable for anyone who approaches it with patience and reverence. We should not settle for a translation built on a reconstructed and unstable textual foundation when the preserved text is available to us.
And praytell why the TR is superior? Upon what basis can you claim its superiority?
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
I’m not asking anyone to buy anything, because I’m not selling a position. I’m revealing a distinction. The issue is not native versus non‑native English speakers. The issue is whether a reader is willing to elevate to the language of the preserved text. Early modern English is learnable for anyone who approaches it with patience and reverence.
The claim that “no key doctrines are affected” is not the biblical standard. Scripture sets the standard at every word, not at a human‑defined list of major doctrines. Christ grounded doctrine on singular versus plural, and He declared that not one jot or tittle would pass. The question is preservation, not preference. The foundation matters, because the standard is set by Scripture itself, not by us.
And we are getting off topic here. Let us stay with the question that was asked.
I said the KJV was not too difficult, but I will not stand by and let ppl disparage the bibles that use the CT, either. Great men of God spent a lot of time compiling those great modern versions. Do not disparage them and I won't go off on a tangent. And plus, it was you who caused me to go off topic by disparaging modern versions.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Let’s stay on topic here. The question was “Is the KJV too hard?”
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The question was “Is the KJV too hard?” That is all I am going to discuss.
This is the THIRD TIME I've said the KJV was not too difficult. Now, do not disparage the modern versions again and I won't go off on a tangent, okay?