Is the "Version" issue really that Important?

Archaic

Ed is exactly right. To bring it even further home we must realize that if a young person (for example) were to read a KJV, they would often think that a word of sentence literally means something entirely different.

The words do NOT have to be missing from modern language. Just simple changes in meanings over the years cause it to be difficult to read the KJV in certain parts; even for adults. They may actually THINK they understand when they are getting the wrong message.

How often have you heard a preacher say something to the effect of "This means blah, blah, blah" when they are reading from a KJV? I have heard this often and even though my pastor thinks the NIV is a weak translation, he will often use words from the NIV to explain the ancient meanings of the 17th century English.

There was one lady who used to post and claimed that her six year old daughter could understand everything in the KJV. I seriously DOUBT that.

 

Why would you doubt it?

I know many young children who read and UNDERSTAND the KJV. Our church is a KJV/IFB church and there is one child in particular--she is 8 years old. She was asked to read a verse of scripture last summer--from 2 Kings--she read that verse and proceeded to read the entire chapter without stumbling. I know that she understood what she read--I have no doubts about it. She spends alot of time with her grandfather--they spend hours together reading the KJV Bible.

The children in our Sunday School classes use the KJV and do understand it.

My 2 cents!

 

The issue is important:

quoted uptopic about the KJV:
// ... they got it right in 1611 and should be well enogh let Alone!//

Recall that most people who are KJVO use the
KJV1769 Family of Editions
(1762, 1769, American "unauthorized authorized versions " )
Why was it necessary to revise the KJV1611 Edition into
a KJV1769 Edition? Didn't they get it right the first time?

 

Heh! Heh! Heh! I'm thinking of becoming NASBO or NJKVO, myself, if I can remember what all the letters stand for.

Ed

 

Lol

I am sure this question will be ignored, but when the 8 year olds read "fetched a compass", do you have to explain to them what it means, or did they teach them that in english class?

There are a hundred more, but I'll wait and see if this is actually answered before spending that time.

 

Fetched a compass is in 3:9 . Here are some more phrases to try on an 8year old :

4:24 slack not thy riding for me

5:25 Thy servant went no whither

8:11 And he settled his countenance steadfastly

14:26 for there was not any shut up

19:24 I have digged and drunk strange waters

 

We don't establish doctrine or claim divine truth based on what cannot be disproven from the Bible. We estalish belief, doctrine, and determine divine truth from what the Bible positively affirms.

For instance, you cannot provide scriptural citations proving that babies shouldn't be baptised. We know it is wrong because it IS NOT what scripture directly establishes and affirms.

The same is true for KJVOnlyism. We know it is wrong because it is not what scripture directly establishes... and is not what the facts of history as interpretted in accord with scriptural principles tell us.

Often it is the definitions rather than the words that are no longer in use... which is actually worse than the words themselves being out of use. For instance, "conversation" as a word is not archaic. The definition of conversation=behavior is largely archaic.

The definition "to share" is archaic for the word "communicate". When someone says they've communicated with someone, we assume they've talked with them... not given them something.

Anybody else noticed the persistent dishonesty of questions like this? The arguments aren't "against" the KJV. They are against a false belief about the KJV.

I am critical of my children when they don't do things well. I am not "against" my children. I am willing to be critical of the KJV in the few places where it is not correct on some technical point. I am not "against" the KJV.

Because KJVOnlyism is a false, divisive belief that has the capacity to keep people ignorant of God's Word by only allowing them to read the Bible in language they lack the education to understand.

God didn't inspire the NT in classical Greek. He used the language of the marketplace... the everyday language of the people. Regardless of any other protest you might make, you cannot rationally contend that the language of the KJV is how people talk every day.

Because it is proof decidedly against KJVOnlyism. Read the words for yourself. They specifically denied that their work was perfect or could not be improved on.

I prefer my wife... by no means am I delusional enough to believe she is completely without flaw or cannot improve.

No. You are standing on the false, unsupported notion that God's Word has only been preserved in the KJV and/or TR.

You have yet to prove any confounding of understanding. Further, whether a "portion" 'concretes' an understanding or not isn't the issue, is it? The issue is "What is the best representation of what God originally inspired?" There are merited arguments on every variant. The assumption that one is right and all others are wrong as a "proof" that all of the others are wrong is quite obviously without any merit at all. You can't use an assumption as proof of anything.

 

Once again, we see a KJVO hollering that there's no Scriptural proof AGAINST the KJVO myth. But why should anyone need any? After all, it's the KJVOs who are trying to justify their doctrine; we reject it for lack of evidence. THE KJVOS have the burden of proof for their doctrine, as THEY are trying to establish it. We need nothing to reject it. In the courts of men, the accused criminal doesn't hafta prove his innocence; the accuser must prove his guilt. In a civil court, the PLAINTIFF must prove his case; I've seen more than one civil trial where the defendant wins without his side testifying whatsoever because the judge has found the plaintiff's case to be without merit.

How much more so in GOD'S court, where the Judge knows ALL the facts, where purjury is impossible, and the decisions perfect, would the KJVO myth fail? So far, not one KJVO claim has held water. Its origin is clearly man-made, with the current myth coming from a cult official's book.

Clearly, KJVO is a false doctrine which has no legitimate place among Baptists, or Christendom in general.

 

I really like the last one.

 

I think your first statement here says it all. There isn't any scriptural proof going in either direction.

For the last statement -- our knowledge and understanding of many things has increased since King James's time. I'll be the first to admit that some of that knowledge hasn't benefitted us, but much has. Would you want to go to a doctor who had the skills of a doctor at the time of King James? I like my modern medicine. I like modern English.

IMHO, this is not an arguement. No one is telling anyone not to use the KJV.

 

2 Tim 3:16

CORRECT ! :thumbs:

All scriptures doesn't mean All the versions such as Watch Tower Bible, Mormons Bible, Catholic or Any Bible which include Apocrypha etc.

All scriptures mean All the written words of God, (PASA GRAPHE), in the True Bible.

 

AMEN!!!
This is a common sense response to all the extremeism.

 

Oops, Eliyahu, you just included the 1611 KJV in that catagory, for it contained the Apogrypha.

 

Well done, Scott.

:Fish:

 

Yes. Because there are more than 100 English versions, it is important to separate the wheat from the tares.

And all the moreso because it is probable that the tare versions outnumber the wheat versions by a considerable margin. In several recent threads the process of separating the wheat from the tares has begun. I very much hope it will continue.

 

Here, Linda, answer DesiderioDomini's question. This is exactly what I meant. You may also have problems understanding some of the words. Many people "think" they know what they mean, but are surprised when we post a long-list of commonly misunderstood 17th century words.

How do you even know this eight year old understands every verse in the context it was translated? I would imagine that MOST six to eight year olds have difficulty with parts of the NIV, let alone the KJV.

I think it is a joke if we think the KJV is considered a good translation for children of this age. I certainly can't be convinced that they will get much out of it. It doesn't hurt to give them certain verses to read or memorize, but reading "in general" would be very difficult.

 

I have to say that all six of our children learned to read the Bible in the KJV. If they came across a word that didn't make sense to them in context, we explained it.


Our children have had no problems with the KJV as their childhood Bibles.

As the phrases like "fetcht a compass" it just needs a wordof explanation. Most kids who have grown up in church know well that "conversation" means "lifestyle" and "quick" can mean "alive."

Even the Irish kids in our teen ministry know what "conversation" means in its context.

A joke? Maybe so, but it is a joke that has worked for us.

 

Well, most deaf people are low-educated, but I asked myself question why they use the KJV. I interviewed a few people concerning understanding the KJV. They replied to my questions. They said that they are in interested in the DOCTRINE, but they complained to me that they found many missing or twisted doctrines in modern versions. They complained to me why modern versions omitted the DOCTRINE of Trinity on 1 John 5:7. A lady, whom I never forget, complained to me why modern versions twisted/omitted the DOCTRINE of Jesus Christ 200 times! They told me that they TURNED to the KJV FROM modern versions.

I have trouble understanding modern versions, for example of 2 words: worship and kneel down. These 2 words are EASY to understand, but there are more problems in modern versions such as "witness" and "record" that I found in modern versions because they CONTRADICTED each other in passages. How would I understand modern versions? Sorry, I turn myself to hold the Bible namely the KJV and reject these modern versions.

My best friend, who went to be with the Lord 2 years ago, shared his experience with me concerning the KJV. He explained to me why most people used the KJV in 1960's, but they turned to modern versions from the KJV today. He asked me why change? He confused why they did that. He preferred the KJV because he experienced by using the KJV. He saw many passages disagreeing each other in modern versions. This man was a LOWEST-EDUCATED preacher and educated him as long as he still learned. He improved and improved his education. Why did he use the KJV WHEN HE WAS A LOWEST-EDUCATED SUCCESSFUL preacher? Is the KJV difficult for the people to understand? If any words are hard, this man said one word: DICTIONARY!

I found many HARD words in modern versions. WHY are HARD words in modern versions????? The people complained that the KJV is HARD to understand. One REASON on their complaint against the KJV is HARD TO OBEY God's WORD!!!!!

Fear the Lord is to TAKE His CERTAIN Word: the KJV that I hold with my hands in my own language!

 

Whoops, let me put this in the context of this thread.

From our experience I don't think the readability or non-readability of the KJV for children is a factor in the versions debate and is therefore not really that important.

 

The Gospel of John is easy to tell you the story about Jesus' life. Most children read the Gospel of John in the KJV as readability. The Gospel of John in the KJV is 4.79 grade level as readability. When I was young, I liked to read the Gospel of John repeatedly. Some children were smarter than me, but the problem is that they were unable to read the Bible while I was able to read it.