A new King James Bible defense book

[gb93433]

skanwmatos;

“ Fine. Have it your way. Wallow in your own ignorance. The fact remains that the KJV is in Modern English and bears virtually no resemblance to Old English as the quote of John 3:16 clearly proves.

Amazing how such a humble man can call so many ignorant. Perhaps you have heard the saying, “All of us are ignorant. It just depends on the subject.”

Time for a reality check. No one in either NY or LA carry on everyday conversations in the Elizabethan English of the late 1500s-early 1600s.

Once again you seem to have missed the point. Just because New Yorkers and Los Angelenos talk quite differently does not mean one of the other of them is not speaking Modern English.

No, you seemed to have missed the point. Just imagine the American theology Jesus preached? I assume you don’t practice what you preach. Do you preach in KJV English? If not then you are wrong. Because you do not support that style of language 100 percent. Just when it’s convenient.
It is a misrepresentation of the Bible to use archaic language when presenting the scripture and quoting verses. The NT was written in the common language of the time. So why use archaic language? Paul didn't. Peter didn't. Jesus didn't. John didn't. Why not be consistent with scripture? I cannot think of any time when someone in the scripture quoted another passage with language the people did not understand. So you claim to do something that nobody in scripture did?

“I don't keep score or carve notches in my bible, but I use the KJV in all of my preaching and personal work. Several people have been drawn to Christ via that preaching and personal work in the past couple of weeks.”

It's clear that you have not preached or witnessed far from where you live to make a statement like that. Your wording is a dead give away. Glad to hear that God is using you. You had better stay right there. That was not my point though. My point is that how many have talked with out in the community who have not been to church talking like the KJV. From what you write on the BB I noticed that you do not talk like a KJVO just when its words from the KJV translation. So what kind of theology does that perpetuate?

You are right there are loads of churches that don't love people. I am sure they don't love God and are more concerned with themselves. Just another form of idolatry.

Here where I live the KJVO’s are still hanging onto their faulty theology. The people here have caught onto their form of idolatry. Even the non-believers laugh at them. The KJVO’s just don’t get it. Imagine if you will a man sets out to fish and never catches fish. Do you think you would call that fishing? Too many Chrisitans call that fishing. A man whose life depended on catching fish would come up with some ways to catch fish. He would learn from his lack of success.

As a preacher I am sure you know that most missionaries are least where they are needed most. So try out your style of ministry in the west as some other southerners have tried, and see if your theology is cultural or biblical.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tinytim:
You know i'm not KJVO, but I feel the true KJV is the 1873 version. It contains all of the marginal notes of the 1611. And is truer to the TR (so far to what i've seen) than the 1611.

Actually the 1873 edition of Scrivener restored many of the 1611 readings which have been changed in later editions, most notably the 1762 and 1769 revisions. So, it read MORE like the 1611 than any other edition.

</font>[/QUOTE]That's what I meant to say. It is better in my opinion than the 1769. I just got the 1611 confused with the 1769. Like that has never been done before

BTW, I have never seen a 1762, what is the diffs between it and a 1769? Besides 7 years

 

[tinytim]

Scan and Phillip, You both are saying the same thing, you are just saying it differently.

Technically, we do speak Modern English, and the KJV was written in the same style of that category.

But there is differences in Modern English.
the KJV is not in OLDE English (technically).
But it is an older version of Modern English than we speak today.

 

[Phillip]

skanwmatos: You are accusing me of wallowing in my own ignorance. If THAT is NOT ad hominem, what is it? Just curious?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi brother Kevin. I like what you said at the end of your post. I got a good chuckle out of it.

"BTW, I'm not "ignorant" (although I have a long way to go), I simply have reached a different conclusion than you. I haven't stooped to calling you names have I? even though my flesh wants to .
May God bless you, in spite of your view "

As for Rick Norris' view, can you tell us all if Rick believes any single Book, be it in Hebrew, Greek, English, Swahili, or whatever, is the complete, inerrant, pure words of God?

I know very well where he is coming from on this issue.

Thanks, and God bless to you too, brother Kevin.

Will K

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I assume you don’t practice what you preach.

Then you assume wrongly.

Do you preach in KJV English?

Yes, I preach in Modern English.

I cannot think of any time when someone in the scripture quoted another passage with language the people did not understand.

Nehemiah 8:8 "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

It's clear that you have not preached or witnessed far from where you live to make a statement like that. Your wording is a dead give away.

I have traveled over 100,000 miles in the past 12 months. I was gone from the Baptist Board all last week while I was out of the country preaching. In the past 6 months I have preached in 16 states and 3 foreign countries.

My point is that how many have talked with out in the community who have not been to church talking like the KJV.

Again, I do not play the numbers game, but in my street preaching here in San Diego I have probably preached to over 20,000 in the past year.

From what you write on the BB I noticed that you do not talk like a KJVO just when its words from the KJV translation. So what kind of theology does that perpetuate?

I don't talk like a KJVO because I am not a KJVO. I abhor KJVOism and, at the risk of being banned, it is heresy and error and destructive to Christians and churches.

What kind of theology does the KJV perpetuate? Uh, well, Biblical theology?

So try out your style of ministry in the west as some other southerners have tried, and see if your theology is cultural or biblical.

I am not a southerner. I live and minister in Southern California. You can't get any more "west" than that!

And what do you know about my theology or my culture?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
WHO CARES? It is non-issue on this point.

If it is such a "non-issue" why did you bring it up? </font>[/QUOTE]YOU are the one who keeps responding that my posts are "in error" and indicating that I am "Wallowing in my Ignorance."

I was simply responding to YOUR RESPONSE!!!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
BTW, I have never seen a 1762, what is the diffs between it and a 1769? Besides 7 years

Very little. The most well known says, in the 1762 Cambridge edition, in Jer 34:16, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;ye&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." While the 1769 Oxford edition reads, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;he&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids."

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
YOU are the one who keeps responding that my posts are "in error"

I only correct your errors when you make errors. If you would do a little study before posting you could avoid such public embarrassment.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:
Can you read? I said I have multiple revisions of the KJV including the original. I also have the Geneva Bible and Tydale's 1535 NT. What is not accurate about those?

I have 1525, 1537 and 1557 NT. They mostly agreed with the KJV. Should I complain about the accuracy? Why you? </font>[/QUOTE]This also shows the "true" story behind the KJV. They did NOT reinvent the wheel from scratch. They used The Bishop's Bible, THe Geneva Bible, the Vulgate (Latin) and many other sources. It was NOT a completely NEW translation from old manuscripts. It was simply a newer version of the Geneva. If you don't believe me, then check out the verse and chapter break-outs and also compare the language in both. ---Very -very -similar.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Scan and Phillip, You both are saying the same thing, you are just saying it differently.

Technically, we do speak Modern English, and the KJV was written in the same style of that category.

But there is differences in Modern English.
the KJV is not in OLDE English (technically).
But it is an older version of Modern English than we speak today.

Yeah, I know. He is attempting to "relate" something that is OLD to something that is NEW, even though there is something OLDER. Technically, in a university, the teacher would only be correct by saying "Old English is from much earlier than the KJV 1611 period". But, in the real world, the KJV is--well, the language is, uh, how do you say it any other way, it is just "OLD".

When he claims that the KJV is Modern English, maybe to a college professor who goes back 1000 years, sure. But, we do not live in an ivory tower and the bottom line is that the KJV is NOT the language we speak today. It will even be distanced by more time, making it even older to the next generations of Americans.

I like the remark about the Model T. It was a great example. You can get picky about terminology, then you get get a little ridiculous. I can say -- there goes a beetle, while the biologists corrects me and says, no there goes a "then adds the latin phrase containing, class, species, phyllum etc. ad nauseum". That's my only point.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I assume you don’t practice what you preach.

Then you assume wrongly.

Do you preach in KJV English?

Yes, I preach in Modern English.

I cannot think of any time when someone in the scripture quoted another passage with language the people did not understand.

Nehemiah 8:8 "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

It's clear that you have not preached or witnessed far from where you live to make a statement like that. Your wording is a dead give away.

I have traveled over 100,000 miles in the past 12 months. I was gone from the Baptist Board all last week while I was out of the country preaching. In the past 6 months I have preached in 16 states and 3 foreign countries.

My point is that how many have talked with out in the community who have not been to church talking like the KJV.

Again, I do not play the numbers game, but in my street preaching here in San Diego I have probably preached to over 20,000 in the past year.

From what you write on the BB I noticed that you do not talk like a KJVO just when its words from the KJV translation. So what kind of theology does that perpetuate?

I don't talk like a KJVO because I am not a KJVO. I abhor KJVOism and, at the risk of being banned, it is heresy and error and destructive to Christians and churches.

What kind of theology does the KJV perpetuate? Uh, well, Biblical theology?

So try out your style of ministry in the west as some other southerners have tried, and see if your theology is cultural or biblical.

I am not a southerner. I live and minister in Southern California. You can't get any more "west" than that!

And what do you know about my theology or my culture? </font>[/QUOTE]This is just my personal observation, but I take it that you are EXTREMELY proud of yourself!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
This is just my personal observation, but I take it that you are EXTREMELY proud of yourself!

Once again you presume you know me and attack my character. Why are you so hateful toward someone you have never even met? Is it because I challenge your unwarranted assumptions?

 

[robycop3]

Skanwmatos:No, Old English is archaic. Some of Middle English is archaic. Modern English is Modern English. There are subgroups of Modern English: Early Modern English, Late Modern English, and others, but they are all still Modern English. All you have to do is check any competent English Textbook to discover this deep unsearchable truth.

I see you wanna dodge a reality check. We DO NOT speak the same style English now as was used in 1611. Call 1611 English by any name you wish, but the REALITY is that it's not in common use any more. This is why I refer to the Model-T. It's basically a Ford automobile as is my 2004 Taurus, & was one of the most technically-advanced cars of its day. But as auto tech advanced, the Model-T was replaced by more-advanced models.

But back to English. You know full well we do NOT use the old pronouns(thy, thee, etc.) nor the "eth-est" verb endings, and that many, MANY words' meanings have changed over the years("conversation" doesn't mean "lifestyle" any more). You may call the English of Chaucer "modern English" if you like, but that doesn't mean people use it any more. In fact, the English of 1611 had ceased to use most of it.

No matter how you cut it, the English of 1611 is not the English of 2004.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
As for Rick Norris' view, can you tell us all if Rick believes any single Book, be it in Hebrew, Greek, English, Swahili, or whatever, is the complete, inerrant, pure words of God?

If you want to know his views I'll be happy to send you his book, if you wish to provide your address in a PM. I know you're open to reading these kind of books, since you've mentioned James White's book from time to time. I think the book is compelling, you may wish to refute him, that's your choice and I respect that.
Bro Kevin

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
YOU are the one who keeps responding that my posts are "in error"

I only correct your errors when you make errors. If you would do a little study before posting you could avoid such public embarrassment.

</font>[/QUOTE]And I thought you were non KJVO -- can't be having to be right all the time.
Do you have this much fun making yourself so perfect before your members? hehe

I'm so sorry that we're such uneducated, unskilled and unknowledgeable. I will not bow before you though, even if you've preached in 200 countries. Your view is "ivory towerish" to say the least. (Yeah, that's a word, I just made it up ). Its "modern English" too.

[ March 27, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
This is just my personal observation, but I take it that you are EXTREMELY proud of yourself!

Once again you presume you know me and attack my character. Why are you so hateful toward someone you have never even met? Is it because I challenge your unwarranted assumptions? </font>[/QUOTE]Go back and read your posts: "wallowing in your own ignorance". I think that just about fits in the "hateful toward someone you have never even met category too". I'm just responding in kind. Maybe that is wrong, but hey, be nice to me and I'll be nice right back. Call me "wallowing in ignorance" I simply respond back to you in your own way so you can understand me.

Then hopefully when you climb off your chair we can start debating the subject again. Yes, The KJVO is "OLD" English when you compare it to "Modern English". Happy now?

 

[Phillip]

This just hit me and I hope its not true, but, skanwmatos, you are from San Diego. Right? Did you used to post under another name on this board?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
I see you wanna dodge a reality check.
No matter how you cut it, the English of 1611 is not the English of 2004.

It is you who still seems divorced from reality. There is no such thing as "common English." There are at least 6 dialects of English used in the US alone, and when we count the rest of the English speaking countries of the world we can probably multiply that my a factor of 10.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Do you have this much fun making yourself so perfect before your members?

Shame on you! I have never said, or even hinted of any such thing.

I'm so sorry that we're such uneducated, unskilled and unknowledgeable.

Shame on you again. I have never said such a thing to you or to anyone else.

I will not bow before you though, even if you've preached in 200 countries.

Shame on you again. I have not preached in 200 countries, nor have I ever made such a claim.

Your view is "ivory towerish" to say the least. (Yeah, that's a word, I just made it up ). Its "modern English" too.

I am sorry you believe people who actually know what they are talking about instead of just making things up as they go alone should be characterized in such a pejorative way.