A new King James Bible defense book

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Then hopefully when you climb off your chair we can start debating the subject again.

You judged me to not be a faithful soul winner, and that I was some kind of hick from the sticks who never got out of his small community and moved among the real people. When I corrected your error, and informed you that I was not from the south, but from the 5th largest city in the US, and born in the 2nd largest city in the US, and that I am well traveled and do my very best to reach others with the gospel, you responded by accusing me of being prideful. You really are a piece of work.

Yes, The KJVO is "OLD" English when you compare it to "Modern English". Happy now?

No, for once again you tell the same untruth even when you know it is false. The first time was out of ignorance. You really thought the KJV is Old English. But now, after that error has been corrected, you still make the same claim, which now has risen to the level of falsehood.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by 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?

No. I joined the Baptist Board against the advice of my pastor, who used to be an Administrator here. I am beginning to think I should have listened to his advice. He tried to warn me that many of the posters were devoid of ethics, but I wanted not to believe it. I am beginning to change my mind.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Forgive me Skan for jumping in the fray w/o reading every single post about "Modern English"..If I'm missing the point, then clarify it for me please. But would you say, in light of the English of the KJV being 'modern', that for one to speak today, in the language of the KJV out in the market place, whether here in NYC, or there in S.D, (or anywhere in btwn), that it would be the language of the people? It seems that what I have read, that we're speaking apples and oranges. Technically it is true that even the English of the KJV is called, "Modern English" (it sounds strange), however, at the same time we simply do not speak that way today. If someone did speak that way, he would definitely be viewed as "weird" or unigue.
Thanx and God bless. (Got to sign off now, my wife works as a Nurse and I'm gonna pick her up, as she gets off at 11:30PM...don't want her taking the subway home at this hour! )
Everyone be blessed tomorrow and pray for your Pastor

 

[Phillip]

I know exactly who that "Administrator" was. It is SUCH a small world, isn't it.

Well, thank goodness the new owner didn't have to live through that period of time. I think we should just let this pass at this point.

Please do not respond to my statements and I won't respond to yours. I forgive you for anything you said that was out-of-line, and I ask you to forgive me if I said something out-of-line; HOWEVER, I think it best that we do NOT debate further, and I'm sure the moderators would appreciate it if it stops right here. So, let's just drop this in its tracks right now and you may post, just not in response to mine and I will not respond to yours.

Thank you, and God bless you!
Phillip

PS Just a hint about the "debate" sites. There will be people who question your knowledge. Don't take it personally, sir. Please!

 

[HankD]

It is you who still seems divorced from reality. There is no such thing as "common English."

It's called Standard English:

Standard English is the variety of English that is held to be 'correct' in the sense that it shows none of the regional or other variations that are considered by some to be ungrammatical, or non-standard English. Received Pronunciation, often called RP, is the way Standard English is spoken; without regional variations. Standard English and RP are widely used in the media and by public figures, so it has prestige status and is regarded by many as the most desirable form of the language.

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/standard-english.html

HankD

 

[Refreshed]

It seems as if I was correct in my presumption in another thread that the problem is really not that of people who use the KJV, the problem is the KJV itself to those who promote MVs.

gb - you directly challenged Skan's witness, testimony, and effectiveness in the ministry. What could he do but defend himself?

Skan is correct that the "street language" of any given area is different from another area. There IS a standard English, but that is not the one commonly used in the streets. Maybe each region needs its own translation so the people from the "street" can understand the Bible?

Since I was the one that first questioned Phillip's use of old English and modern English, I will address the arguments. Old English is not modern English. The KJV was written in modern English.

Skan - don't go anywhere. The staunch modern versions proponents seem to have increased the scope of their attack. They are now going after the KJV itself and as a result us KJVp people are having to defend our choice (and being called ineffective witnesses and worse for using what they consider an archaic "rusty sword."). Thanks for taking the brunt of the attack, one I wished would never come about, direct attacks on the KJV itself, but I predicted would come about.

For these extreme MVers, willing to attack a person's witness and preaching ability without even having met the person and only based on a person's choice of English Bible version, to concede a point will damage their arguments much as a Ruckmanite's concession will do to the extreme KJVO.

Extreme MVers are doing damage to the cause of Christ by trying to dismiss a version that is very effective in witness and preaching, the KJV.

It seems we now have two groups of extremists on the board, the extreme KJVO and the Extreme MVO.

Jason

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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.

WHAT?
No way - THEY GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!
How can a REVISION be "truer" to the TR? The 1611 Authorised Version is more than just a literary work of art, it is one of the English translations of God's Holy Word. The best REVISION of the Authorised Version is the NKJV.

Strange the KJVOs seem to ignore this version.

Oops. Never mind - Sorry - I thought you were talking to me.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
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.

I have to jump in and defend skanwmatos, despite the fact that he is "holding his own," if I may use that idiomatic expression. Robycop, I am not singling you out, I simply used your post to initiate my thought. In fact, we are actually very like-minded.

The English found in the 1611 Authorised Version is indeed Early Modern English. Olde English actually sounds Germanic to most people. One of the few words from Olde English that is still used today is "blood" (blOd), and that is not even pronounced the way it was in Olde English. The same can be said for "flood" (flOd) as well. Some on the list have said that the 1769 Revision corrects spelling errors; however, a trip to Williamsburg, VA will reveal that this is also untrue. The spelling in the Authorised Version is consistent with the language at the time. [If any of you are ever in the neighborhood, PM me and I can meet you for coffee on the Duke of Gloucester Street and some good Christian fellowship!!] The spelling in the 1599 Geneva Bible is also consistent with that of the Authorised Version.

Although one could make an argument that the English of 1611 is not the English of 2004, I would agree, to an extent. Many of the idiomatic expressions were different, along with the spelling. But I do not agree that they are vastly different. I have a facsimile of the Wiclif Bible of 1380, which is Middle English, and I would imagine many of you on the list would struggle with reading this. Although you may have a personal preference as to the English used in a more modern translation of God's Holy Word, that does not mean that it is impossible to understand.

I use the 1611 Authorised Version for two reasons:
1. I am a Purist with respect to this wonderful language of ours. Additionally, I am a sucker for the "thee's" and "thou's" found in this translation of God's Holy Word. I do not, however, believe that it is the only source of God's Word. Nobody on the list has ever been able to provide a BIBLICAL reason for the rejection of all other translations of God's Holy Word. I use SEVERAL English translations that are available to me.
2. The REAL "King James Bible" contains the Apocrypha. Though I concur with the opinion of the translators with respect to its Divine Inspiration (which they stated in the preface), I love it very much. There is a great deal of wisdom in book of Ecclesiasticus (which as many of you know I quote on the board frequently) and I do not feel it is contrary to the Message.

Of course I am outlining a personal preference and I am not holding this out as doctrine, as some people mistakenly do. There are several places to obtain a relatively cheap facsimile copy of the 1611 Authorised Version. I have a leatherbound copy that I can take with me to church (my 1599 Geneva Bible facsimile is WAY TOO BIG to take with me). I would encourage all of you to check it out, as I think it would be a blessing to you to see the "King James Bible" in its true form. PM me if you have questions.

May God bless all of you on this BEAUTIFUL Sunday.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
But would you say, in light of the English of the KJV being 'modern', that for one to speak today, in the language of the KJV out in the market place, whether here in NYC, or there in S.D, (or anywhere in btwn), that it would be the language of the people?

As the English of SD is not exactly the same English as NY, as I pointed out earlier, the question is moot. KJV English would be just as dissimilar to each of them as they are to each other.

Again, let me recommend some good reading. I suggest you read "Spreading the Word: Language and Dialect in America," by John McWhorter (associate professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley). He says in the introduction,

"The idea that there is one 'best' English shining in the sky is so intuitively plausible, and so relentlessly hammered into us throughout our lives, that it is natural for teachers to consider part of their jobs to be upholding standard English. . . . However, we are misled in thinking of varieties of English other than the standard as 'wrong.' . . . We will see in this book that other kinds of English are not bastardizations of standard English but variations upon the basic plan of English, of which the standard is but one" (p. ix).

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
It's called Standard English:

Not according to John McWhorter (associate professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley).

 

[Pastor KevinR]

thanx, Skan...I don't know where to get that book, maybe B & N .com's got it? (if it 'ain't' to 'spensive'.)

I am frankly lost where this thread has gone, because I (and all) know the English used in the KJV isn't spoken today. I'm not KJVO, and this fact about the older than today's English wouldn't disqualify use of the KJV. But I still love my NKJV..."Traditional Text Preferred"

 

[HankD]

Not according to John McWhorter (associate professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley).

Sure, and there's a Flat Earth Society also.

http://www.nus.edu.sg/prose/singlish.htm

HankD

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Refreshed:


gb - you directly challenged Skan's witness, testimony, and effectiveness in the ministry. What could he do but defend himself.

Jason

How is asking a question judging someone? If I don't know how else could I find out?

 

[gb93433]

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]People can tell by the way you write whether you are humble or proud. I think part of your character shows when you call people ignorant. It also shows disrespect toward them. To call someone ignorant, is rude and totally unacceptable language in any company. It is elevating yourself at another's expense. There is not one person who knows everything. Everyone of us are ignorant in some way.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]And NOT ONE of these dialects is the English of 1611. That's reality.

 

[robycop3]

Jason(Refreshed), an an anti-KJVonlyismist, I agree with you, to a point. I don't think anyone HERE actually dismisses the KJV as a valid English Bible translation. But there ARE things stated by some anti-KJVOismists which are incorrect, and in some cases, outright stupid. An example is blasting the KJ for calling the Holy Ghost "it". Simply read the context closely. Doesn't many a parent call his/her child "it" in certain usages?

The "Johannine Comma" argument is used by both sides of the issue, and to me is a waste of time.

Perhaps the silliest anti-KJVO argument is to cast aspersions up[on the character of King James himself. He had nothing to do with the translation except to authorize it to proceed and to make his views of the Geneva Bible's footnotes known.

We don't need these silly arguments to prove KJVO wrong. Actually, it proves itself wrong by its total lack of historical or Scriptural support, in the face of the many English versions that preceded the AV, no two of which are alike-and the complete failure of its advocates to provide one speck of evidence which would lend any truth to the KJVO myth. We don't need to stoop to the level of some of the KJVOs in order to show their myth wrong.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Kevin, thanks for the offer to send me Norris' book. I will be glad to read it. I emailed you and gave you my address. Thanks,

Will

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
This is pathetic.

Is God pathetic?

John 17:8 is not a justification for the rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word. This Passage does not address English translations in any way shape or form, and for you to imply otherwise is a dangerous contention on your part, as you are adding to the Message.

Read it again! What does this verse say?

Romans 16:26 is not even a complete sentence. Furthermore, this offers nothing in terms of supporting your claim that God's Word is preserved only in the 1769 Revision.

Read it again! What does it say?

Originally posted by robycop3
But not one word about any certain language, let alone any certain versions of God's word.

You missed one important word from John 17:8. Read it again! What does it say?

Yes, if you lived in the 17th or 18th centuries & read English, you had the KJV, GB, Bishop's Bible, and several others in the English current for the time. Now, you have all these, plus several others in your native tongue, contemporary English.

Did God give you His ONE Book? Or Did God give you His MANY Books for your ONE tongue -- English-speaking?

I have several of them-the AV 1611 replica, later KJV editions, NKJV, NIV, NASB, & even a replica Geneva Bible, to name a few.

Why 2 sides -- "accurate and corrupted" Bibles that you have there?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Not according to John McWhorter (associate professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley).

Sure, and there's a Flat Earth Society also.

http://www.nus.edu.sg/prose/singlish.htm

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I will relay your opinion of his scholarship to him and the regents of UC.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
I am frankly lost where this thread has gone, because I (and all) know the English used in the KJV isn't spoken today. I'm not KJVO, and this fact about the older than today's English wouldn't disqualify use of the KJV. But I still love my NKJV..."Traditional Text Preferred"

If you don't speak Modern English, what language do you speak? There are several dialects of Modern English. Just because you don't speak one of them does not mean you don't speak Modern English.

And I too am not KJVO. I am not even TR preferred. I am closer to being Byzantine text preferred.