1. 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!

Did the KJV Need Updating?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Chris Temple, Jan 15, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    She equated the Word with the word. I do not understand why people are ok with that?

    Daniel
     
    #41 MarciontheModerateBaptist, Jan 17, 2002
  2. Kellisa

    Kellisa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think sound, orthodox Christianity is what bothers him.
     
    #42 Kellisa, Jan 17, 2002
  3. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kellisa said,

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes I do have to have a sure thing and that is the Word of God. Is Jesus not referred to as the Word.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That's a far cry from equating the two. Both statements are accurate. The Word of God is sure, and Jesus is referred to as the Word.
     
    #43 Siegfried, Jan 17, 2002
  4. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
    Daniel,
    That all being said, I don't see how in the world you can accuse Kelissa of being guilty of Bibliolatry. To accept the Bible as an inspired, inerrant authority is not deifying it at all. It just puts you squarely in the rank and file of sound, orthodox Christianity.    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And to believe in neo-orthodoxy and the Bible as "containing" the word of God is I-dolatry - with the "I" being the locus of truth for the individual instead of the inspired, inerrant Word.

    Let's get the discussion back to updating the KJV, or this baby's closed.
     
    #44 Chris Temple, Jan 17, 2002
  5. Kellisa

    Kellisa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I accept Jesus authority, but I only learn about him by what he reveals throught the Holy Spirit when I read the Word of God.

    This is what I intended to say and what I did say, if you have a problem with it, it is your problem and not mine. I have peace that passeth all understanding.
     
    #45 Kellisa, Jan 17, 2002
  6. MarciontheModerateBaptist

    MarciontheModerateBaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you quoting Scripture against me like I'm Satan or something? You said what you said. If you did not mean it, then clarify. I am sorry if you did not mean to equate the living Word with the written word. I am simply using your language to make a point.

    Daniel
     
    #46 MarciontheModerateBaptist, Jan 17, 2002
  7. Kellisa

    Kellisa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    What good would it do to quote scripture at you, you don't believe it anyway. We just have two different opinions, I'll leave it at that.
     
    #47 Kellisa, Jan 17, 2002
  8. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kellisa,

    Take one of the verses you quoted, 2 Tim 3:17. Would you have a problem with the KJV word "throughly" being updated to "thoroughly"? I don't think I've ever seen anyone disagree that "thoroughly" is the word we use today that means what Paul wrote.
     
    #48 Siegfried, Jan 17, 2002
  9. Kellisa

    Kellisa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not for sure what you are getting at, if I mispelled a word please forgive me.
     
    #49 Kellisa, Jan 17, 2002
  10. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, you didn't misspell. I'm just wondering if you would accept as valid any updates to the KJV, even minor spelling changes to modern English usage.
     
    #50 Siegfried, Jan 17, 2002
  11. Kellisa

    Kellisa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can understand it just fine so I guess no, I don't really feel like that word needs to be changed, but if you do, go ahead, more power to ya.
     
    #51 Kellisa, Jan 18, 2002
  12. Baptist Bible Believer

    Baptist Bible Believer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish I knew where I found this thought so that I could give its original author credit.

    Anyway, why is it considered a good think to update and simplify the King James Version but its not cool to change Shakespeare? Anyway, people "still" enjoy Bill and I have yet to see a copy of "Bill's Tragedies for Modern Man," or the "New Internation Shakespeare."

    Hey, I felt like spending two cents, ok?
     
    #52 Baptist Bible Believer, Jan 18, 2002
  13. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pilgrim's Progress:
    I wish I knew where I found this thought so that I could give its original author credit.

    Anyway, why is it considered a good think to update and simplify the King James Version but its not cool to change Shakespeare? Anyway, people "still" enjoy Bill and I have yet to see a copy of "Bill's Tragedies for Modern Man," or the "New Internation Shakespeare."

    Hey, I felt like spending two cents, ok?    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think the difference is this: Shakespeare is literature with an entertainment purpose; the Bible is literature with a salvific purpose. Some people enjoy Shakespeare for its literary content, but their salvation and relationship with God is not essential. For those who enjoy the literary qualities of the KJV, it will no doubt always be available. But if we are concerned about the purpose of the Bible - to know God and to receve salvation in Christ alone - the Bible must be in the modern vernacular of modern people. As the LBCF 1689 (mirroring the WCF) says:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),[14] and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.[15] But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read[16] and search them,[17] therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar [i.e. common] language of every nation unto which they come,[18] that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship of Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.[19] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
     
    #53 Chris Temple, Jan 18, 2002
  14. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;Temple: Shakespeare is literature with an entertainment purpose; the Bible is literature with a salvific purpose.

    AAAAAMEN n hallelujah to that! n i'd suppose the Israelites n NT saints wld've been thankful that their Bibles didn't sound like no Sumerian or Homeric literature.

    Nor did the Word incarnate appear in a Roman toga n laurel wreath.
     
    #54 Forever settled in heaven, Jan 18, 2002
  15. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pilgrim's Progress:
    I wish I knew where I found this thought so that I could give its original author credit.

    Anyway, why is it considered a good think to update and simplify the King James Version but its not cool to change Shakespeare? Anyway, people "still" enjoy Bill and I have yet to see a copy of "Bill's Tragedies for Modern Man," or the "New Internation Shakespeare."    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You apparently don't know that Shakespeare has been changed. There are foul words and stories which have long been edited out of the textbooks used in schools, and in the 19th century and its hypocrisy, there were expurgated copies for 'proper ladies' to spend their time reading. Besides that, there are volumes which present his works in modernized language, some in short story form, such as Lamb's. These could competently be called the "Living Shakespeare." If Shakespeare and the KJV are of such a low reading level (kindergarten, someone remarked here), just how old were you before Shakespeare made sense to you? And now do you have any need for the footnotes which are in almost any Shakespeare copy?

    But the real point here is that the Bible-- very much unlike Shakespeare-- is absolutely vital information, not a piece of entertainment. If you were writing an instruction manual for a new type of software, would you write it in Elizabethan English, or would that only make essential information less clear?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey, I felt like spending two cents, ok?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    OK. Two cents ain't worth much today, is it?

    [ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]
     
    #55 ChristianCynic, Jan 18, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...