I agree. I go "overboard" at times. I just happen to love the KJV and I guess I'm too defensive of it.
-
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!
Grade Level
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I agree. I go "overboard" at times. I just happen to love the KJV and I guess I'm too defensive of it.
So you are willing to die defending the KJV translation? I just happen to think after lots of study and looking at facts that the no translation is perfect and in many cases does not even come close to what the text actually teaches due to loss in translation and trying to reach across times and cultures.
I will tell you like I tell everyone. Use your Bible and get out and lead people to Christ and make disciples. Life is too short to argue about which translation to use. You can take your particular translation with you to the grave and have it put in your casket but I would rather see souls in heaven for eternity.
AntennaFarmer
Member
"The KJV is the Holy Bible." That comment does not address the status of other versions at all.
Can you find an instance where I ever claimed that the written Word of God is limited to one version? I don't recall saying that. What I do say is that I am offended by your constant fault-finding with the KJV.
Wow! Things sure have changed since I was in first grade. I couldn't read the Bible then (KJV or otherwise). I could scarcely read "See Spot run. Run Spot Run." I usually just "read" the pictures.
A.F.
Languages get simpler over time, not more complex, especially English. I agree with your point.
In my experience it seems only KJVOs feel the KJVs are being attacked when KJV errors are pointed out. Everyone else accepts the truth that the KJVs aren't perfect. The true litmus test of a KJVO is whether a person believes the KJVs are absolutely perfect, without error of any kind, and whether that person believes other Bible translations are not the true word of God in English.
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh, B4L, the KJV wasn't written in 1611. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century and published in 1611. The KJV was translated from the best manuscripts available at the time. However, since the KJV was translated older and, I believe, more reliable manuscripts have been discovered.
Last edited by a moderator:
After praying, seeking, listening, God has convicted me about this. I really don't want to continue "arguing". We all have out preference in Bibles. Are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ? Please, forgive me for ANY hurt, or anger I've caused over this. I DO NOT want to bicker over it any longer. When we get to Heaven, this will seem silly that we spent so much time disagreeing over basically NOTHING. God bless, and read whatever version of God's Word that helps you grow in Grace and Truth.:godisgood:
Last edited by a moderator:
You are SO right!:thumbs: :applause: :love2: :1_grouphug:
(That's "AMEN" in Sign Language.)
Antenna Farmer: Can you find an instance where I ever claimed that the written Word of God is limited to one version? I don't recall saying that. What I do say is that I am offended by your constant fault-finding with the KJV.
Well, I am just-as-offended by the claims of perfection for the KJV when I KNOW BETTER. Ya think ya have a monopoly upon being offended, or that I am gonna compromise the TRUTH cuz it might offend someone? If that's the case, you're wrong on both accounts.
And I know KJV-reading 1st-graders are the exception rather than the rule, but since GOD provides His word in the language style most Americans are gonna use the resta their lives, why not provide your children with Bibles in that style of English?
Well, I am just-as-offended by the claims of perfection for the KJV when I KNOW BETTER. Ya think ya have a monopoly upon being offended, or that I am gonna compromise the TRUTH cuz it might offend someone? If that's the case, you're wrong on both accounts.
And I know KJV-reading 1st-graders are the exception rather than the rule, but since GOD provides His word in the language style most Americans are gonna use the resta their lives, why not provide your children with Bibles in that style of English?
AntennaFarmer
Member
You are offended by the KJVO attacks on your favorite Bible Version so you attack theirs?
The style of books children get should change through the grade levels. Simple stuff is for the lower grades.
By the time they get to high school, children should have a large reading vocabulary. It doesn't make sense to provide them with something they can read without difficulty in the early grades then expect them to find it useful later on. The fact is that the original languages of the Holy Bible were not at beginner level. Complex concepts were expressed in a few words. In order to concisely translate the Scriptures into our language it was necessary to use more than beginner level English.
I think that the King James Version requires roughly the same educational level that most of your modern versions require. Good command of the English language is required in either case.
Now that's a silly sentence.
That should be : "A good command of English is required in either case."
No. I disagree. Understanding the archaic wording and sentence structure of the KJVs is not on the same par as comprehending the modern versions. One would not only need a good command of current English to understand the KJVs. You're operating under a false basis.
AntennaFarmer
Member
Well, there you have me. You are so much smarter than I am.
You should say "on a false basis" if you care to be in a piddling contest. Perhaps "under a false impression" was intended.
Why do you think that Shakespeare is taught in the high schools? The English language is much bigger than what is used in newspapers and magazines. Readers are also smarter than you think. I guess that your work with non-English speakers has skewed your impression of the matter somewhat.
I also think that the real problem is that you harbour the same "why do I have to learn this junk" attitude that a lot of freshmen seem to have.
"Either construction is permissible. One's preference may be a different matter, perhaps.
However for the sake of clarity, the word 'English' should have been the phrase, 'the English Language' in both the above quoted sentences."
Signed, Language Cop
In answer to your question, I have no idea.
I never sought the tag of Language Cop, in any way, but did adopt this alter ego persona, several years ago, after a couple of my long-time friends 'tagged' me with that moniker.
Ed
Far as that goes, one should have a good command of Elizabethan English to read the KJV, as many words/phrases used in the KJV have changed meanings over the last 400 years. But then again, that's why God has caused His word to be translated into CURRENT English, same as He did when He caused the KJV to be made. (Compare the KJV to Wycliffe's Bible of 300 years earlier!))
AntennaFarmer
Member
I am happy to see that you aren't one of those who thinks that God has nothing to do with translation of the Scriptures.
...A.F....
The KJVO folks are constantly translating from KJV English to modern English as they speak. I have never heard any of them deliver a complete sermon in KJV English. So their sermons are adulterated with a mixture of KJV English and modern English.
AntennaFarmer
Member
That isn't a meaningful observation.
We can define several distinct vocabularies:
1. Speaking vocabulary - those words an individual uses to compose the spoken word (this can be subdivided into formal and informal speaking).
2. Listening vocabulary - those words that are understood when someone else is speaking.
3. Writing vocabulary - those words an individual uses to compose his writing (this can be subdivided also).
4. Reading vocabulary - those words an individual understands when reading.
Most of us also have some form of technical vocabulary that we use. We also will use different sets of words when addressing different audiences.
#4 is usually the largest vocabulary as we are able to read and understand words that we don't use otherwise. #1 is usually the smallest. An individual will understand many words that he never uses in composing his speech.
Furthermore, a minister quite often paraphrases Scripture readings as a means of explanation. This is the case even when the reading is from the NIV, NASB or NKJV. I think that it is normal and proper.
Given these things you wouldn't reasonably expect a sermon to be given in "KJV English".
Why do you think people from other countries understand Shakespeare better than most Americans? The reason is because foreigners can comprehend modern translations in their own language of those centuries old works.
Of course.Newspapers and magazines have not claimed to be all-comprehensive in their use of the English language. You have not made a point.
It depends on the individual reader.
Take another guess. You're wrong.
I'm all for broadening one's education. But for native English speaking folks I don't think it's necessary for them to be well-versed in Shakespeare or Elizabethan English. Instead of putting in a lot of time doing that -- they should consult a variety of modern translations and Bible study helps. Works such as commentaries, doctrinal studies and systematic theologies are written contemporary language. Learning from these sources are a better use of their time.