How has it affected you?

I still use the KJV as my primary Bible along with the NASB and NKJV. Maybe I am just a little too stubborn to let that non-sense move me.

 

The first time I ever preached in church was in 1985, and I used the KJV as the text reference almost automatically; I suppose because that was the translation almost always read from in the sermons I had heard. I think I was more concerned about the content of the message to debate with myself as to which translation to use. I think I have used the NASB every time since then. But it is not until recent years that I became aware of the ridiculous emotionalism about the KJV-- the KJV-preferred position never bothered me. But the consequence now is that it would be very difficult for me to read publicly from a KJV even if I was certain that it was a setting where only the KJV would be expected or accepted.

 

[ May 26, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: 3907 ]

 

Since when are we to allow men to dictate what we believe and practice? Men get radical in their preaching too; are we going to abandon that? Some get carried away in their worship; do we throw worship out the window? Some Christians pray with wrong motives; do I discontinue praying because others have perverted the doctrine?

Our relationship with the Lord is a personal relationship. What we use to fellowship with our Lord is also a personal thing. It would be a foolish thing indeed to throw out the means, or replace the means whereby we commune with our Lord just because someone else has a distorted view of that means.

Gal. 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (KJV)

Prov. 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city. (KJV)

Are you in control of your spirit, or is someone else? Do you allow others to dictate your faith and practice in the Christian life? If I know that I am pleasing God with my life, then it really doesn't matter what my neighbor is doing. My mandate is to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. (Titus 2:12)

 

This is the reason why so many of us have abandoned the position you espouse. We refuse to allow our beliefs to be dictated by men. Our rigid adherence to the teaching of Scripture has led us another way.

I have not used the KJV in about 7 years. I saw all the confusion it brought and the lack of understanding. I did not and do not now want a ministry that is hindered by a problem so easily solved. Thankfully, the majority of my church does not even know this issue exists. They have been spared the confusion that so many face as evidenced by the discussions here.

 

MVs have profoundly changed my life. Having grown up in the culture of a church that used and promoted only the KJV, I found that so much of Scripture was hidden in the trappings of archaic English. Once I read in MVs, suddenly so much of previously difficult Scripture came alive with rich meaning. Books like Job, Proverbs, etc. suddenly were alive with significance. Please don't take this as a slam on the KJV, I still find that a valuable translation at times, but I now use NASB or NIV -- when I am not working directly with the Greek or Hebrew!

Chick

 

When I was newly saved, nothing spoke to me like the Living Bible. The KJV tripped me up in the language. Now I prefer it. Did you know that It's written at a 4th grade level? And the thee's and thou's are kind of cool, and not hard to figure out at all. I've found that some of the more modern versions underplay some of the poinantcy. Language can do that.

To me the KJV seems more formal, and the other versions informal. More common, less awesome. I would love to learn how to read the texts in their original language, maybe I will one day, after the kids have grown and moved away, and I can concentrate better.

For me the way people bash the KJV sort of makes me dig my heals in. I don't like going with the flow, or doing what will cause me the least resistance...I'm somewhat rebellious that way...ask anyone.

But like I said before...it's personal.

 

I have heard this statement over and over again. Do you really know what position I espouse? Do you lump all KJV people into the same mold? Is there no possible way to stand for the KJV and be acceptable in your sight? This is not an sarcastic question; I would really like to know.

Sounds to me like your "beef" is with the KJV itself and not the KJVO philosophy.

Chick said:

I have worked in Christian Schools for the past 18 years. Every school I was associated with used the KJV exclusively. Sudents from kindergarten through 12th grade memorized portions of the KJV.

I taught Bible in the 4,5,6 grade class, the 7,8 grade class, and the high school class. Not one of my students had any problem whatsoever understanding the KJV. Some words, when first heard had to be explained, but that happens in our every day conversation with our own kids. That is part of learning.

The "too hard to understand" defense has run its course. You are beating a dead horse. For every word that solicits an explanation in the KJV, I can present one that solicits an explanation from the MVs.

 

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...." KJB

Laurenda......

"I guess this isn't a hot issue with me though...because as I understand it many KVO's aren't very tolerant of people who choose to use a different version. As for me, I think what Bible you feel is your Bible is very personal to you. I can't say to someone "you must use this or you are wrong" it's just not my style."

I am unapologetically a King James Bible Only kind of girl......and I assure you it is not "those who choose to use a different version" that I am intolerant of......it is the progressive watering down of the Word of God that has taken place with each new version....it is the perversion of God's Word I take issue with.

I used to be as broad minded about this issue as one can get...."this version..that version..no version at all".

I liked it my way....and it's just not that simple.

 

Yes, I understand your position fairly well and have expressed my position for the manner in which you hold it. I must admit I don't understand the phrase "stand for the KJV." Why would you "stand for the KJV" but not stand for other translations of God's Holy Word? I believe we should stand for the Bible, no matter the translation. I do not lump all the KJV people into one category.

I do believe the KJV has lived out its usefulness for the most part. That does not make it a bad translation. But it most certainly is not now what it was intended to be, the word of God in teh common tongue. I have no beef with the KJV per se. It is simply that the context in which we live and minister has passed the language of hte KJV by several hundred years, leading many people to believe that God is outdated and doesn't really speak to us. I do have a beef with teh KJVO philosophy because of its direction contradiction to biblical doctrine and because of its looseness with teh word of God. But that is another topic. I certainly do not place you in that category.

But when you start kids at that level with the KJV, of course it is easier to read for them. But when they start experiencing the revelation of God in a modern language, even that becomes very stilted and difficult. Secondarily, if all you want to do is reach kids in Christian schools, that may be a good approach. Most of us do not deal in that realm and thus, "growing up on the KJV" is not an option. (I am not impugning your evangelism in any way.) In dealing with unchurched people, the KJV is a major stumbling block that is unnecessary.

I don't think the "too hard to understand" argument has run its course. I think it is shown accurate almost every day. I grew up on the KJV, am relatively intelligent, and still have difficulty with much of it because the sentence structure is so stiff and unnatural. The original documents were written in colloquial speech. Our translations should be no different in our approach.

However, as always, I do appreciate the approach that you take in your demeanor here.

 

I think we all would take issue with the watering down of God's words. But in the major conservative translations, this simply hasn't happened. The word of God has not been perverted in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and ESV. It has not been perverted in other translations. There are some very weak and questionable translations out there that we would not recommend. But as the KJV translators themselves said, even the most vulgar translations are still the word of God.

I assume by this you mean that you are asserting that being a "King James Bible Girl" is God's way. I would simply ask, where did God reveal to you that this is the only version you should use? Do you believe that those of us who use other versions really "like it our way"?

Perhaps we are off topic here too much. Please feel free to start another thread and explain to us where you are coming from here.

 

Of course, this phrase may take on a whole different meaning to someone else, but I use it to express that I hold the KJV to be the most accurate, most reliable of all the English translations. You are well aware upon what I base this opinion, although I know you disagree.

Point taken, but we do this in our Children's Church each Sunday and our VBS each summer as well. It is the same approach with all; start them on milk and then gradually progress to the meat.

I'm sure you realized that I would disagree with this assertion. The fact is, I have seen dozens unchurched people personally accept Christ as Savior and are now in church serving the Lord. The only Bible they have had exposure to is the KJV.

Obviously I have seen the casualties as well. I realize that a person's heart condition and their relationship to the Lord is paramount to what translation they are using.

It has been my experience that any who were willing to learn had no problem understanding the KJV that I was teaching/preaching from. It goes without saying that explanations are necessary at times. The same can be said for a school textbook, an employee's manual, and every otherEnglish translation on the market.

Even Jesus Himself had to stop and explain some of His teachings to His disciples. It is a natural part of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.

 

Well, I take issue with the fact that the KJV adds verses to the Bible. Adding Scripture is condemned at the end of Revelation.

As far as the original topic goes, I used to be KJVO until I started interpreting the passages used to support KJVO. It actually drove me away from that lie from the pit of hell.

 

There was a time when I was KJVO. Since the time when I trust the Lord God granted deliverance from that delusion I have not clinged to any version exclusively. I have been more alerted to the errors of the KJV since that, no longer trust it 100 per cent as I did before when I did not know better. As for the New Testament I have full confidence in the Textus Receptus type of GNT editions. I use both Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener 1894. I have no problem with the KJV where and when it renders the underlying text accurately and faithfully. The same of course applies to any other versions, except that Dynamic Equivalent versions I shun as far as possible.


Harald

 

Non sequitur. Neither of these conclusions are accurate.

Did the first church you attended and began to learn scripture (at whatever stage of life that was) use the KJV (a)exclusively? (b)preferentially? (c)as one of a plurality? (d)quite little, or (e)not at all?

I believe I would classify the church as (b) to begin with. When we pulled out of the SBC in 1978 we became pretty much (a).

One "yes" and two "no." One was KJV-only, the other two hold the same position that I hold regarding the KJV.