How many here who are NOT kjvo...

Yes I can document it. Are you interested in reading a 1200 page book about it?

 

It takes 1200 pages to say that the KJV is easier to memorise - I'd LOVE to see that. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

When we small baptists memorized our verse(s) or Psalm for the week, the Sunday School teacher would attach a crepe paper award (usually in shape of a scroll, book, or similar, with the verse reference printed neatly on it) to our ribbon in the class. Back then, I thought that there was only one bible--the one that said Holy Bible on the cover. For those of us that remember those old Sunday School teachers, you probably know why most of our memorization is KJV. I am surprised all of us didn't talk that way (as in the way of the Puritans).

 

Roby, Phillip, RJ, Keith, et. al;
At last! Something we can agree on in this forum!
Yeah! There IS unity among the brethren!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

...not so fast...

Within the last few years AWANA has provided the option of memorizing verses in the NIV or the KJV.

This was quite a relief. Practically speaking, the memorization of the KJV by small children is possible but the knowledge of what it meant was sorely lacking.

Rob

 

Deacon;
JOY KILLER!
In HIS service;
Jim

 

If a child is brought up with a strong grounding in the Bible, I really don't think there is a lot of problems understanding the KJV - or the NKJV, or the NIV, etc. There are words in the "modern versions" that those not fully grounded in the Bible might have problems understanding.

 

Daecon,

AWANA materials are also available in New King James.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I request Nick's AWANA material in NKJV. I memorized scripture back in the stone age, KJV and now have NKJV.

 

I am the Cubbie AWANA Director at a church with 1,200 members and have to agree with this 1000%! I do the 'listening' and will explain to each child what their verse said. Most parents choose KJV but I'll see a word marked through with the NKJV word written in by the parent.

 

Understanding the Bible when you read it is, in my opinion, more important than memorizing verses that you don't really understand. I know that many KJOists claim that the KJV is easy to understand, but if they did understand the KJV, they wouldn't be KJO, would they? They would see very clearly from scriptures in their King James Bibles that KJOism is a false doctrine.

As far as our children and our grandchildren are concerned, do we want for them to memorize verses that are easy to remember but worded so that they do not understand the words that they memorized, or do we want for them to work a little harder (if necessary) to memorize verses that are both more accurately translated and easier for them to understand?

 

Craig, I do not think this is the case. I remembering memorizing verses when I was a child. All of those verses were very clear and except for some of those words that do not mean the same things today; but the verses the kids learn are usually very clear and easy to understand. Of all of the anti-KJVO arguments, the one that the KJV is too hard to understand is one of the weaker ones. Granted it is not as easy to read as some of the new Bibles; the KJV is NOT impossible to understand. The verses that I remember as having memorized are very simple. ...bad argument.

 

I have made no attempt to count.
The reason the basic permise is so is simply because the KJV is what most of us were taught by and with at an early age, and that we hear quoted today, even by non-Bible believers like Barry Lynn. The 'Ten Commandments' are almost always cited as "Thou shalt not..."

I heard a very-- well, trying to diplomatic, she lacked a few marbles-- say, "Oh, isn't so funny how everything looks just like the word it is!" She didn't seem to realize the realtions made in the mind, that what she described is just because we immediately associate the word with the object, and that's why it seems that way. It's the same thing with memorized scripture. The '10 Commandments' seem as though they should have language like "thou shalt not..." because of long-held mental associations.

 

I don't think it's any bit easier or more difficult to memorize Scripture from any version of the Bible-- unless it's a paraphrase version that is quite wordy like "The Message". The KJV was not the Bible version of choice that I used, nor is it the version I use now. I find it interesting to note how KJV-onlies tout the KJV as being 'easier to memorize' and make it a point to flout this notion in support of their false doctrines.

 

We were told earlier that studies prove it, including a 1200 page book. I would still like to see that documentation.

 

^^^

KJVO 'documentation'??? Puh-leeeease!

The end justfies the means = KJVO 'documentation'


LRL71

 

I have been told by PM in the past that asking for documentation was unkind, untrusting, and un-Christian since I should trust my brother's word.

 

And I would think it unkind, untrusting and presumptious that someone would refer to documentation they were unwilling to provide. Surely we should be entitled to see the documentation/evidence and come to our own conclusions?

Sheila

 

I've also been PM'd by KJV0nlies because they didn't like something I said in one of my own posts. They attempt to intimidate those who post statements that shine the light of truth upon the false doctrines of KJV-onlyism. Documentation about our disagreements with KJV-onlyism is usually met with ad hominem, question-begging argumentation, obfuscation, dodges, distortions, and half-truths. We who use MV's, and we who expose the KJV-only error (the other correct term sounds like "hear-say" ) do not espouse a view that the KJV is a "false Bible", "Satan's word", "perversion", etc.... as the KJV-onlies often attack MV's.

As in the spirit of holding to the topic of this thread, I am NOT KJVOnly! Count me a MV#3 (MV#3 = MV's are superior in translation and use a superior Greek/Hebrew underlying text. No version is 'perfect' or inspired, nor is any version error-free).