KJV exclusive

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I just called my wife and told her I wasn't coming home. Guess what, I will go home tonight. Does that make me a liar? Hardly. In the context, I was right, I am not lying, and I can still go home. This is just a straw man that is easily solved by considering the context.

This is exactly the reason I think this textual variant exists. I think the text originally read as it stands in the NASB, but some copyist somewhere down the line misunderstood and assumed that a "yet" was missing, so added it in to "correct" it back to what he thought was the original reading.

Thanks Pastor Larry, for demonstrating that sometimes it is not a text that is in error, but our understanding of it.

 

[SBG]

Perhaps it is I that should be concerned for you. In the short quote above, you misspelled two common words and used very poor sentence structure. If you don't have a firm grip on today's english then getting the true intended meaning from Elizabethan english is next to impossible... unless of course Elizabethan english is what you normally use.

Man! If that was me, I'd be admonished right off of this board!

 

[Daniel David]

My wife and I use the NKJV. We use the same at church.

At school and for personal study, I use the NKJV, NASB, and ESV.

I cannot remember the last time I read or used the KJV on my own.

 

[Maverick]

Now we are down to criticizing someone's typing in a venue that does not have spellcheck. I do two fingers myself and reverse or miss letters a lot. I proof read but do not catch them all. I guess neatness counts after all.

yes, what does the text say and the conjecture that someone corrected it is still not a good argument when you argue from the minority text. A few hundred copies do not have it and a few thousand do and you opt for the few.

Anyway, for those who might like to do some more study on the text problem I suggest you read "Final Authority" by William P. Grady. Grady Publications

Good work all around though he does get excited in a few places and may say some things that might detract from the all around good scholarship. There are some others, but my library is still in disarray from moving. Lot sof websites are available as well.

Shalom!

 

[Ransom]

Maverick said:

Archaic Words in the NIV

Too bad Vance doesn't know the difference between "difficult" words and "archaic" ones.

Before giving up, I read down into the H's and had yet to find more than two words that are arguably not in common use (not counting things like Hebrew terms of measurement).

 

[RomOne16]

Originally posted by Maverick:
Even in Africa, they mostly use the KJV and English would be an adopted language for them and they do not seem to have so much trouble understanding it then whay should we or is our educational system below third world standards?

It would seem so.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Maverick:
Now we are down to criticizing someone's typing in a venue that does not have spellcheck. I do two fingers myself and reverse or miss letters a lot. I proof read but do not catch them all. I guess neatness counts after all.

I guess we are if someone is going to charge that we are under the influence of Satan, unspiritual, and doctrinally unsound if we don't exclusively use a version of scripture that many today don't understand... and in the future most will not understand.

Amazing, the original poster can question my spiritual wisdom, family leadership, doctrinal discernment, and care for the spiritual well-being of my offspring... and you have no problem. I point out that his writing calls into question his grip on current english then relate that to his understanding of past forms of english... and you have a problem?

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Amazing, the original poster can question my spiritual wisdom, family leadership, doctrinal discernment, and care for the spiritual well-being of my offspring... and you have no problem. I point out that his writing calls into question his grip on current english then relate that to his understanding of past forms of english... and you have a problem?[/QB]

I had a problem and I expressed it on 9/7 at 12midnight. Also Doc Cas edited the post on Sun morning at 1:00. So whether Mav noticed or not it was noticed, you are correct it was an ugly post but yours was as well. I would appreciate it if we could drop it as of now.
Murph

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
I had a problem and I expressed it on 9/7 at 12midnight. Also Doc Cas edited the post on Sun morning at 1:00. So whether Mav noticed or not it was noticed, you are correct it was an ugly post but yours was as well. I would appreciate it if we could drop it as of now.
Murph

Ugly or not, I was trying to make a serious point. The KJV has some difficult English. I like it and use it but facts are facts.

When people do not have the necessary language skills to grasp the meanings, there is a very serious danger of doctrinal error. English is continuing to change. At some point, Christians with poor English skills will fall into error because they read a different meaning than the one that the translators meant to communicate. I have already known KJVO's in IFB churches that have mis-interpreted and mis-applied scripture because they thought they understood the KJV but didn't. As this occurs more and more, it will effect doctrine.

Example, a "preacher" teaching SS taught that James 3:13 (Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.) is a command not to "cuss."

[ September 09, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Maverick]

Hmm, don't believe I saw the under the influence of satan thing. I would not say that all non-KJVers are under the influence of satan just maybe the influence of wrong scholars or just flat in human error and we can all end up in that flat spot from time to time. My previous pastor was a Moderate with a twist now and then to the left. He is still my friend and I believe his heart is in the right place but seminary has spoiled him some plus having to hang out with kinds of folks in his position at the SBC. Who you hang around with can influence you even if you think they will not.

I agree that there are some folks that need to do a bit of studying before they preach. I wonder of that lad was a Hyles man. I worked with one of them for awhile and he came up with something really wacky that he said he studied for hours. I went home and in 20 minutes between my Strong's and TWOT proved he had not studied at all but most likely had memorized (or maybe only tried to) someone else's sermon. I worked with another one of them and did not have the same problem, but I have seen some of them that need to study more.

It will not matter what version that lad you mentioned uses he will not look at the languages for any word studies at all or take things in context. I think those are his biggest problems not the KJV English. Most of my sermons contain big chunks of KJV and when I do my spell check my sermons end up on a 6.9 - 7.3 education level. I try to keep it that way because the big words they learned me in college no one in the congregation would understand anyway. So I break it down to where everyone can eat the cookies.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
I would appreciate it if we could drop it as of now.
Murph[/QB]

 

[DocCas]

A word to the wise, folks. Brother Murphy is one of the Moderators on this forum. When he very politely suggests a topic be dropped, the prudent thing to do would be to DROP IT!

[ September 10, 2002, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Maverick:
yes, what does the text say and the conjecture that someone corrected it is still not a good argument when you argue from the minority text. A few hundred copies do not have it and a few thousand do and you opt for the few.

The test of truth is not in the majority but in conformity to reality. I remember being in an Advanced Math class in high school where a page long assignment was given. The majority of the class agreed and the majority of the class got it wrong. Why? Because it did not conform to reality. I understand that textual criticism is a bit different but we must understand that a 1000 copies of an error does not make it less an error. Well meaning people have been sincerely wrong. The test is reality.