Further, while located in Geneva, Switzerland, John Calvin was French. I have no doubt he knew French and was fluent in Latin. I sincerely doubt he knew English anywhere near the level needed to translate Scripture.
-
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!
KJV hate
- Thread starter Southern Fried Baptist
- Start date
- Status
There can be considered a direct and proper response to KJV-onlyism since they may be attempts to answer KJV-only assertions made for the KJV.
Since KJV-onlyism claims perfections for the KJV, pointing out mistranslations in it would refute KJV-onlyism. Attempts to apply the same measures/standards to the KJV that KJV-only advocates apply to other English Bibles would be one sound way to expose the inconsistencies and double standards evident in KJV-onlyism.
Southern Fried Baptist
Member
The Geneva Bible has marginal notes
DeaconPete
New Member
I grew up on the KJV and have no hate for it whatsoever 
But we are not talking about Scripture being a barrier. We are talking about the insufficiency of a translation to communicate to a people (even if it is a lack of understanding, patience, or work on the part of a people).
We have to ask, "why the KJV?". Is it because the KJV best translates Scripture in the contemporary vernacular (I e., the purpose of a translation)?
Probably not. I have seen far too many pastors misinterpret even simple words (like οὕτως in John 3:16).
So why the KJV? Tradition? No, that would be selfish. Divine revelation (i.e., the KJV is the only true English Scripture)? No, that would be heresy. The "high" language? No, that would be legalism and idolatry (in the form of ritualistic language). A preference for the TR? No, there are other translations that use the same source without archaic language. Perfection? No, except one hold to a second revelation (i.e., heresy) there are places where the KJV exceeds the text quoted (or makes mistakes-conclusions-errors in translation (like the use of Latin in Isaiah 14, translating the "sea of reeds" as the Red Sea in Exodus 14).
The question is why use a translation that has become archaic? Is it easy to understand? For some, but not all. Even here pastors have misunderstood the language.
They may be, but are they? Do they assert themselves to be for that reason? It would not be hard to imagine the thread started by robycop to be so, even if he does not mention it, since that is one of the few strings he plays on his banjo; but the other guy, I don't know. He does not say that is his reason in the OP. Nevertheless, regardless of what they may be, that the posts are direct assertions about the King James translation, its translators, and its editors cannot be denied.
Unless you deny that translations of scripture are scripture, you were. I don't know what you think about that. Even more, we probably should back up to your use of barrier. To me a barrier is something that blocks access. Perhaps that is not what you meant. Please explain what you mean by something being a barrier to salvation.
No, the topic of the thread is whether some people do or do not hate the KJV.
DeaconPete, welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you find it a blessing.I grew up on the KJV and have no hate for it whatsoever
The 1611 edition of the KJV has marginal notes. The 1611 edition of the KJV also had content headings for each chapter, and some of them indicate Church of England doctrinal views.
Some chapter or content headings in the 1611 edition include the following examples. “The meat offering of the herd” was the heading for Leviticus 3:1 in the 1611 edition. Before 1 Samuel 16, the 1611 KJV had: “Samuel sent by God, under pretence of a sacrifice.” The 1611 KJV had a heading that mentioned a “muster of eleven thousand fighting men” before 2 Samuel 24 that would later be corrected to “thirteen hundred thousand.“ The first heading for Exodus 33 stated: “The Lord refuseth to go as he had promised with the people.” For Numbers 14:11, the heading is the following: “God threatneth them.” For 1 Corinthians 5:10, the 1611 heading is “heinous offenders are to be shamed & avoided.” The heading for 1 Corinthians chapter 10 was “[1] The sacraments of the Jews, [6] are types of ours.“ “Appoint the office of Deaconship to seven chosen men” was the content heading for Acts 6:3. For Acts 7:44, the heading is the following: “And that all outward ceremonies were ordained according to the heavenly pattern, to last but for a time.” Before 1 John 4, this was stated: “He warneth them not to believe all teachers, who boast of the spirit, but to try them by the rules of the Catholic faith.” “The last and general resurrection” was the content heading for Revelation 20:12. The actual chapter or content headings in the 1611 demonstrate that the KJV was not “without note or comment.”
The heading before Psalm 48 in the 1611 edition of the KJV was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.” “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church” is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.”
Last edited:
My position is that translations of Scripture are translations of Scripture. They are in effect tools used to communicate words from one language to another.
By "barrier" I do mean something that blocks access. If people have a difficulty with the archaic language of the KJV then why not edit the translation to bring it up to date (as has been done in the past with the KJV)?
12 For the word of God is (WHAT IT IS)
1) Is quick, and
2) is powerful, and
3) Is sharper than any twoedged sword,
(WHAT IT DOES)
1) piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of
2) piercing even to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, and
3) is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(PERSONALITY)
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but
all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Why would Conan accuse someone of idolatry for devotion to the scriptures. Does he not say the scriptures make manifest the intentions of the heart? The above is a statement of the word of God, even in modern translations.
Why is it wrong with devoting oneself to the scriptures if you agree they are the scriptures. How can one go wrong if you yourself will agree that my copy of the KJV is and will do all the things above? Are you saying it will not do them if I do not agree with your take on Christianity and that you are the final arbiter of truth?
Last edited:
Well, Sir, I had the privilege of driving a pristine 1911 Model T from Portsmouth, OH to Cincy. At first it was a blast, waving to people & sounding the "Ah-OO-ga" horn. Then, reality soon set in after I passed Lucasville. The beast required constant steering, & felt as if it had re-bars for shocks. The brakes were fair. It would only go about 50-55 MPH & was quite-noisy. It held 9 gallons of gas, & I had to use an additive for each fill-up. Then, there was that tricky crank starter. Being a fairly big feller, I could crank it & be clear in case, when the engine fired, the gear for the crank didn't disengage & spun the crank. Good thing it didn't rain, as I would have to have both steered & operated the wipers by hand. I was quite-exhausted when I reached my destination!
The Model T was built for the dirt roads & wagon trails of 1909 when paved roads were rare. It was the original SUV, able to cross mudholes & creek beds most modern vehicles couldn't cross. Tech advances & paved roads made the Model T obsolete. While later models had electric starters wipers, & heaters, the RIDE wasn't improved.
Yes, for a long time, the Model T held the sales record for a single model with some 16 million sold, but its day was over in 1927.
Same for the KJV. For a long time, it was the "go-to" English Bible version, but its day has passed as well, as its language & many of its goofs & poor renderings have been left behind. While no one can deny either the Model T's or the KJV's marks in history, they're both relics now.
That's because no one claims any other version is perfect, but many KJVOs falsely claim the KJV is perfect, so they must be proven wrong.
.
No, Easter didn't exist then. The Roman spring rite was called "Saturnalia". If that was what Luke was writing about, he woulda used that name or something similar. "Pascha" was NEVER used for "Saturnalia"! In his time, it meant only "passover".
But, in some defense of the AV makers, there's some evidence "Easter" was inserted into the AV by a prelate or prelates after the AV was finished.
Do you avoid or ignore the fact that the Scriptures sometimes makes use of figures of speech that are not to be understood literally? One of those figures of speech used is personification. E. W. Bullinger defined this figure as follows: "A figure by which things are represented or spoken of as persons; or, by which we attribute intelligence, by words or actions, to inanimate objects or abstract ideas" (Figures of Speech, p. 861).
The 1611 edition of the KJV does not have the pronoun "its", and present KJV editions only have "its" one time. Instead the KJV will use "his" or "her" instead even though the pronoun is not being used for a person.
Well, "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is certainly a goof! "And shalt be" in Rev. 16:5 is a goof, as those words are NOT FOUND in that verse in any known ancient Greek ms. of Revelation.
Gen. 43:30-And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
Please tell us this isn't archaic.
So, we know now what Bullinger says, but what saith the scriptures? It says the word of God is quick. Everything that I quoted after that seems to depend upon us believing it. No? What does Bullinger say the meaning of quick is? The NIV says it means it is living.
NIV
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living
I use KJV, the wife uses ESV. I'm not KJV only, but it is my favorite translation. I think the depth, and expressive capacity of the older language in it has far more depth than most modern English and most modern dialects in the U.S. We been dumbed down as a Nation. I think you can get more out of a verse in the KJV than in a modern Bible as the expressiveness of the language almost acts as a Bible commentary in a way as it gives you background. The words it uses are not particularly out of date in parts of the U.S that retain old speech patterns.
Britches, nor, nary, ary all still used. Some of us still sing of "bowels" in old hymns like "Jesus Thou Art the Sinners Friend" as we're aware that bowels in this case means only "strong feelings" or "emotions". Folks used to think the bowels is where your feelings came from is what I've been told.
Britches, nor, nary, ary all still used. Some of us still sing of "bowels" in old hymns like "Jesus Thou Art the Sinners Friend" as we're aware that bowels in this case means only "strong feelings" or "emotions". Folks used to think the bowels is where your feelings came from is what I've been told.
No, to hold to "fact" that one translation is the ONLY One God uses and made!
We do not hate the Kjv, but when we state that KJVO is error, those into it see that as us despising the Kjv!
No, its error to hold to what not even the 1611 team did regarding the kjv!
- Status