KJV - Part III

[Salty]

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the KJV on two different threads -
One started by JohnV and one yours truly started

There have been many various answers.

So lets do a poll. I hope I get enough sufficient answers.

Salty

 

[annsni]

I answered "because it is an excellent version" but I wanted to state that it's not my primary version. ESV is my primary version with NASB right beside it. I use the KJV mostly in online discussions or to look up the original Greek or Hebrew because the online Strongs is tied to it (I use www.blueletterbible.com)

 

[Salty]

I answered "because it is an excellent version" but I wanted to state that it's not my primary version.

Excellent observations. There have been other polls for preferred versions, so I was trying to get at this from a different angle

Salty

 

[robycop3]

My "other answer" is cuz it's the best version from which to bring the Gospel to an elderly person, and it's excellent for memorizing verses from, becausa its quaint, archaic language.

 

[Dr. Bob]

ESV and ASV1901 are my primary English translations. Both are based on better Greek and more up-to-date English language.

But I have a love for the KJV1769 oxford revision since I've memorized thousands (literally) of verses. So it is not primary, but a reference.

But even when I quote one of those beloved KJV verses, I correct the archaic words and grammar into proper 2009 language. And of course, to be sure I am preaching GOD'S words and not those of the Anglicans, I translate every passage myself. Always amazed at what differences I find and how I would have mishandled the Word and misled the people had I just depended on those English catholics.

 

[Rippon]

ESV and ASV1901 are my primary English translations. Both are based on better Greek and more up-to-date English language.

The ESV doesn't use up-to-date English. The 1901 ASV is even worse in this regard.

But even when I quote one of those beloved KJV verses, I correct the archaic words and grammar into proper 2009 language.

Do you correct the awkward wording and sentence structure of the ESV too?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The ESV doesn't use up-to-date English. The 1901 ASV is even worse in this regard. Do you correct the awkward wording and sentence structure of the ESV too?

Contrasted to the Geneva or the AV? ESV is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD in 2009 language. Of course.

I don't have the ESV memorized so don't have to change it.

But when I use the memorized verses of the 1769 KJV revision, many DO need updating of language. After all, that is exactly what the 1611 was doing to the Tyndale and Bishops - making it more readable.

But today some actually think the exact wording/word choices of the Anglicans was somehow "inspired". That would be LAUGHABLE to them if they could hear such tripe.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Contrasted to the Geneva or the AV? ESV is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD in 2009 language. Of course.

I don't have the ESV memorized so don't have to change it.

But when I use the memorized verses of the 1769 KJV revision, many DO need updating of language. After all, that is exactly what the 1611 was doing to the Tyndale and Bishops - making it more readable.

But today some actually think the exact wording/word choices of the Anglicans was somehow "inspired". That would be LAUGHABLE to them if they could hear such tripe.

Please define "lightyears ahead"?

186,000 miles per second doesn't even compare, so I suppose your translating comes with some nuances.

BTW, you did say you memorized "thousands" of verses, just how many verses are there in the KJV?:sleep:

 

[annsni]

BTW, you did say you memorized "thousands" of verses, just how many verses are there in the KJV?:sleep:

There are approximately 31,000 verses in the Bible - all of them.

 

[Thermodynamics]

My answer to this question is not in the poll:

I use the AV (or KJV) because I believe it is based on manuscripts that best preserve what was written in the original autographs.

However, I am not a KJVO type of chap, I do have two NIVs and an ESV and I am shopping for another ESV as well as a NASB and NKJV.

If for some reason I were forced to change from the AV to another version my first choice would be the Geneva Bible and my second choice would be the NKJV.

My concern about some of the MVs is not that they happen to be modern (although a strong case can be made that the English of early Stuart England was much more expressive than the English of today), but because most MVs are based on the Minority Text manuscript set which have (minor) differences from manuscripts used by almost all of the Church for the first 1,900 years of it's history.

I guess that makes me TRO! :laugh:

 

[Dr. Bob]

There are approximately 31,000 verses in the Bible - all of them.

Thank you. Harold probably can't comprehend memorizing as much as I have. Sadly, not all are still easily retrievable from the brain cells.

When I was saved, I was voracious at memory. We had a program run by a dear saintly woman who would call my home every Saturday and quiz me on the passage for that week. When we concluded the program (memorize Ps 1, 23, 90, 100, 121, 150, sermon on the mount, christian armor, ten commandments, etc etc - you get the pix, a different one each week and say all each quarter) we had 1000 verses!

I remember Coach Poorman and freshman bible class in college - 180 verses letter and punctuation perfect. When I preach, verses flood my mind.

Fun to think back at "hiding God's Word" (or at least a fairly decent translation of it) in my heart as a youth. It has served me well over the decades since 1957 and God saving me.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Two quick questions for Thermodynamics, please --

I guess that makes me TRO! :laugh:

Does this mean you reject the Majority Text?

... If for some reason I were forced to change from the AV to another version my first choice would be the Geneva Bible and my second choice would be the NKJV. ...

Have you actually read much of the Geneva before?

 

[Thermodynamics]

Two quick questions for Thermodynamics, please --
Does this mean you reject the Majority Text?

No Franklin, that comment was a bit of cheek. I believe most of the respected Majority Text manuscripts are fine. I assume that your next question will be something like "do you know that the Majority Text manuscripts vary?" Answer: yes.

Have you actually read much of the Geneva before?

Enough to have a feel for it, but not the whole thing cover-to-cover. I am rather fond of it.

 

[Rippon]

But when I use the memorized verses of the 1769 KJV revision, many DO need updating of language. After all, that is exactly what the 1611 was doing to the Tyndale and Bishops - making it more readable.

I'm not that familiar with the Bishop's Bible. However, I think Tyndale's translation is more readable overall than the KJV.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'm not that familiar with the Bishop's Bible. However, I think Tyndale's translation is more readable overall than the KJV.

Bishop's Bible (sometimes called the Great Bible which it revised) was the second attempt of the Anglicans to try to ram their false translation down the people's throat. A large copy was given to each church and chained to pulpit to FORCE its use!! Can you imagine?

The Great Bible was translated in 1539 and named for size. There was cheering in the church when it was read, with people drowning out the false teaching of the Anglicans and not listening to men's words. It used 80% of the Tyndale, with more Greek/Hebrew manuscripts used.

In 1568 the Great Bible was revised, clearing up inaccuracies and offensive language. It actually MARKED "dull passages" so readers could avoid them!

It never received endorsement of the Crown (Elizabeth I) and it's reformed notes irritated Anglican clergy who wanted to teach their false doctrine from a more "abiguous" and "generic" text.

It never "caught on" as the Geneva was the Bible of the common man, but hundreds of phrases are now seen in the 1611 which borrowed heavily from the Great/Bishops Bibles. The AV finally did receive crown endorsement as a less "radical" translation.

 

[Rippon]

I'm not that familiar with the Bishop's Bible. However, I think Tyndale's translation is more readable overall than the KJV.

I know about the history of the Bishop's Bible. I just don't own a copy. However I do have Tyndale's New Testament (with minor modifications).

 

[Thermodynamics]

I'm not that familiar with the Bishop's Bible. However, I think Tyndale's translation is more readable overall than the KJV.

I believe that many of the early English versions (early as in pre 1611) were wonderful. I have had the chance to read at least parts of several of them and I wish they still in print and easy to locate. It should also be noted that many of those who translated and published these early English Bibles suffered and died to bring the Word of God to the common man. We owe these early translators a great debt!

 

[Rippon]

It should also be noted that many of those who translated and published these early English Bibles suffered and died to bring the Word of God to the common man.QUOTE]

"Many"? Who was put to death aside from Tyndale?

 

[Thermodynamics]

"Many"? Who was put to death aside from Tyndale?

You are kidding, right?

 

[Sakuras]

The KJV is neat.

I think in a couple of more generations it will be soley in museums for historic sake.

It still is fun to look at once in awhile.