1. 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 still good or a modern versions needed?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Zachary, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to see Oxford or Cambridge revise the KJV updating the archaic words and correcting the fews(Acts 5:30 and Easter for example) errors in the text. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a reason Henry Ford was called the "Flivver King." It wasn't because of the plush comfort.
     
  3. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Thee" and "thou" were not included because they were common language at the time. They were included for clarity. Thus you have "Thee" and "thou," but you also have "you" and "your."
    I find this very helpful. In English, the second person pronoun in the same for singular or plural - "you." In both Hebrew and Greek, there is a difference between the singular and plural second person pronoun. The KJV translators used "Thee" and "Thou" to show this difference. The "th" pronouns are singular, the "y" pronouns are plural. Great example of this - Luke 22:31, "...Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU (plural - all the disciples) that he may sift YOU as wheat. But I have prayed for THEE (singular - Peter) that THY faith fail not, and when THOU art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
    Of all the arguments against the KJV, I find the complaints about "Thee" and "thou" to be the most trite and uninformed.
     
  4. csmith

    csmith New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV is still good. Of course I have used it from childhood and the archaic words have become common to me through repeated usage.
     
  5. williemakeit

    williemakeit New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not believe that the KJV is beautiful and poetic, so I guess the KJV has not added something to the scriptures that wasn't there originally. Of course, I do not believe everyday language is that beautiful or poetic. Of course, if you put someone like Bach or Handel on it, then the language becomes very beautiful.
     
  6. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense. </font>[/QUOTE]Since we don't have the "Originals" to compare with, this leap in logic won't fly. :rolleyes:

    Nice try though! ;)

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  7. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense. </font>[/QUOTE]I could not answer the question about the original language and how poetical it is but I think that you are entirely wrong in saying that there is something wrong with having beautiful use of language in The Holy Bible. If you want something commonplace, try "Streetcar Named Desire." Personally, I will take someone with a command of the language over someone with a pedestrian use of the language everyday.

    Besides, I think God is artistic and I imagine that God gave us beauty in the use of the English language so that we could use it. I don't see the advantage in a translation that is good but good and mundane.

    But I also believe that every individual is competent in spiritual matters. Do you?

    Finally, I once again insist that if you want to evangelize the cults, you should use the KJV, the only translation accepted by the cults.
     
  8. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not mean to imply it was "wrong" to use beautiful language. My point was that such lanuage is "different" than originally given.

    In general, I have found this to be true. I've tried with my NIV and NASB, and was specifically told they would not accept my points from those versions, for those versions clearly affirmed the deity of Christ, while the KJV left enough wiggle-room for them to accept its readings. ;)
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course, this is where the cultists were wrong, weren't they? The Jehovah's Witnesses will only accept the KJV.
     
  10. AV1611Preacher

    AV1611Preacher New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense. </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  11. AV1611Preacher

    AV1611Preacher New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense. </font>[/QUOTE]_____________________________________________

    SORRY ABOUT THAT ACCIDENTALLY POSTED BEFORE I WROTE.
    yOU CAN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINALS SOUNDED LIKE, THEY DON'T EXIST ANY MORE. tHEY AHVEN'T FOR CENTURIES.
    BOTTOMLINE KJB IS PERFECT
     
  12. AV1611Preacher

    AV1611Preacher New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES USE THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION
     
  13. jshurley04

    jshurley04 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN!!!
     
  14. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES USE THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Must be the Mormons he's thinking about.
     
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have more than enough Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and agreement between them, to know what sort of "language" (poetic or plain) the Bible was originally written in.

    No, bottom line is the word of God is perfect, and they had word of God in 1610 but went ahead and published the KJV anyway.
     
  16. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters said, "We have more than enough Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and agreement between them, to know what sort of "language" (poetic or plain) the Bible was originally written in."

    __________________________________________________

    No sir. What we have is more than enough MSS to know what language the copies represent, but you nor I nor anybody else can know what the 'origianls' were like. The have long ago faded to dust. They are not available for comparison therefore the best one may be able to do is guess at it based on what evidence we have.

    OR!!! One could take the approach I do and trust that God has given them the pure words of truth without any mixture of error and go preach with it!
    :D

    God bless you this resurrection day brother!

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AV1611PREACHER: SORRY ABOUT THAT ACCIDENTALLY POSTED BEFORE I WROTE.
    yOU CAN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINALS SOUNDED LIKE, THEY DON'T EXIST ANY MORE. tHEY AHVEN'T FOR CENTURIES.


    They wouldn't be in language we'd understand, anyway.


    BOTTOMLINE KJB IS PERFECT

    Bottom line for the CLOSE-MINDED, that is. The KJV has more than one PROVEN ERROR, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30, to name a couple.

    Do you really use the AV 1611, or a later edition, as do almost all those who have "AV1611" somewhere in their handles, thereby telling a fib before their actual post even begins?
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AV 1611 Jim:
    OR!!! One could take the approach I do and trust that God has given them the pure words of truth without any mixture of error and go preach with it!

    I do, while not trying to limit GOD to just one version, an the Onlyists of any one version do.
     
  19. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. If the originals were in a different sort of language, the copies we have would not be as agreeable with each other as they are. If the originals were of a different style of language, then everything since has been a corrupt paraphrase - which I think completely goes against your understanding of preservation, doesn't it?
     
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    Faith:
    Baptist
    THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES USE THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION </font>[/QUOTE]Must be the Mormons he's thinking about. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I think that Mormons will accept the KJV. I know Jehovah's False Witnesses have their own translation, but I think that you can steer them off onto KJV although I don't think that you can steer them off onto any other translation. They quit working my neighborhood.

    Indianapolis is flooded with Jesus Only Pentacostalism. We have both the white and the black branches here, although Indianapolis is losing much of its white population to the suburbs. Jesus Only deny the Trinity, as you know.

    Indianapolis was the starting place for Jim Jones and People's Temple but few remember him and fewer still want to talk about him.
     
Loading...