KJV still good or a modern versions needed?

It is a better guess then recreating a crime scene. We do not know that you exist other than you existed. It is much the same issue. You cannot prove you exist. But you have hisotrical prrof that you did exist. So is it with the manuscripts.

 

While they do now have their own translation,
they also have printed and used the KJV.
In 1907, they published the Bible Students Edition of the KJV (JEHOVAH WITNESSES, p. 606).
In 1942, they purchased plates for an edition of the KJV with marginal references from A. J. Holman Company, and printed over 1,858,000 of these KJV's by 1992 (p. 607). They produced an edition of the KJV (perhaps the one just mentioned), which is "complete with a concordance especially designed for use by Jehovah's Witnesses in their field ministry" (p. 93).

Mormons have also published an edition of the KJV.

 

Brother;
Care to tell me where my handle says I use the "Av1611"?
You are making a charge of telling a fib.

Prove it.

Other wise, knock it off!

Are you three cops?

If not then you are fibbing by using such terms in your handle.

That kind of thinking is utterly stupid. Knock it off!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES USE THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION </font>[/QUOTE]Must be the Mormons he's thinking about. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Right...you have heard the tv commercials, "Call this 800 number and get your own personal copy of the King James Bible, from your friends at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints."

 

Too bad for you that you didn't leave it that way, because what you said revealed gross errors in both logic and doctrine.

Error in logic: Since they don't exist, how do you know the KJV is perfect? Answer: You don't.

Error in theology: No translation is perfect, since none has the direct inspiration. They have what is called derivative inspiration. They are inspired inasmuch as they accurately reflect the original texts (about which there is no significant doubt). The KJV has been shown to have clear errors in translation. That doesn't make it a bad translation. It is an excellent translation, but it is still a translation.

 

You guys take it easy here. Av1611Jim is right from the point that he simply has "av1611" in his user-name. He and I got into it over that and he clarified to me that it did not mean that he USED a 1611. He just likes the name. So, don't judge him on the name.

Enough said about that...let's try to stick to the subject and not attack each other personally.

 

I do not know if this was an attack on what I presented, but I do want to inform everyone that my statement about the "Thee"s and "Thou"s was only used as a literary model for an example. Thee and thou are not improper English; rather, they are simply rare forms of commonly used words today. I have nothing against the KJV for the se of these words whereas many times they are more proper or seem more reverent.

I do not believe that the argument here has to do with the inspiration of the KJV, I find that it is very relevant and useful along with being a very accurate translation of the Greek (I do not know if the Old Testament translation was taken from the MT (Hebrew & some Aramic) or not, thus I have not studied accuracy).

The argument (and the primary reason for its lack of use to many people today) is that it lacks the modern literary and grammatic attributes that are found in modern writings and sentence structurings.

-David

 

The KJV is certainly an accurate translation of its translator's choices of sources (including the Vulgate). There is no doubt about that. The question remains, is the English too archaic for modern people?

It is my opinion that the language seems relevant because we grew up in churches hearing it most of our lives (whether or not we REALLY grew up in church). The KJV has been the most quoted since we were children. Thus, thees and thou's do sound more reverant because we tend to relate them to the King James version of the Bible.

But, does it provide modern people with an understandable and ACCURATE (in today's words) representation of God's Word?

 

Phillip...

You and Jim are right and I am wrong. My apologies, Jim!

Sometimes I get "carried away" as I've heard so many KJVO tall tales & errors for so long.

THAT BEING SAID...

The KJV IS still good for many things, and if it's the ONLY English BV available for some, it's adequate.

 

All is forgiven "Copper!".

I, too, get carried away into the flesh. Many more times than I care to count.

About the "thee(s) and thou(s)". The use of such terms is not the problem. Actually, the problem lies in the fact that most folks in the US lack proper English education. If you doubt this then just spend a little time reading what folks on the BB write. Though I am not an English scholar, I find some posts to be atrocious mutilations of the basics of simple English word usages and grammar. I am guilty as charged. Rather than "dumb down" the Scriptures, shouldn't we rather be attempting to reverse the trend and raise folks' level of understanding? Remember this fact; schools and universities in this country were founded to provide a literate populace for the understanding of Scripture. So now we are to go backwards? I think not.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Going backwards is exactly what we'd do, Jim, if we were to revert to 17th century English. The Tyndale, Geneva, and AV were written in the most modern English of their day, as are the modern English Bibles of THIS day.

 

I disagree Roby;
While we may be going backwards, per se, (in time) we actually would not be going backwards in purity of the language itself. Nor would we be going backwards in proper usage of the language.

Many linguists would argue that the English language of that period was at its highest form. ( I could not produce their work just now, but will do a search to that effect and start a new thread if you would like.)

I do not oppose the idea that Bibles of the middle ages were written in the "modern" vernacular of the day, nor the "modern" Bibles of our day likewise. That much is an obvious fact.

But more to my point, yes, I agree that folks do not speak Jacobean, nor Elizabethan English. It would be a bit strange to hear, "How art thou brother?" as opposed to "wuzzup!" But that should illustrate my point quite well wouldn't you think? "whuzzup"? What is that but a definite degrading of our language?

So, in fact, an honest person can readily see how our language has degraded and it is only getting worse not better. The solution IMO, is not to degrade Scripture but (as our forefathers attempted to do) to raise the level of the education of the populace.

Therefore, the KJV does not need to be modernized, but rather our society needs to be educated.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

First of all, I do love the KJV for it's poetic (IMO) rendering of God's word....For example: "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me..." still brings a thrill.

I was brought to a knowlege of Christ using the NIV, (Although as I have grown in the study of God's word I have come to like other translations better).

The reason that I pointed these things out is very simply this: (and once again it is my opinion only);

That the "best" translation is the one that allows the average reader to best understand God's redemptive work through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...

As we increase in knowlege, it is my belief that it is the Holy Spirit that is our tutor, and that He can and will use various translations to allow us to "rightly divide" His word; as well as giving us the desire to delve more deeply using the original languages. God can use any translation in any language to accomplish His work.

I find the entire KJV controversy to be akin to the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"......

Although I agree with Jim tha our society needs to increase the level of education, let's face it...(some high school grads can't even read their diplomas).....Get the word of God out to them and let His Holy Spirit do the rest...

 

Just curious, buy why would he be judged for his name?? Then you admit "getting into it" with him over his name, then advise others not to. Also, the King James Bible is quite adequate for today, just as any Authentis manuscript is as well. The only time a "problem" occurs in any version is when the opinion is regarded higher than the context, thus we have many altered and confusing versions as we speak.

I have to admit, I have been a little confused when reading the King James Version, but when I did a little study, especially comparing the Greek and Hebrew to the English rendering of the KJV, I was no longer at a disadvantage, but rather educated and edified in the Word. But when reading other versions, including the "most popular for today", the Nasb, I have found it to be just as confounding in certain passages; requiring further study, but actually I have also found the King James to be a little more accurate when the fullness of the English defintions have been considered. In other words, the Greek and the Hebrew fit exactly to the context as rendered to that definition in the English.

Many would like to scream that we just don't use words like that found in the King James, but to the contrary, many words found in most modern versions include words I never use as well, I beliee the term is "archaic" when regarding the King James, but that also fits the description of like terms in the modern bibles as well.

I'm afraid the use of the term "archaic" places the authoity in the hands of men, regarding their educational institutions, coupling their opinions, and adhering to the "camp"
which also holds to their same ideals.

My 5 year old son knows nothing other than the King Jmes Bible, it is used in his Sunday School, in his "King's Kids" Wednesday night club, used exclusively in the pulpit, all Scripture memorization is from the King James, AND HE JUST GOT SAVED !!! Easter Sunday!!! That makes all my six family members "IN HIM", including myself. So? Is the King James suitable for today? Why SURE!!! (and we're worried that some won't understand the King James) Bah! Humbug!

The "need" for a modern version isn't needed, not for a five yearold kid anyway, but maybe it is for his elders?

 

Why? Are you one of those who is &lt;edited&gt;? The rod and staff are exclusively for correction, to bring the sheep into subjection. Then the reward for obdeience is given when the rod and staff are not applied, but then the wolves do not find any comfort in them, they are then used to KILL wolves and drive them away wounded unto death.

So please be careful in your modern mode o0f thinking, one nearly always misinterprets and misapplies certain passages that way.

[ March 30, 2005, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Phillip. when you consider the modern mentality of children on up, there is this total disintergrating of knowledge being replaced with perverted thinking and the "anything goes' just as long as it feels good thought process, so the allow modern terminology to delegate the wordings of any version in simply DANGEROUS.

The LORD has always advised His people to return to the old paths, the reasoning is they are already established as tried and true.

It also seems the more modernism is allowed to enter into the realm of the sanctuary, the more the church gets away from holiness unto the LORD, which He REQUIRES of all His children, being good stewards of His Word.

I am in the "Bible Belt", and I see more of a falling away from the things of God than most in other parts of the world. It is simply due to the "change" noticable here. Which that "change" isn't as noticable in other regions, where change isn't afforded the same principle when considrered the more liberal or modern in that respective area.

When logistics are apllied, the more modern the version, the less people are actually serving the LORD,. Rather they are serving their "service for the LORD" instead, that is idolatry.

I offer some reason to this discussion, if I am to be attacked by my "brethren", then I will simply make use of Ecclesiastical separation and depart.

Good day, and God Bless

 

My friend....

Firstly...Praise God for your son's salvation!!!

Secondly: context, context, context.....

I'll let you figure that one out inre. to my previous post.

 

Why rely solely upon an archaic version when we have modern ones? There were then-modern versions in 1604, such as the Geneva Bible or the Bishop's Bible. What pressing need was there for the AV to have been made?

Do you REALLY believe that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the best possible rendering of the Greek 'pascha'? Does "Easter" accurately reflect Luke's intent? How about "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30? Does THAT rendering accurately express Luke's written thoughts?

How many people know "let" also meant "hinder/restrain" in 1611 as well as "allow/permit"? How many know "conversation" once meant "lifestyle"?

Do you REALLY think God retired from supplying His word in the language of the day in 1611? What SCRIPTURAL basis is there for such a belief?

Once again...the KJV is perfect for its intended use, as are several other English versions.

Sorry, Gottit, but such "attacks" are part of any BV discussion. I, for one, would like to "hear" more of what you hafta say. But, if you have no "ammo" for your "weapon", retreat might be the best option.

 

Sir, I would never "retreat", but advance would be thr rule of thumb here. I also make use of no weapon as that formed against me or for my actual use against my brethren. Consider that. my "friend", if you're looking for an arguement, then you are not my brother in Christ, that is against the DOCTRINE of Brotherly Love", and you will deserve a mark of identification.

I also don't think satan should have dominion, do you? Easter is a season, not a decided day of atonement, also known as the Passover, or "pascha" as you demand, but Easter is NOW referred to as the day in wghich we recognize as the Day of Ressurecction, not the Day of Atonement. You're confusing two totally different days here. My sins were paid for at calvary, His Blood placed on the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven. They are not "atoned for", they are WASHED away!! Blotted out are the handwritings of ordinances which were held against me. I am NO LONGER under condemnation, but JUSTIFIED!! MY VICTORY is in the Bodily Ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the FIRSTFRUITS. So if you want to "get into it" over the word "pascha", you had best consider what has just been said; are your sins "atoned for", or are they washed??

At the least you do, so why would you deny anyone the same privilege you afford?

No. But do you believe that God rested inspiration of His Word in the Originals? And if you do, then you don't have an inspired Bible, you have a book, and the Bible is forever lost due to the aging process of the media upon which it was originally penned.

You're "attacking" a people, that is an attribute of the destroyer. Your attacks against what you devised as a "false doctrine/ KJVO-myth" is against the very Word of God itself, as you attack the premise, you then attack the person. That, sir, fits you for a millstone.

I would that you reconsider your verbage before you respond.

The "intended use" of the King James Bible has solely one purpose: to give the English speaking people the Word of God. Although that is the same premise of other versions. That is not exactly the same principle, now is it?

&lt;personal attack snipped&gt;

[ March 30, 2005, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Form the tone of this post:
Might I suggest a reading of Colossians 3:8-17 would be appropiate at this point in time?

[ March 30, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]