-
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!
KJVOnly or KJV?
- Thread starter Baptist4life
- Start date
- Status
I agree with what you here said about being "out-of-date" for that is indeed happens to be an opinion. Would you not therefore also say the exact same thing about the GEN?, BIS?, GREAT? COV? TYN? WYC?Pastor_Bob said:
I'm not so sure that calling what we usually call as the KJV an "Anglican Version" falls into that same category. The KJV does not even call itself the KJV, KJB, AV, or actually self-attach any such designation to itself. The GRT, BIS, KJV, and RV were all authorized at the express behest of (some of) the Anglican Church. In addition, I believe the first three only had (in the case of the KJV) or most likely had (GREAT, BIS) only Anglicans involved with the version, and all four actually are properly "owned" by the Anglican church. (It would be inaccurate to call them 'Episcopalian' Bibles, even though the Episcopalian church is affiliated with the Anglican church.)
"Belittling" in the minds of some maybe, but neither derogatory nor inaccurate, any more than it would be inaccurate to call the HCSB a "Southern Baptist" Bible, for the HCSB is in this same exact manner.
Ed
P.S. Also once again, the KJV is properly referred to as an "MV." :BangHead: :BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I agree. I know many who love the KJV while at the same time reference the MVs. These are not the object of this criticism. There are some who do not care for the KJV itself as a version and mask their disdain by attacking the KJV while also attacking the KJVO philosophy.rbell said:
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I do not believe that I could say that any reliable version is "out-of-date."EdSutton said:
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If it is meant in a derogatory manner, then it is most certainly belittling it. How would the proponents of the MVs respond if we referred to any versions based upon the Westcott/Hort text as "Occultist Version" or "Darwinian Version"?
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
On the contrary, Anglican is a denominational distinction. "Anglican" simply means "of England." The Anglican church is therefore, the Church of England. "Anglican" has never, to my knowledge, been used to refer to English people in general.annsni said:
EdSutton said:
The KJV's and the above Bibles are indeed out-of-date.They are still serviceable;but not reliable translations for today.By 'reliable' I mean they are not as accurate and understandable as many modern versions.
The HCSB should not be called the Southern Baptist version.The KJV can be called the 1611 Anglican Version because it was sponsored by the Anglican Church -- every translator was an Anglican.Only one third of the HCSB translation team is a Southern Baptist.Big difference.
First, the interpreters of the King James Version included separatists, Presbyterians, Methodists and a few independents as well as a majority of Church of England bishops.
It is fine to call it an "Anglican" version because are definitely some verses that lean to the episcopal theology.
Anglican is the name used to all episcopal churches in the world, except the USA, which preferred to be lablelled as Episcopalian,,,,,,,,actually the form of church government,,rule of the bishop,,for all Churches of England, Anglican.
In 1611, the language used in the KJV was becoming the common language of the people and hence KJV's were chained to every Church of England lecturn and in Church libraries, to make the Bible aailale to all English speaking peoples. King James decided the Bible should be available to all peoples in their language, and so it was in that day.
To-day, however, things are different. Words and phrases have changed meaning, Some even reversed in meaning. The time to update the goals of King James has arrived and hence mv's.
I still love my KJV and use it in sermons and public readings.I also use all mv's in personal reading and study, including those written by liberal theologians. Anything that opens avenues of understanding God's word is acceptable to me. When I reach perfection I will demand a perfect copy of God's word. Meanwhile there are more important missions in my remaining years and Imust work whilst it is still day, for the night is approaching when my work shall cease.
For those who choose the KJV for its poetic style, there is a verse that most pastors will not read in public"
In the last days they shall drink their own piss and eat their own dung. Some poetry for public display.
Cheers,
Jim
It is fine to call it an "Anglican" version because are definitely some verses that lean to the episcopal theology.
Anglican is the name used to all episcopal churches in the world, except the USA, which preferred to be lablelled as Episcopalian,,,,,,,,actually the form of church government,,rule of the bishop,,for all Churches of England, Anglican.
In 1611, the language used in the KJV was becoming the common language of the people and hence KJV's were chained to every Church of England lecturn and in Church libraries, to make the Bible aailale to all English speaking peoples. King James decided the Bible should be available to all peoples in their language, and so it was in that day.
To-day, however, things are different. Words and phrases have changed meaning, Some even reversed in meaning. The time to update the goals of King James has arrived and hence mv's.
I still love my KJV and use it in sermons and public readings.I also use all mv's in personal reading and study, including those written by liberal theologians. Anything that opens avenues of understanding God's word is acceptable to me. When I reach perfection I will demand a perfect copy of God's word. Meanwhile there are more important missions in my remaining years and Imust work whilst it is still day, for the night is approaching when my work shall cease.
For those who choose the KJV for its poetic style, there is a verse that most pastors will not read in public"
In the last days they shall drink their own piss and eat their own dung. Some poetry for public display.
Cheers,
Jim
Jim1999 said:
When you speak of "interpreters" of the KJV you can't be referencing the original team of revisers -- because all were Anglicans.
Jim,the language of the KJV was written in olde-speak in 1611.It was written in an older form than folks spoke.at the time.Even "thou" was not said in 1611 --"you" was.In that example alone "thou" fell out of favor in spoken English about 1575.
annsni said:
Many would think Anglican (Episcopalian) would be far worse. We KNOW the error/poison of darwinism/occult. But the subtle poison by people who call themselves 'Christians' but in 40 years of ministry I've met precious few who even knew what salvation by grace alone was. And each year, fewer and fewer.
BTW, (in response to a pm) is saying that a man-made English translation is "out of date" BASHING the BIBLE? No. You may disagree with the fact, but it is not bashing the Bible. Someone may not like the modern dialect of my translation. They aren't BASHING the Bible; they are sharing their preference/like/dislike of a man-made translation.
Ed Franklin
New Member
ahhh, never mind.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Pastor_Bob said:
Now, let me first say that I don't think the KJV is out of date.
But...I think the issue is a question of "blame."
I think that one could take an "out of date" description as somehow implying that the Translation has come up short.
Flip that over...the translation is fine; it's the Language that has changed to the point that its speakers can no longer understand the Scripture in its original form.
Had our KJV been in, let's say, Chaucer's tongue...it would be out of date...not through any shortcoming of its own; but rather by the fact that the language had evolved (strictly speaking: gradually changed...not meant to have any negative connotations).
In summary: the fault isn't in the Bible, it's in the changing of the language.
rbell said:
The KJV is in English that was quite modern 400 years ago, as Wycliffe's Bible was in English that was quite modern 200 years before that.
The worx of Shakespeare were frozen in time in 1616 with his death, while GOD'S word is kept alive by its author. The KJV was frozen in time when its last penultimate author(translator) died, but God's word itself is NOT so froze, as its ULTIMATE author, God Himself, is alive and IN CHARGE. As time passes, He causes/allows new translations to be made to reflect the changes in the language He causes/allows.
robycop3 said:
You know better than that.The English of the KJV was written in an older,more fancy-dancy style than the folks of 1611 spoke.The older Geneva Bible's English was more modern than much of the KJV.
The Word of God is eternal;but translations do indeed become dated.Would anyone deny that the second Wycliffe Bible was an antique by 1611?That's just a space of 220 years or so.Therefore, a version which made its appearance in 1611 (even with subsequent refinements) became dated within 200 years.The English of Blayney's KJV was old-fashioned by the first quarter of the 19th century.We are now almost two centuries beyond that point. It's time to admit the obvious : the English of the KJV is too antiquarian for contemporary speakers of the language.God,not Satan is behind the modern versions -- they are a blessing -- not a curse.
Despite whay anyone says, if you can understand either Chaucer or Shakespeare you will have little trouble with the KJV English,,,,,,,not te English of the commoner, because it varied from town to town as it does to this present day. Those of us who know England can tell what area a person come from by their accent. Don't try to compare a Scouser with a Cockney cos it won't work, mate.
The Church of England Prayer Book was written in the same language as the KJV and the common people understand it..it didn't change until recent years. The big change is the use of certain letters in alphabet such as v's for u's and so on. I am not getting into the wods that have completely changed meaning over the years...let=prevent..and prevent=to allow......
And when reading histories about the KJV you will find it depends on who you are reading regarding who was involved in it over the 8 years they worked on it in three different locations from
04 to '11.
Cheers,
Jim
The Church of England Prayer Book was written in the same language as the KJV and the common people understand it..it didn't change until recent years. The big change is the use of certain letters in alphabet such as v's for u's and so on. I am not getting into the wods that have completely changed meaning over the years...let=prevent..and prevent=to allow......
And when reading histories about the KJV you will find it depends on who you are reading regarding who was involved in it over the 8 years they worked on it in three different locations from
04 to '11.
Cheers,
Jim
Pastor_Bob said:
What evidence supports your opinion?
It is a fact that all the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England. It was made especially for Church of England churches and was appointed to be read in Churches [meaning Church of England churches]. The 1611 KJV was dedicated to King James I, the head of the Church of England. In their dedication to King James I, the KJV translators stated that "we have great hope that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby."
How would being factual about its origin be belittling it?
- Status