My Thoughts on the KJV

[revmwc]

Are you being a busybody revmwc?

No sir not me just wondering how he could be in the middle of a conference and be posting without it being a boring conference. That would be a good reason to post while in a conference wouldn't it.

 

[Dr Mixer GED]

KJV Preferred...

I use the KJV 100% of time in reading. Deeper study requires multiple versions as well as Strong's, etc.

I find some verses way easier to memorize in the beautiful Shakespearean prose of the KJV, however, sometimes the eths and ests added to common words make it tough to digest for memorization.

However, one thing I am looking into and so far have heard good things about is the KJVER (the King James Easy Reader) that really does what the NKJV said it was attempting to do.

Anyone ever used it? (KJVER) If so, comments?

 

[Salty]

I have a question for the 2 folks who voted option # 1 " I love the KJV, and should be the only version ever used )

If the KJV is the ONLY version to be used, then what about those folks who DO NOT speak English - unless you believe speaking in tongues.

BTW, that is the reason I listed option # 2. "I love the KJV and should be the only version used by English speakers"

 

[Luke2427]

I have found at least one, that I can remember error, from the interlinear text where the greek word was not translated correctly in the NIV as I pointed out, does on error make the whole version an error?

Of course not.

I am not a KJVO guy at all, brother.

I just like it and think it is a very solid version.

I do not wish to be lumped in with the KJVO guys at all.

 

[Luke2427]

I do okay with the KJV because I have used it for nearly 40 years - but those who are not familiar with its wording should not have their intelligence or education questioned because they don't understand the English of 400 years ago.

Ok, I agree (no sarcasm).

One can be very intelligent and not understand the language of the KJV. For example he might be a mathematical genius and struggle with the language of the KJV. He might be a brilliant scientist and struggle with the old Elizabethan English.

What I cannot see is how he can be very educated concerning literature and the English language and not understand it. Let's face it our language has gone down in the last century. There was no need for a modern version as little as 100 years ago. But then again, I realize the inestimable value of the mss discoveries.

But I agree with you, brother.

If for WHATEVER reason (whether I am right or wrong on this) if one struggles comprehending the language of the KJV- by all means utilize one of the many good modern versions available.

I am a "high church" kind of guy.

I like responsive reading and Isaac Watts and big pulpits and robed choirs and big pipe organs.

I am more for reverence than relevance. (And I am not saying modern versions have no reverence; but neither is it true that "high church" is irrelevant)

So for me the King James version with its, perhaps not unsurpassed, but very scholarly translation, majestic, poetic, powerful language, etc... is the way to go.

It really is a matter of preference.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm in the middle of a conference right now but I just wanted to say, "Baloney!"

There is no way one read and comprehended Geoffry Chaucer and Shakespeare John Bunyan as high schools require students to do and is NOT able to understand the KJV.

But I did misspeak.

One can be very intelligent in many areas and not understand the KJV.

But, for sake of honesty, I think we ought to admit that Literature and Language are not one of those areas for that person.

 

[Rippon]

There was no need for a modern version as little as 100 years ago.

Of course there was. I'll furnish some quotes at a later time about that. But English Bible translations began taking off around the turn of the 20th century (more than 100 years ago) precisely because of the outdated language of the KJV. Have you ever heard of the Weymouth,the Twentieth Century New Testament etc.? They came about because the language of the KJV was hard to understand,and because of what you mention next.

But then again, I realize the inestimable value of the mss discoveries.

You are going against your previous point by admitting this.

If for WHATEVER reason (whether I am right or wrong on this) if one struggles comprehending the language of the KJV- by all means utilize one of the many good modern versions available.

It doesn't just boil down to struggling with King James-speak. The textual basis of the N.T.KJV is inferior to that of the modern versions. Nearly all N.T. Bible scholars agree.

I am a "high church" kind of guy.

I like responsive reading and Isaac Watts and big pulpits and robed choirs and big pipe organs.

The above has nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

So for me the King James version with its, perhaps not unsurpassed, but very scholarly translation, majestic, poetic, powerful language, etc... is the way to go.

"Not unsurpassed" means the opposite of what you are trying to convey. Or do you concede that there are other versions which have excelled the KJV?

 

[Luke2427]

Of course there was. I'll furnish some quotes at alater time about that. But English Bible translations began taking off around the turn of the 20th century (more than 100 years ago precisely because of the outdated language of the KJV. Have you ever heard of the Weymouth,the Twentieth Century New Testament etc.? They came about because the language of the KJV was hard to understand,and because of what you mention next.

The turn of the 20th century would have been right at the approximate 100 years ago I was talking about.

You are going against your previous point by admitting this.

That's not true. You have me mistaken for someone else.

I do not have a problem at all with the new mss. Haven't for a long time.

In fact, a few posts back I think I stated this.

It doesn't just boil down to struggling with King James-speak. The textual basis of the N.T.KJV is inferior to that of the modern versions. Nearly all N.T. Bible scholars agree.

I don't disagree. But the difference is minute.

Scholars also agree that Erasmus' and Beza's text is very good.

The above has nothing to do with the topic at-hand.

Sure it does. It has to do with part of the reason I prefer the KJV in worship.

"Not unsurpassed" means the opposite of what you are trying to convey. Or do you concede that there are other versions which have excelled the KJV?

No it doesn't, Rippon. Once again you OBVIOUSLY have me mistaken for some KJVOer which I am not by any means.

What you may be misunderstanding is my meaning when I stated that a greater assembly of minds for translation has perhaps never been seen. But that does not mean that the newer versions do not excel in accuracy. They have more available than did the KJV translators.

I figure Isaac Newton was probably more brilliant than MOST scientists today. But less brilliant men have more material at their disposal which enables them to come to fuller conclusions. That illustrates what I meant.

For example: I find the arguments for the Majority Text to be quite compelling. I am quite certain that it excels the TR.

But my choice of a version does not lean fully on any one of these factors.

 

[Rippon]

The turn of the 20th century would have been right at the approximate 100 years ago I was talking about.

You had said that:"There was no need for a modern version as little as 100 years ago."

This is 2011. One hundred years ago was 1911. Yet the ASV came out in 1901,The Twentieth Century New Testament came out in 1902,the Rotherham in 1902 etc.

It's plain there was a need more than 100 years ago. And I didn't even mention the translations that came out in the 19th century including the ERV.

 

[Luke2427]

You had said that:"There was no need for a modern version as little as 100 years ago."

Well that's not what I meant. I obviously did not mean that no version should have been written from the newer mss.

What I meant was that the KJV language was well within the grasp of most educated folks' comprehension skills up to approximately a hundred years ago.

This is 2011. One hundred years ago was 1911. Yet the ASV came out in 1901,The Twentieth Century New Testament came out in 1902,the Rotherham in 1902 etc.

Are you nit picking about NINE YEARS??????

 

[Baptist4life]

You had said that:"There was no need for a modern version as little as 100 years ago."

This is 2011. One hundred years ago was 1911. Yet the ASV came out in 1901,The Twentieth Century New Testament came out in 1902,the Rotherham in 1902 etc.

My goodness, you're being ridiculous. You DO like to argue, don't you?

 

[Rippon]

Are you nit picking about NINE YEARS??????

No. But you said there was no need for any translations 100 years ago. I stated that there indeed was. There was a need long before that. The need became pronounced at the turn of the 20th century,but there clearly was difficulty with the language of the KJV long before 1911. At this point I am not even addressing the old manuscripts which were found necessitating newer translations.

 

[Rippon]

My goodness, you're being ridiculous. You DO like to argue, don't you?

I'm just reporting the facts Ma'am. You,on the other hand are doing your customary drive-by shooting.

 

[Luke2427]

No. But you said there was no need for any translations 100 years ago. I stated that there indeed was. There was a need long before that. The need became pronounced at the turn of the 20th century,but there clearly was difficulty with the language of the KJV long before 1911. At this point I am not even addressing the old manuscripts which were found necessitating newer translations.

Perhaps I should have stated there wasn't much need for a modernized translation before 109 years 7 months fourteen days six hours 32 minutes and 14 seconds ago!

:wavey:

 

[Baptist4life]

I'm just reporting the facts Ma'am. You,on the other hand are doing your customary drive-by shooting.

You are doing your customary argumentative response. I'm just reporting the facts Ma'am. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

There is no way one read and comprehended Geoffry Chaucer and Shakespeare John Bunyan as high schools require students to do and is NOT able to understand the KJV.

Bunyan is far easier than Chaucer. And I'd recommend Thomas Watson also from the 17th century for fairly easy (but convicting)reading. Sibbes,Love,Burroughs and Flavel would be next in line.

 

[Rippon]

You are doing your customary argumentative response. I'm just reporting the facts Ma'am.

Monkey see --monkey do.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The problem isn't necessarily "antiquated words", but new meanings for old words.

Yes, YES! That's it!

When people see a word they don't know they should look it up in a dictionary or some source. But it is the words they think they know, but don't really know, that are misleading them. "Study" in 2 Timothy 2:15 is a classic example; "prevent" and "let" have been mentioned already, I think.

 

[Salty]

What I find interesting is the KJO crowd say all they need is the KJV - they don't need commentaries, other versions, notes, ect, because the KJV is self-sufficient. But they say you need that dictionary for certain words.

So which is it, is the KJV self sufficient or not

(and I'm still waiting on an answer from the two who voted option one - how are non-English speakers able to be saved?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If the individual words of the the KJV are perfect, would it not be wrong for sinful man to try and translate them into modern English? Should be not allow the Holy Spirit to teach us what God's word mean instead of trusting other men?