The King James Version Only Position

[evangelist6589]

I have a question for you Evan, Do you believe that there exists anywhere on this earth for us to observe, a complete, perfect, inerrant bible?

In theology our bibles are the same. But no bible is perfect except the original autographs.

You can accuse the scholars of having an agenda and being deceived all you want but if you actually read their books you would see that is a lie. Oh and bye the way comparing modern versions to evolution is quite a stretch.

This question you dodged.

The 1611 translators we're not KJVO and encouraged that the language be updated so why do you not follow them?

 

[BlueMoon]

Actually, this is the exact reason that a "dead language" is not a good fit as a Bible for modern people. Words DO change meaning and if they do, and we continue to use the old meaning, the Word of God will be misunderstood. "Gay" would be a term we all know has changed meaning drastically from a positive reference to a not-so-positive reference. A word that I know has changed from it's meaning in the KJV is "study" and when we don't know the meaning of the word as it was used originally, we now do not fully comprehend what God is telling us and so changing that word to the word that we use currently to speak of the concept that it is trying to convey, we then are able to "get it".

I disagree. I do not hold the position of KJVO, and I'm not in the KJVP camp either. However, Sapper Woody's argument that a dead language is locked into place, and people from a modern age will understand what the translators were trying to communicate as long as they understand the jargon of the times, is perfectly viable. As he pointed out, that language is unchanging, while our current language is changing daily. For example, what does the word, "chirped" mean? I'd bet 95% of this board wouldn't know. It appears that it's the past tense of "chirp," which is a sound that a bird makes. However, to a teen, it means called on the carpet, confronted with something done wrong, etc. "Dude, I was chirped by my Mom." I'd even say with teens reading a sentence with this word in it, some would understand it perfectly, and some wouldn't. However, "gay" would make perfect sense, because although it's not used that way in our society today, we know how it was intended when originally written. The OP used the phrase, "when it's understood that they are old English," and this is critical to understanding any text - getting to know the language and the context, not just reading a page of modern words.

 

[annsni]

I disagree. I do not hold the position of KJVO, and I'm not in the KJVP camp either. However, Sapper Woody's argument that a dead language is locked into place, and people from a modern age will understand what the translators were trying to communicate as long as they understand the jargon of the times, is perfectly viable. As he pointed out, that language is unchanging, while our current language is changing daily. For example, what does the word, "chirped" mean? I'd bet 95% of this board wouldn't know. It appears that it's the past tense of "chirp," which is a sound that a bird makes. However, to a teen, it means called on the carpet, confronted with something done wrong, etc. "Dude, I was chirped by my Mom." I'd even say with teens reading a sentence with this word in it, some would understand it perfectly, and some wouldn't. However, "gay" would make perfect sense, because although it's not used that way in our society today, we know how it was intended when originally written. The OP used the phrase, "when it's understood that they are old English," and this is critical to understanding any text - getting to know the language and the context, not just reading a page of modern words.

How many people know the jargon of the times?

 

[Logos1560]

2. Why would I read anything that comes out of Rome? and especially from Jerome?

When you read the KJV, you read some renderings that came out of Rome according to your assertion since the KJV has some renderings from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

 

[Sapper Woody]

How many people know the jargon of the times?

I'd have to say literally everybody. We see it used in old movies, we hear it in plays, even kids playing know a lot of it. My daughter, who is six, was playing princess. She said "MeLord, I pray thee give me my toys".

 

[Rippon]

Many of the older English translations are actually in Old English.

Let's see. Tyndale got the ball rolling in the 16th century. His last revision was in 1534. Other translations (basically revisions of his work) were the Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's N.T.,Geneva and Bishop's Bible. All of them were in the 16th century.

Old English ended around 1200 A.D. Middle English was from 1200-1500.

 

[Rippon]

From In The Beginning by Alister McGrath.

"The koine Greek of the New Testament is the 'everyday' Greek language of working people rather than of self-conscious literary scholars and poets. The King James translators were not aware of this fact. Their location in history denied them access to this knowledge. The result has imporant implications for the tone and style of those passages in the King James Bible that translate this form of Greek. The language of the workplace and the market is thus subtly changed into the high cadences of the palaces of Westminster and the high tables of Oxford and Cambridge. Many readers of the King James Bible often comment on its elegance and excellent style --yet the considerations we have just set out mean that, on occasion, the style and elegance will be those of the translators, rather than those of the passages they translated." (pages 238,239)

 

[annsni]

I'd have to say literally everybody. We see it used in old movies, we hear it in plays, even kids playing know a lot of it. My daughter, who is six, was playing princess. She said "MeLord, I pray thee give me my toys".

Oh? How many people can read Shakespeare and understand what it says?

 

[Rippon]

From In The Beginning by Alister McGrath:

"By 1850, the King James translation had triumphed. What was once a curiosity had become a classic. The nineteenth century showered praise on the King James Bible, viewing it as one of the high points of English literary achievements and perhaps the greatest contribution to the spiritual ennobling of the human race. Such judgments are inevitably projected onto earlier generations, giving the impression that the genius and brillance of the translation were universally recognized from the outset. It is thus tempting to believe that the new translation was rapturously received on publication, being acclaimed immediately as a lasting monument of English literature as much as hailed as a suberb new translation of the word of God.

Yet history gives us no such warrant for any extravagant opinions. Indeed, the evidence at our disposal suggests that many saw the final appearance of the new translation as something of an anticlimax. There were those who would indeed speak of the King James Bible in the highest possible terms --but such a judgment lay over a century away. The irrefutable evidence is that, far from rushing out to buy or make us if this new translation, people preferred to use an English translation from fifty years earlier --the Geneva Bible.

The simple truth is that the 'new Bible' was initially regarded with polite disinterest. Nobody at the timee really liked the new translation very much. Even some of those who were prominently involved in the translation of the King James Bible seemed hesitant to use it, preferring to cite from the Geneva Bible instead --hardly a commendation for their work. The King James Bible might be the Bible of the English religious and political establishment; it had a long way to go before it became the Bible of the English people." (pages 277-278)

 

[Sapper Woody]

Oh? How many people can read Shakespeare and understand what it says?

I wasn't aware that Shakespeare authored the KJV. Honestly, the comparison is pointless. The language used is different.

 

[sag38]

And, the current KJV that you are using is not the original KJV. I'd challenge you to be able to actually read the original. I can read the KJV Study Bible that I have. But, it is not really the KJV. It is a revision of the original. It is a revision because only a very few people can actually read it and understand it. The original, for the most part, I cannot read. It goes beyond my ability and I can read on a college level. I would have to be trained in the use of dead aspects of what would now be considered an ancient form of English. The spelling and the definite use of antiquated words are beyond challenging and border on impossible for even a highly educated modern day English speaking and reading person.

 

[InTheLight]

I'd challenge you to be able to actually read the original.

I would have to be trained in the use of dead aspects of what would now be considered an ancient form of English. The spelling and the definite use of antiquated words are beyond challenging and border on impossible for even a highly educated modern day English speaking and reading person.

My nephew, the cunning artificer, who doth not suffereth clean teeth, catcheth the dropsy and can no longer weareth his wimples. This happened after he ought to eat the oblation of sodden chamois flesh with mallows. Perchance I should not have used my exactor to mete the offscouring on the pressfats.

 

[robycop3]

The settling of these points & questions is easy.

First, there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. that fact alone makes it false. then, there's KJVO's man-made origin. The current version of the myth os drawn from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book( Our Authorized Bible Vindicated{1930} by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson) Two different dishonest authors (Ray and Fuller) plagiarized from that book when making their own boox. Thus, the current KJVO myth has a cultic, dishonest origin.

But-backta Luke 2:33. Under both Jewish and Roman law, a man was considered to be the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage, even if the bio father was clearly another man. So, Joseph was legally Jesus' father for all earthly purposes between a father and son. Thus, neither Luke nor mary were wrong to call Joseph His father.

The KJV DOES have some dynamic-equivalence renderings, despite the denials of such by some KJVOs. Examples are "God save the kink" and "God forbid" in sundry places.

And there's certainly oodles of archaic English in the KJV. it was mostly in the best English of the day. As for Shakespeare, he coined many words in use today, but the AV men didn't use them. But speaking of targets, how many people know it's a small shield, taken from "targe", a large shield. Same for greaves, and other pieces of armor familiar to 17th C. British, but not to us today.

And the KJV has some goofs, which we've already discussed ad nauseam in this forum, so no need to do it again.

Now, there are some false points some Freedom Readers use to try to make a case against the KJV. Let's look at one mentioned here. The AV men had no reason to not believe unicorns existed. After all, one is depicted on their king's coat-of-arms. Same with cockatrices and satyrs. Sure, the AV men had never seen any, but it's very doubtful any of them had ever seen a real lion, either. Another is the singing turtles of Job. In olden days, 'turtle' was a shortcut for 'turtledove', which certainly sings.

But again, we get back to God's lacka support for KJVO. just as he caused His word in English to be updated from Wycliffe's version to Tyndale's, he has caused it to be updated to match the changes HE has allowed/caused in English.

We should PRAISE GOD that He has furnished His word for us in OUR language, while keeping past translations readily available to us! The KJVO myth is FALSE!

 

[RLBosley]

The settling of these points & questions is easy.

First, there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. that fact alone makes it false. then, there's KJVO's man-made origin. The current version of the myth os drawn from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book( Our Authorized Bible Vindicated{1930} by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson) Two different dishonest authors (Ray and Fuller) plagiarized from that book when making their own boox. Thus, the current KJVO myth has a cultic, dishonest origin.

But-backta Luke 2:33. Under both Jewish and Roman law, a man was considered to be the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage, even if the bio father was clearly another man. So, Joseph was legally Jesus' father for all earthly purposes between a father and son. Thus, neither Luke nor mary were wrong to call Joseph His father.

The KJV DOES have some dynamic-equivalence renderings, despite the denials of such by some KJVOs. Examples are "God save the kink" and "God forbid" in sundry places.

And there's certainly oodles of archaic English in the KJV. it was mostly in the best English of the day. As for Shakespeare, he coined many words in use today, but the AV men didn't use them. But speaking of targets, how many people know it's a small shield, taken from "targe", a large shield. Same for greaves, and other pieces of armor familiar to 17th C. British, but not to us today.

And the KJV has some goofs, which we've already discussed ad nauseam in this forum, so no need to do it again.

Now, there are some false points some Freedom Readers use to try to make a case against the KJV. Let's look at one mentioned here. The AV men had no reason to not believe unicorns existed. After all, one is depicted on their king's coat-of-arms. Same with cockatrices and satyrs. Sure, the AV men had never seen any, but it's very doubtful any of them had ever seen a real lion, either. Another is the singing turtles of Job. In olden days, 'turtle' was a shortcut for 'turtledove', which certainly sings.

But again, we get back to God's lacka support for KJVO. just as he caused His word in English to be updated from Wycliffe's version to Tyndale's, he has caused it to be updated to match the changes HE has allowed/caused in English.

We should PRAISE GOD that He has furnished His word for us in OUR language, while keeping past translations readily available to us! The KJVO myth is FALSE!

 

[Rippon]

From In The Beginning by Alister McGrath.

"The 'new translation' --as the King James Bible was still termed even late in the seventeenth century --was still regarded with some misgivings at the opening of the eighteenth. Yet it was during this century that a decisive change in attitude toward the 'new' translation developed. It is virtually impossible to point to any defining moment or event that crystallized the perception that this was indeed a great work of religious literature; but at some time during this century, perhaps around 1750, such a perception settled over the work, and would remain in place until the end of the First World War. If the first 150 years of its history were encumbered with hints of discontent, criticism, and suspicion, its next 150 years were characterized by something at times approaching uncritical adulation.

When, why, and how did this take place? It is impossible to say. Perhaps an increasing distance from the origins of the translation began to allow the work to be endowed with the characteristics of a classic. Perhaps a fading of memories allowed rival versions -- such as the Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible --or hostile initial reactions to be forgotten. Perhaps familiarity dulled the senses to the weaknessess of the translation, or allowed well-known words to become embedded in the memory. Whatever the reasons --and these remain less thanfully understood --there is no doubt that a decisive and irreversible change came about in the esteem in which the King James Bible was held in England and beyond." (pages 289-90)

 

[Yeshua1]

How does 400 more years of being removed from a dead language produce better scholarship? I would think the understanding would tend to deteriorate rather than get better.

Also I do believe one of the King James Translators learned somewhere around 20ish Middle Eastern Languages.

Not to mention that the King James Translators learned the ancient languages at way younger ages than most scholars today, many scholars today don't even touch the ancient languages till college.

It's pride on the part of modern scholars to think that we are smarter than people in the past when it comes to understanding the ancient languages, People in 2115 will be much better able to understand our English of today than the people of 2615. (Assuming this world even lasts that long).

Of course, if you think we are evolving and getting better and better..:BangHead:

Do you think thsat the Holy Spirit inspire the 1611 translators same way as the Apostles, in order to make a perfect translation then?

And all of the manuscripts and other source texts/materials discovered since then was due to satan trying to get corrupted MV made then?

 

[Getting it Right]

I do not rely upon translators. The Holy Spirit is the ONE righteous / accurate translator and applier of scripture. Yes, I faithfully read the Bible daily, prayerfully relying upon Him.

Earth is awash with translations, as if God cannot get His point across.

Sending the Hebrew Bible in toto to those who don't have a clue about its purpose and intent is a costly, unnecessary adventure. Pastor-Teachers and Evangelists are for the Christian Covenant.

 

[InTheLight]

I do not rely upon translators. The Holy Spirit is the ONE righteous / accurate translator and applier of scripture. Yes, I faithfully read the Bible daily, prayerfully relying upon Him.

Which one? KJV?

 

[Getting it Right]

Which one? KJV?

I have no "one." I read multiple translations, including the KJV. I once read lots of commentators, but I prefer to let the Holy Spirit move me when "I" reach an understanding, realizing that it is not "I" but He. "I" am aware of His blessed Presence when "I" get it right. :applause:

 

[robycop3]

When I was a boy, I developed quite an interest in the old tales of chivalry, the Round Table, etc. as well as in the worx of Chaucer, etc. I had to study the English of that time, but it wasn't so difficult. The hardest part was dealing with the archaic spellings of everyday words ('cyning' for 'king', for example.) Thus, reading the AV 1611 has been no real challenge for me.

However, I realize not every English speaker has had my interest in older British literature, and I see where the AV 1611 could be a challenge for some. But I see the AV 1611 was largely in the most-modern English of the time. It does not use many then-common English words that were then declining in usage, I. E. 'forsooth,("indeed', often used to express contempt or doubt) 'hard by',(very close) 'prithee'(pray of thee) 'boon'("a favor", originally spelled "bone". "Bone" as we know it was spelled 'ban', while 'ban' as we know it was spelled 'bannan'.)

And such objects as 'targets', (small shields) or 'greaves'(shin armor) were known to virtually all british of that day.

I've believed for a long time GOD keeps His word updated into current languages, & that today's modern versions are a continuation of that updating process, just as the Geneva and AV were updates into the English of their day. Not for one nenosecond do i believe GOD IS LIMITED as to how He can present his word to man, as I believe He wants us to READ AND UNDERSTAND it. And having his word in one's own language is a huge step in that direction.
.