Why has the KJV been so popular?

[Logos1560]

So I'm not out looking for flaws, I'm looking to learn.

Would it be seeking to learn the truth to seem to avoid, dodge, or evade the actual facts concerning imperfections, blemishes, flaws, or errors in varying KJV editions?

It would be in agreement with scriptural truth to accept the correction of errors introduced by men in copying, in translating, or in printing the Scriptures.

 

[1689Dave]

Would it be seeking to learn the truth to seem to avoid, dodge, or evade the actual facts concerning imperfections, blemishes, flaws, or errors in varying KJV editions?

It would be in agreement with scriptural truth to accept the correction of errors introduced by men in copying, in translating, or in printing the Scriptures.

You can go on a witch hunt or you can compare translations. I think it is safe to say the one who compares translations spends study time more wisely.

 

[John of Japan]

Then your prolonged attack on me for using the KJV is pointless.

Really? You really want to say this? I have never, ever attacked you for using the KJV. I have only disagreed with statements you have made. If that is attacking you, we'd better shut down the whole BB.

I own several of today's widely respected original language resources but Strong's remains a favorite.

Keep using it, then.

Do you think in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as you would a first language? We can all look up the area of meaning each of the "copies" of the originals provide. And that's as good as it gets.

No, I don't, but how is that relevant?

I'm a linguist who has taught three different languages, and therefore have professional knowledge about how to ascertain the meaning of words.

 

[Salty]

1. It filled a need in a way that was not equaled/surpassed until the 20th century.
2. It is beautifully composed.
3. Tradition.
4. Superstition.

Jon - # 4 is quite an answer ! Could you expound on that a bit.

 

[John of Japan]

Isn't this the world God created? Did he fail?

Hello? Are you there? Did you pay any attention at all to my clear delineation between creation and preservation?

I only quoted a passage without comment. But please note:

"To a biblical writer, the Most High (elyon) was the God of Israel. The Old Testament refers to him as Most High in several places (e.g., Gen 14:18–22; Num 24:16; Pss 7:17; 18:13; 47:2). The sons of God/the Most High here are clearly called elohim, as the pronoun “you” in verse 6 is a plural form in the Hebrew."

"The text is not clear whether all of the elohim are under judgment or just some. The idea of elohim ruling the nations under God’s authority is a biblical concept that is described in other passages we’ll explore later. For now, it’s sufficient that you see clearly that the sons of God are divine beings under the authority of the God of Israel.5"

Heiser, M. S. (2015). The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (First Edition, p. 27). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

You don't say what text Heisler is discussing. Regardless of his weird interpretations (and weird "Naked Bible Conference"--really??), there are many, many passages where elohim is clearly about idols. Here are just a few in Genesis alone:

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Ge 31:30 And now, [though] thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, [yet] wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?
Ge 31:32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live: before our brethren discern thou what [is] thine with me, and take [it] to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.
Ge 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that [were] with him, Put away the strange gods that [are] among you, and be clean, and change your garments:
Ge 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which [were] in their hand, and [all their] earrings which [were] in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which [was] by Shechem.

 

[TCassidy]

Jon - # 4 is quite an answer ! Could you expound on that a bit.

Read just about everything 1689Dave has posted in this thread!

 

[1689Dave]

Really? You really want to say this? I have never, ever attacked you for using the KJV. I have only disagreed with statements you have made. If that is attacking you, we'd better shut down the whole BB.

The only statements I've made are about God's providence making the KJV the most popular bible in the past 400 years. And those relating to this.

I'm a linguist who has taught three different languages, and therefore have professional knowledge about how to ascertain the meaning of words.

Unless you think and reason in the ancient languages of the bible, you use the same books I do for looking up definitions and grammar.

 

[1689Dave]

Hello? Are you there? Did you pay any attention at all to my clear delineation between creation and preservation?

I explained how God created all for his good pleasure which means things are just as he would have them and preserve them.

You don't say what text Heisler is discussing.

I only quoted Jesus without comment. And Heiser who also sheds insight.

 

[John of Japan]

The only statements I've made are about God's providence making the KJV the most popular bible in the past 400 years. And those relating to this.

Yeah, that's my point. You are not interacting in the slightest with my very relevant points

Unless you think and reason in the ancient languages of the bible, you use the same books I do for looking up definitions and grammar.

I guarantee I'm not using the same books you are. Do you use the Blass/Debrunner, Wallace, and A. T. Robertson advanced grammars? The BAGD, Abbot Smith, and other advanced lexicons? The BDB Hebrew lexicon? These are professional level works.

I don't use Strong's and Young's.

 

[atpollard]

Why has the KJV been so popular?

KJV
"The Knoweth Jesus Version has legions of disciples who herald it as the only legitimate form of the Scriptures, claiming that all others have been developed through a partnership between the New World Order and Satan himself in order to make sure they don’t knoweth Jesus. KJVers contend that modern Satanic versions intentionally obscure important Christian truths like the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the NASA flat-earth cover-up. Also a top choice for readability, memorization, and open-air preaching at sporting events."​

From: The Bee Explains: Main Differences Between Popular Bible Translations

 

[John of Japan]

I explained how God created all for his good pleasure which means things are just as he would have them and preserve them.

Nope. I won't let you get away with a flippant, non-specific answer. Creation and preservation are two different things. Creation is miraculous, and miracles take place in an instant of time. Providence is a process, not a miracle. Until you distinguish between the two and tell how your supposed perfect preservation takes place, you are not being Biblical.

I only quoted Jesus without comment. And Heiser who also sheds insight.

And again I'll ask, what text was Heisler discussing?

 

[1689Dave]

Yeah, that's my point. You are not interacting in the slightest with my very relevant points

Everything I've said revolves around God providing the KJV over the past 400 years and not the others.

I guarantee I'm not using the same books you are. Do you use the Blass/Debrunner, Wallace, and A. T. Robertson advanced grammars? The BAGD

I use BDG and BDAG, Kittle, Louw Nida, Mounce, Robertson and some others.

 

[1689Dave]

Nope. I won't let you get away with a flippant, non-specific answer. Creation and preservation are two different things. Creation is miraculous, and miracles take place in an instant of time. Providence is a process, not a miracle. Until you distinguish between the two and tell how your supposed perfect preservation takes place, you are not being Biblical.

Both creation and preservation (the unfolding of creation) aka the eternal decree and predestination are miraculous.

And again I'll ask, what text was Heisler discussing?

Much of Heiser's work centers on: “God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.” (Psalm 82:1)

 

[TCassidy]

I won't let you get away with a flippant, non-specific answer.

But that will be all you get as he has nothing else to offer.

 

[John of Japan]

Everything I've said revolves around God providing the KJV over the past 400 years and not the others.

That is providential, but not miraculous.

I use BDG and BDAG, Kittle, Louw Nida, Mounce, Robertson and some others.

Very well then. Stick to those and ditch Strong's and Young's.

 

[1689Dave]

But that will be all you get as he has nothing else to offer.

Did you read my reply before posting this?

 

[John of Japan]

Both creation and preservation (the unfolding of creation) aka the eternal decree and predestination are miraculous.

No reputable theologian says that providence is miraculous.

“By preservation we mean that God, by a continuous agency, maintains in existence all the things which He has made, together with all their properties and powers. In preservation we have, therefore, the first manifestation of God’s sovereign rule. Note what this definition implies: it implies that preservation is to be distinguished from the act of creation, for that can only be preserved which is already in existence; that the objective creation is not self-existent and self-sustaining; and that preservation is not merely a refraining from destroying that which has been created.” Henry Thiessen, Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 174. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1949)

“The providence of God means the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes.” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 412.

“Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in existence the things he has created, together with the properties and powers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is our attempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of preservation is our attempt to explain its continuance.” A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907, pp. 410-411.

Much of Heiser's work centers on: “God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.” (Psalm 82:1)

To be fair here, I consulted my Ph.D. scholar son, who says that Heiser is a genuine evangelical. Perhaps I should call him an "off the wall" evangelical, because his theory about elohim is unique to him. I disagree with it.

 

[1689Dave]

That is providential, but not miraculous.

Very well then. Stick to those and ditch Strong's and Young's.

Everything is miraculous because God makes it happen for his glory.

 

[1689Dave]

No reputable theologian says that providence is miraculous.

So you've read every reputable theologian? And lead us into believing you have making this bold claim?

To be fair here, I consulted my Ph.D. scholar son, who says that Heiser is a genuine evangelical. Perhaps I should call him an "off the wall" evangelical, because his theory about elohim is unique to him. I disagree with it.

Heiser has much to say on our topic of interest.

 

[John of Japan]

Everything is miraculous because God makes it happen for his glory.

Then you are redefining "miracle." If everything is miraculous than nothing is providential because there is then no difference between a miracle and providence. Study the NT usages of the term--the KJV if you will. Every single miracle/sign/dunamis done by Jesus and the apostles occurred instantaneously. There is not a single usage of the word "miracle" in the Bible wherein the event was a process. So your opinion that everything God does is miraculous is not based on the Biblical data.