Why I love the King James

[glfredrick]

Welcome to the BB Gbaty.

You are dead-wrong. Most conservative scholars believe there are numerous additions that were not in the original autographs. Machen and Warfield from the first quarter of the last century to name but a few from yesteryear. They were as conservative as they come.

Exactly... The fallacy is to determine that the KJV is THE translation by which all others are compared. Who said so, based on what, and why?

Just today in my exegesis of 1 Peter 3:8, I saw that the KJV (update, not 1611) translates the word for "tender-hearted" (eusplagchnos) as "pitiful." In 1611 or 1879, the term "pitiful" had a vastly different usage than it does today. It THEN meant "full of pity" but today, it means something more along the lines of "sad sack, in a bad way, one to be pitied". Literally the direction in which the "pity" was directed has turned 180 degrees, from pity TOWARDS others to today when it means one REQUIRING pity directed to themselves. This is but one example of the difficulties in using a version where the language USAGE is archaic, even if the words are yet the same in spelling.

 

[Luke2427]

Not only is this a grammatical nightmare, it is completely false. Modern translations use better manuscripts. They are far superior than the KJV.

Modern versions DO use better manuscripts.

But the manuscripts Erasmas and Beza and others used were VERY good, too.

Think of it this way.

The TR agrees with the modern texts better than, what, 95% of the time? I am reciting this from a rusty memory so be patient with me.

That means if the new texts are EXCELLENT then the TR is at least VERY, VERY, good.

So I don't think it is perfectly accurate to say that the new texts from which we get some VERY good versions of the Scripture are FAR better.

If the TR is just barely OK then the Alexandrian is just a little better than OK because it agrees with the TR so much.

I could be totally wrong on what I am about to say, but I think when we start using hyperbole in a negative fashion against the TR or the KJV, it is due to a knee jerk reaction against a terrible heresy in our age- KJVO.

While I fully agree with a strong disdain for the KJVO doctrine, I don't want to throw a VERY precious baby (the TR and the KJV) out with the bath water.

 

[glfredrick]

Modern versions DO use better manuscripts.

But the manuscripts Erasmas and Beza and others used were VERY good, too.

Think of it this way.

The TR agrees with the modern texts better than, what, 95% of the time? I am reciting this from a rusty memory so be patient with me.

That means if the new texts are EXCELLENT then the TR is at least VERY, VERY, good.

So I don't think it is perfectly accurate to say that the new texts from which we get some VERY good versions of the Scripture are FAR better.

If the TR is just barely OK then the Alexandrian is just a little better than OK because it agrees with the TR so much.

I could be totally wrong on what I am about to say, but I think when we start using hyperbole in a negative fashion against the TR or the KJV, it is due to a knee jerk reaction against a terrible heresy in our age- KJVO.

While I fully agree with a strong disdain for the KJVO doctrine, I don't want to throw a VERY precious baby (the TR and the KJV) out with the bath water.

I agree! :applause:

 

[Jerome]

It THEN meant "full of pity" but today, it means something more along the lines of "sad sack, in a bad way, one to be pitied". Literally the direction in which the "pity" was directed has turned 180 degrees, from pity TOWARDS others to today when it means one REQUIRING pity directed to themselves.

Hasting's Bible Dictionary notes:

'pitiful' is used about 1611 in three ways:
(1) showing pity, compassionate
(2) exciting or deserving pity, miserable
(3) contemptible, despicable

Shakespeare has all three—

(1) Richard III, I. iii. 141
"I would to God my heart were flint, like Edward's;
Or Edward's soft and pitiful, like mine."

(2) Othello, I. iii. 161
"'Twas passing strange,
Twas pitiful, 'twas wondrous pitiful."

(3) Hamlet, III. ii. 49
"That's villainous; and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it."

 

[Oldtimer]

So I don't think it is perfectly accurate to say that the new texts from which we get some VERY good versions of the Scripture are FAR better.

.......

While I fully agree with a strong disdain for the KJVO doctrine, I don't want to throw a VERY precious baby (the TR and the KJV) out with the bath water.

Once again, I disagree with the extremes on BOTH sides of this issue. I'm just a layman, so perhaps I look at this differently than many who have spent years in study. It's just that something is wrong with the picture when advocates of modern versions resort to the same type of put-downs as do the hard core KJVO crowd.

FWIW, I used to be a KJVO, until I learned what that means in some circles. As I couldn't accept the total contempt, some displayed towards "modern" bibles, I can't accept it, when it's used against the KJV either. It harkens back to the days, when I saw/heard a "discussion" about red carpet for the center isle of the church. That day, the Lord was thrown out "with the bath water". Same thing seems to be happening with some of these version debates, too.

 

[Oldtimer]

Exactly... The fallacy is to determine that the KJV is THE translation by which all others are compared. Who said so, based on what, and why?

Just today in my exegesis of 1 Peter 3:8, I saw that the KJV (update, not 1611) translates the word for "tender-hearted" (eusplagchnos) as "pitiful." In 1611 or 1879, the term "pitiful" had a vastly different usage than it does today. It THEN meant "full of pity" but today, it means something more along the lines of "sad sack, in a bad way, one to be pitied". Literally the direction in which the "pity" was directed has turned 180 degrees, from pity TOWARDS others to today when it means one REQUIRING pity directed to themselves. This is but one example of the difficulties in using a version where the language USAGE is archaic, even if the words are yet the same in spelling.

A question to match your question. Perhaps the combination of questions can eventually point to the answers.

From what I understand, at this point, why to modern bible version publishers primarily compare their works to the KJV? Why don't they primarily compare to xyz competing modern bible(s)? If the KJV is as "obsolete" as 8-track tapes, why keep comparing to it?

1 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 3:8&version=KJV

Websters 1828 & 1913 definitions of the word "pity".
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,pity

Modern Definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pity

Definition of PITY
1a : sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed, or unhappy b : capacity to feel pity
2: something to be regretted <it's a pity you can't go>

Comment: This particular verse isn't a good one to chose to discuss "one example of the difficulties in using a version where the language USAGE is archaic".

The context of the verse, itself, leads one to understanding of the intent of the word, IMHO.

 

[Baptist4life]

Modern translations use better manuscripts. They are far superior than the KJV.

I've seen this comment made a thousand times on numerous forums. I'd like to see some proof of that. Since no one has ever seen the original manuscripts, I don't understand how anyone can claim that statement as FACT. It's only man's opinions, that is all. Personally, I don't know, hence, I would never be as ridiculous as to make a statement like that, since it's unprovable.

 

[thomas15]

I've seen this comment made a thousand times on numerous forums. I'd like to see some proof of that. Since no one has ever seen the original manuscripts, I don't understand how anyone can claim that statement as FACT. It's only man's opinions, that is all. Personally, I don't know, hence, I would never be as ridiculous as to make a statement like that, since it's unprovable.

That argument my friend cuts both ways and is no friend of the KJVO crowd!

 

[Baptist4life]

That argument my friend cuts both ways and is no friend of the KJVO crowd!

Never said it was. Still doesn't change my point.

 

[glfredrick]

A question to match your question. Perhaps the combination of questions can eventually point to the answers.

From what I understand, at this point, why to modern bible version publishers primarily compare their works to the KJV? Why don't they primarily compare to xyz competing modern bible(s)? If the KJV is as "obsolete" as 8-track tapes, why keep comparing to it?

1 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 3:8&version=KJV

Websters 1828 & 1913 definitions of the word "pity".
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,pity

Modern Definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pity



Comment: This particular verse isn't a good one to chose to discuss "one example of the difficulties in using a version where the language USAGE is archaic".

The context of the verse, itself, leads one to understanding of the intent of the word, IMHO.

My point was that "pitiful" is used TODAY in exactly the opposite way as it was during the writing of the KJV.

If we read that verse to run of the mill pew occupiers in most average congregations, what do THEY think "pitiful" means? The MODERN meaning. They will not get the idea that it means FULL OF PITY. They will get the idea that it means that the ONE who is to LOVE is pitiful, i.e., a wreck of a person, and then they try to emulate THAT wrong idea in their lives becasue they "proof-text" Scripture.

Same for "peculiar" which DID mean a people set apart, but now means "weird" (and indeed some who hold that are in fact weird instead of "set apart").

 

[gb93433]

How many of today's high school graduates can't read and comprehend their senior year textbooks? Thus the question... Can they read and comprehend any Bible on the market today?

How many seminary graduates can read their Greek NT today?

 

[Oldtimer]

My point was that "pitiful" is used TODAY in exactly the opposite way as it was during the writing of the KJV.

If we read that verse to run of the mill pew occupiers in most average congregations, what do THEY think "pitiful" means? The MODERN meaning. They will not get the idea that it means FULL OF PITY. They will get the idea that it means that the ONE who is to LOVE is pitiful, i.e., a wreck of a person, and then they try to emulate THAT wrong idea in their lives becasue they "proof-text" Scripture.

Same for "peculiar" which DID mean a people set apart, but now means "weird" (and indeed some who hold that are in fact weird instead of "set apart").

Aren't the "run of the mill pew occupiers in most average congregations" subject to this verse?

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And have this promise?

Proverbs 2:3-6 (KJV)

3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

As I think about this post, the old 80/20 rule comes to mind. Wonder how many "pew sitters" (the scriptures use other labels for them) won't apply themselves to study, regardless of how elementary the reading level of God's word? Even, at Bible study classes, they are the same ones who never ask a question about a verse of scripture when the opportunity is offered. It isn't, IMHO, because they are shy, as they'll freely speak up before the class starts about the prior night's sports event.

Did you notice there are still multiple definitions of the word "pity" in modern usage? If I'm not mistaken, pitiful, in the verse you quoted has been replaced with the word "compassion" today. If memory serves, when I looked it up, those who desigate it as an archiac word in one definition cross reference to "compassion".

Also, you didn't address the "context" within the verse point. Maybe it's because I'm just a layman, often words can be understood even if the exact definition from a dictionary isn't known. Again, as a layman, I beleive it's my responsibility, when I encounter words that "don't make sense" in the scriptures to follow the verses quoted above.

In closing, I'm not trying to use this opportunity as a knock down, drag out debate. I'm here to learn. Readily admit that I still have a long ways to go to live up to 2 Tim 2:15.

 

[Baptist4life]

Aren't the "run of the mill pew occupiers in most average congregations" subject to this verse?

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And have this promise?

Proverbs 2:3-6 (KJV)

3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

As I think about this post, the old 80/20 rule comes to mind. Wonder how many "pew sitters" (the scriptures use other labels for them) won't apply themselves to study, regardless of how elementary the reading level of God's word? Even, at Bible study classes, they are the same ones who never ask a question about a verse of scripture when the opportunity is offered. It isn't, IMHO, because they are shy, as they'll freely speak up before the class starts about the prior night's sports event.

Did you notice there are still multiple definitions of the word "pity" in modern usage? If I'm not mistaken, pitiful, in the verse you quoted has been replaced with the word "compassion" today. If memory serves, when I looked it up, those who desigate it as an archiac word in one definition cross reference to "compassion".

Also, you didn't address the "context" within the verse point. Maybe it's because I'm just a layman, often words can be understood even if the exact definition from a dictionary isn't known. Again, as a layman, I beleive it's my responsibility, when I encounter words that "don't make sense" in the scriptures to follow the verses quoted above.

In closing, I'm not trying to use this opportunity as a knock down, drag out debate. I'm here to learn. Readily admit that I still have a long ways to go to live up to 2 Tim 2:15.

:applause: Amen!

 

[glfredrick]

Aren't the "run of the mill pew occupiers in most average congregations" subject to this verse?

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And have this promise?

Proverbs 2:3-6 (KJV)

3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

As I think about this post, the old 80/20 rule comes to mind. Wonder how many "pew sitters" (the scriptures use other labels for them) won't apply themselves to study, regardless of how elementary the reading level of God's word? Even, at Bible study classes, they are the same ones who never ask a question about a verse of scripture when the opportunity is offered. It isn't, IMHO, because they are shy, as they'll freely speak up before the class starts about the prior night's sports event.

Did you notice there are still multiple definitions of the word "pity" in modern usage? If I'm not mistaken, pitiful, in the verse you quoted has been replaced with the word "compassion" today. If memory serves, when I looked it up, those who desigate it as an archiac word in one definition cross reference to "compassion".

Also, you didn't address the "context" within the verse point. Maybe it's because I'm just a layman, often words can be understood even if the exact definition from a dictionary isn't known. Again, as a layman, I beleive it's my responsibility, when I encounter words that "don't make sense" in the scriptures to follow the verses quoted above.

In closing, I'm not trying to use this opportunity as a knock down, drag out debate. I'm here to learn. Readily admit that I still have a long ways to go to live up to 2 Tim 2:15.

They may indeed READ that word, and yet not even realize that the words they are reading had a DIFFERENT USAGE in 1611 than they do today. THAT is the point I am trying to make.

I've heard tons of sermons from pastors and ministers who preached from the KJV. I know the original languages and I wince when I hear some sermon on a word that does not even mean what the original language stipulates -- not because the preacher is intentionally trying to lead his flock astray, but because even HE did not take the time to break out the Webster Dictionary of 1800 and something to see what that word meant THEN.

We use the same words, but they are not the same in meaning now, many are exactly the opposite and I have laid out just two words, pitiful and peculiar to demonstrate this issue.

Why translate TWICE when the people are able to read ONCE with comprehension and INDEED can rightly divide the Word of Truth because the words used mean what they are accustomed to meaning in the context of THIS GENERATION instead of a generation 400 or more years ago.

 

[Jerome]

If we read that verse to run of the mill pew occupiers in most average congregations, what do THEY think "pitiful" means? The MODERN meaning. They will not get the idea that it means FULL OF PITY. They will get the idea that it means that the ONE who is to LOVE is pitiful, i.e., a wreck of a person, and then they try to emulate THAT wrong idea in their lives

Let's get this straight. The average Bible reader (or 'pew occupier' as you put it) when seeing pitiful in its context in I Peter 3—

having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous

—would never consider that pitiful might just mean 'full of pity'. [piti-ful = full of pity? Imagine that!]

Rather he just will assume that Peter is is encouraging the reader to be A WRECK OF A PERSON?

 

[gb93433]

Love the KJV? The KJV will not get anyone into heaven. Imagine telling a non-reader to love the KJV!!! I am unable to find in any Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic text to love the KJV. I am unable to find in any translation to love the KJV. In each of them I do find the command to love God.

 

[gb93433]

Let's get this straight. The average Bible reader (or 'pew occupier' as you put it) when seeing pitiful in its context in I Peter 3—

having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous

—would never consider that pitiful might just mean 'full of pity'. [piti-ful = full of pity? Imagine that!]

Rather he just will assume that Peter is is encouraging the reader to be A WRECK OF A PERSON?

Phil 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: (KJV)

Our conversation is in heaven? What language is used? Speaking in tongues?

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Be won without a word won by the conversation of their wives? How does one win another without a word by their conversation? Would that only be done by the deaf?

 

[Baptist4life]

Phil 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: (KJV)

Our conversation is in heaven? What language is used? Speaking in tongues?

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Be won without a word won by the conversation of their wives? How does one win another without a word by their conversation? Would that only be done by the deaf?

Now you're being silly. I'm 60 years old, and I could figure those verses out for myself when I was in grade school. Have people gotten dumber over the past 50 years? I don't think so. Those passages are very easy for anyone with reasonable intelligence to understand.

 

[gb93433]

I'm 60 years old, and I could figure those verses out for myself when I was in grade school. Have people gotten dumber over the past 50 years? I don't think so. Those passages are very easy for anyone with reasonable intelligence to understand.

There was a time when I read the quote, "Everyone is dumb. It just depends on what it is."

If you are 60 then you should be able to answer the following questions.

What is nanotechnolgy?

What is GIS and how is it used conjunction with GPS, and in medicine.

What is a thixotropic agent?

What are people able to drive a care more than 300,000 miles rather than 40,000 as they did a few years ago?
When do you use "which" and when do you use "that" in a sentence?

What is continuous casting and who developed it as we use the process today?

Who invented the modern digital computer?

What compressive strength has been achieved in concrete today in the lab?

=============
Have you ever have a hard time understanding 2 Tim 2:15?

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

If not then how would you apply 2 Timothy 2:15 among the people during Jesus' time? At least 98% of the population could not read. Tell me how they would have studied scripture if you believe that verse in today's language. Even if they could read it was unlikely they would have had a scroll in their home. The last time I figured what a scroll would cost in today's money was a few years ago. It was around $40,000.

 

[Oldtimer]

Love the KJV? The KJV will not get anyone into heaven. Imagine telling a non-reader to love the KJV!!! I am unable to find in any Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic text to love the KJV. I am unable to find in any translation to love the KJV. In each of them I do find the command to love God.

Would you make the same statement, if your favorite version of the Bible were under discussion?

Have you ever used the word "love" in conjunction with any non-human object of affection? As in, I love a beautiful sunset. Or, I love Grandma's apple pie. Or, I'd love to ace a test in Koine Greek.

Since this is a Baptist Only forum, isn't the premise here that, as Baptists, we understand what will "get" us into heaven. Next, the title of this thread is a testimony of one reader rather than an instruction (command, directive, etc.) for someone else to do the same. Lastly, I presume that most of the readers of this forum, understand that quite a few centuries passed between the time God inspired His word to be first recorded and the invention of the printing press. Especially, when considering the number of learned church leaders actively participating in these discussions.

Again, would you have written that statement if the name of your preferred/primary Bible version was in the title of this thread and under discussion, instead of the KJV?