Why I love the King James

[gb93433]

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

Yes because my love for God is not the same as love for a translation or any Bible.

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.

I lived in areas of America where sunsets over the water were a daily occurrence. I have never heard anyone say they love sunsets. I have heard many other expression use the word love.

[/quote]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?[/QUOTE]Yes because my love for God is not the same as love for a translation or any Bible. People who cannot read and write can love God.

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes because my love for God is not the same as love for a translation or any Bible.

I lived in areas of America where sunsets over the water were a daily occurrence. I have never heard anyone say they love sunsets. I have heard many other expression use the word love.

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?

Yes because my love for God is not the same as love for a translation or any Bible. People who cannot read and write can love God.

That was my point. And the reason for the question about your reply quoted earlier. IMHO, it was easily understood that the OP didn't equate the love of a particular bible version to be the same as his love of God. If memory serves, he even qualified it with statements about the "love" to hear English spoken in the manner of the KJV. Just as others would say they "love" to hear the hymn "The Old Rugged Cross".

I well understand, too, that people who cannot read and write can love God. My father couldn't sign his name. Yet, I know we'll meet again, in heaven, one day. While he couldn't read, he could understand the spoken language. If he didn't understand the meaning of a particular word, he would ask for an explaination. That's no different from checking an on line dictionary, when I encounter a word that I don't recognize and can't figure out from the context of the writing.

My father's situation was, in some ways, similar to the situation that was faced by people during the time of Jesus. They were, as he was, still expected to follow 2 Tim 2:15 using the resources available to them.

BTW.....

In a preceeding post, you mentioned a series of technical items. Some I recognized, and others would take maybe 10-15 minutes with a search engine to find the definition or particular fact involved. IMHO, using industry specific technical terms is much different than discussing language change or lack thereof with terms used in everyday general conversation or print. Whether it's the local newspaper or a version of the Bible.

I'm a hobby woodworker. I wouldn't expect the average person on the street to know the difference between scarf joints, butt joints, lap joints, coped joints, and half lap joints. However, if they want to become a hobby woodworker, too, I'd expect them to apply 2 Tim 2:15. STUDY.

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.

 

[gb93433]

In a preceeding post, you mentioned a series of technical items. Some I recognized, and others would take maybe 10-15 minutes with a search engine to find the definition or particular fact involved. IMHO, using industry specific technical terms is much different than discussing language change or lack thereof with terms used in everyday general conversation or print. Whether it's the local newspaper or a version of the Bible.

That was my reaction to one who posted that people are getting dumber. Those terms were terms that have been used for quite some time. Some are generic and others are specific to a particular field of study.

I'm a hobby woodworker. I wouldn't expect the average person on the street to know the difference between scarf joints, butt joints, lap joints, coped joints, and half lap joints.

I learned what those were in seventh grade and learned how to cut dovetails by hand much later.

However, if they want to become a hobby woodworker, too, I'd expect them to apply 2 Tim 2:15. STUDY.

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.

The NAS does a much better job of translating that verse, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

It has nothing to do with studying. One can be knowledgeable and not be a believer and not even believe the Bible.

James 1:22 says, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

Studying does not suffice. One can be a false teacher and teach the Bible well because he does not live out the truth of scripture.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

Yup... I've seen it.

All the false humility, downgrading, calling oneself a "worm," etc. are driven from a flawed view of what is actually being said in the text. Not JUST that particular verse, mind you, but a combination of multiple ones with similar issues in word usage.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

I agree. I heard D. A. Carson give an excellent rule when it comes to this sort of thing. He said that he determined years ago to not preach any sermon out of a particular translation of Scripture that he could not also preach out of other good translations.

That is is very good rule. I have tried to follow that rule ever since.

 

[gb93433]

IF English had stayed the same in word meanings, would still be the best, but it has not, so modern versions better suited to convey the message of God to us for today!

Tell that to the French from Canada and then tell that to the French from France.

The words changed meaning over the time period scripture was written. Look up the Greek words prebuteros and episkopos and trace them from the OT through the NT.

 

[gb93433]

All the false humility, downgrading, calling oneself a "worm," etc. are driven from a flawed view of what is actually being said in the text. Not JUST that particular verse, mind you, but a combination of multiple ones with similar issues in word usage.

You mean like the feeble old man who doesn't have enough to eat and can hardly walk? Heard that too.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Yup... I've seen it.

All the false humility, downgrading, calling oneself a "worm," etc. are driven from a flawed view of what is actually being said in the text. Not JUST that particular verse, mind you, but a combination of multiple ones with similar issues in word usage.

What's the "worm" passage you're referring to?

 

[jaigner]

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.

That makes sense in some cases, but here's where I'm coming from. There is NO doctrine called KJV-only as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in evangelical seminaries and colleges. It doesn't exist in systematic theology. The only place it actually is believed is in a small, minute, unimportant, fringe congregations sprinkled here and there. The fact that more than a few of them are on BB, well, doesn't make any difference. As far as any credible theological scholarship is concerned, they don't exist.

That's where I'm coming from. And let's say the TR does agree 95% of the time. When you're talking about scholarship that is very difficult already, like biblical translation, 5% is a big deal. It's not just that the older manuscripts differ, but most of them agree.

The KJV is very important. It was the best that could have been done, and it served us well, but it's time for us to retire it for personal use and serious study.

Personally, I don't know, hence, I would never be as ridiculous as to make a statement like that, since it's unprovable.

Let's see, the oldest manuscripts agree with each other in the majority of their differences with the TR. There are many known translation errors in the KJV to begin with. You can't be serious to actually believe that it's unprovable.

And I'm fine with being called ridiculous, since ALL credible evangelical textual critics would make the same statement. You are clearly in the minority here.

Read a book. And not one written by one of the fringe wackos who actually perpetuates the KJVO weirdness.

 

[glfredrick]

What's the "worm" passage you're referring to?

I'm not. But I've heard it from countless church-goers.

Likely from a hymn "for such a worm as I..."

 

[Luke2427]

That makes sense in some cases, but here's where I'm coming from. There is NO doctrine called KJV-only as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in evangelical seminaries and colleges. It doesn't exist in systematic theology. The only place it actually is believed is in a small, minute, unimportant, fringe congregations sprinkled here and there. The fact that more than a few of them are on BB, well, doesn't make any difference. As far as any credible theological scholarship is concerned, they don't exist.

Some of this is absolutely true. However, there really are thousands of these people. I know- I used to be one of them. Pensacola Christian College is devoted to the KJVO doctrine.

It is heresy- no doubt; but thousands of people believe it. But not enough to keep it going. I figure this doctrine will die out within a couple of generations and be gone from the earth forever.

That's where I'm coming from. And let's say the TR does agree 95% of the time. When you're talking about scholarship that is very difficult already, like biblical translation, 5% is a big deal. It's not just that the older manuscripts differ, but most of them agree.

No, it's really not- and I think you may be alone on this. Even the 5% (and I think that is probably a bit higher than the number actually is) is mostly disagreements in very minor areas. No major doctrine is affected. I think most textual critics would agree with you and me that the newer texts are better- but I think they would disagree with you that they are FAR better in the sense that the TR is not an excellent text.

The KJV is very important. It was the best that could have been done, and it served us well, but it's time for us to retire it for personal use and serious study.

No, respectfully, this is simply not true. It makes less sense to retire the King James for personal use and serious study than it does to retire Shakespeare or Spurgeon's Sermons or Jonathan Edwards' sermons or Moby Dick or Pilgrim's Progress, etc...

Also, as a literary work, the King James has no equal among all English translations of all time.

Before we can lock away the KJV in the vault of history we need to create a modern translation that has the literary power and beauty of the King James. To retire the King James would be like retiring Cathedrals, Opera, Isaac Watts Hymns, the Doxology, etc...

I think the wiser course is to utilize a mixture of new and old. It is the way we worship at our church. Many thousands of other churches employ this practice with great success. We sing great new songs and wonderful old hymns together. We employ both contemporary music and the organ. In my sermons I use helps and illustrations and references from Rick Warren and from St. Augustine, from John Grisham and from William Shakespeare, from Alvin Plantiga and from Thomas Aquinas. Our architecture seeks to be a mixture of modern practicality and Gothic majesty.

And as it pertains to the Scriptures, we employ the superiority in accuracy and clarity of modern texts and translations along side of the beauty and power of the King James.

Opera can do to the heart what R & B cannot do. R & B may be more relevant to the time period but we don't abandon the power and beauty of Opera altogether just for sake of modernity.

 

[gb93433]

Also, as a literary work, the King James has no equal among all English translations of all time. Before we can lock away the KJV in the vault of history we need to create a modern translation that has the literary power and beauty of the King James. To retire the King James would be like retiring Cathedrals, Opera, Isaac Watts Hymns, the Doxology, etc...

The Greek of the NT was the trade language of the day which was common Greek. Is the English of the KJV common English?

I think the wiser course is to utilize a mixture of new and old. It is the way we worship at our church. Many thousands of other churches employ this practice with great success.

Where are the loud cymbals from Ps. 150? and the trumpets. Di they get thrown by the CCM of the 1950's?

 

[Amy.G]

Before we can lock away the KJV in the vault of history we need to create a modern translation that has the literary power and beauty of the King James. To retire the King James would be like retiring Cathedrals, Opera, Isaac Watts Hymns, the Doxology, etc...

Or...we could use the NKJV. I don't think any of the older translations should be locked away. They should stay available to anyone who wants to use them, but their language is outdated and can easily be misunderstood.

 

[Luke2427]

The Greek of the NT was the trade language of the day which was common Greek. Is the English of the KJV common English?

You are right- Koine Greek was the choice for the language of the New Testament.

But it is non-sequitur to take that fact and say that since this is so, God always intended for the Bible to be written only in the plain, common, bland tongue of the day.

Consider this. When the New Testament was written, where were Christians meeting for worship? Houses and catacombs. How were Christians educated? Without systematics.

But as the church grew and conquered more and more of the world around it with the Gospel she moved out of the catacombs and into cathedrals. As the church continued to grow she employed systematics and gave us the Trinity and hypostasis and eternal generation, etc... She continued to grow and her music, education, architecture, etc.. improved with her growth.

These were all good things. They mimicked Israel's progress from a slave nation to one of affluence and power. For years Israel worshiped in a large tent. Then God blessed her to be able to build and worship in a Temple overladen with silver and gold- one of the wonders of the world.

Where are the loud cymbals from Ps. 150? and the trumpets. Di they get thrown by the CCM of the 1950's?

Just for the record, I love contemporary music and dislike most of the music that came out of the period of 1900-1980. Some good songs were written during this time, but I find that I do not like most of them. I do not like Southern Gospel. So you might have me mixed up with another type of people.

But we do use symbols and trumpets today. Is there anything more beautiful than a large, gifted choir singing "Be still My Soul," backed up by a great orchestra of brass, strings, percussion and woodwind instruments?

 

[gb93433]

You are right- Koine Greek was the choice for the language of the New Testament.

But it is non-sequitur to take that fact and say that since this is so, God always intended for the Bible to be written only in the plain, common, bland tongue of the day.

I am not an English scholar, but my understanding is the language of the KJV 1611 was not the common English of 1611.

 

[Luke2427]

Or...we could use the NKJV. I don't think any of the older translations should be locked away. They should stay available to anyone who wants to use them, but their language is outdated and can easily be misunderstood.

I like the NKJV.

I think for pure accuracy the NASB is hard to beat. I like it.

I like the NIV. For easy readability- it has no equal today (at least not one that maintains accuracy).

I also like contemporary Christian music. But what I am not going to do is toss aside "Rock of Ages" or "The Doxology" or "Oh, For a Thousand Tongues to Sing" and just sing "Shout to the Lord" and "The Voice of Truth" and other contemporary songs alone.

I like John Grisham but I do not think it is good for society to just read books written within the last thirty years. We also need to read Pilgrim's Progress and Beowulf and Canterbury Tales and Moby Dick.

A healthy mixture of past and present is good for society and the Church.

 

[Luke2427]

I am not an English scholar, but my understanding is the language of the KJV 1611 was not the common English of 1611.

It was not the tongue of the street- that is true.

But it was written with the intent that the common man, who could read, would be able to understand it.

What was different about it was that the translators were not just brilliant linguists but they were also literary geniuses. King James wanted a version that read well- one that had a beauty to it that made it desirable for reading in worship.

They accomplished this- and I think it was a very good thing.

 

[gb93433]

It was not the tongue of the street- that is true.

But it was written with the intent that the common man, who could read, would be able to understand it.

Do you know what percentage of the English people in 1611 could read?

 

[Luke2427]

Do you know what percentage of the English people in 1611 could read?

I do not know that.

 

[Jerome]

calling oneself a "worm," etc. are driven from a flawed view

What's the "worm" passage you're referring to?

I'm not. But I've heard it from countless church-goers.

Likely from a hymn "for such a worm as I..."

Yeah, straight off the 'Sojourn Music' website LOL:

Hymn Text: Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed?

Isaac Watts, 1707

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?