My Thoughts on the KJV

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

You are going against your previous point by admitting 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.

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

"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?

 

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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.

 

Monkey see --monkey do.

 

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.

 

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?