Accuracy and Precision

I call.
I'm from Missouri. I'd like to see
the verses that contain these words.
BTW, i do have a idea what all but "hoopoe"
and "revening" mean.

Here is a place where the translation
makes a DIFFERENCE in doctrine:

Revelation 6:6 (KJV1769):
And I heard a voice in the midst of the
four beasts say, A measure of wheat for
a penny, and three measures of barley
for a penny; and see thou hurt not the
oil and the wine.

In 2004 a "penny" is a small worthless
coin. In 1611 a "penny" was a copper
coin that would buy a day's worth of
food for a family or a day's worth of
barly to feed one's livestock. So what
this verse is saying is that when this
horse rides, there will be famine: a
person will have to choose with his
days wages to feed his family or his
livestock, forget anything fancier than bread.

The KJV predicts a time when there
will be such a plenty that for a worthless
coin you can get all the food your
family needs and for another worthless
coin you can get all the food your
livestock needs, and with your other pennies
you can get all the fancy food you need.

Which time will come in the Tribulation?
I would suspect if the KJV "penny" was
correct, then it would be called the
"Sunday School picnic" period, not the
Tribulation period.

 

Cranston, the King James Bible is all the proof we need to know beyond the shadow of a doubt we have the Word of God. Further proof is how obsessed yall are about trying to degrade it, and that with degraded books.

I don't have a problem with the Bible, you do.

 

I would love to research your claims and confirm your boast, care to give me your name and the years you attended Stanford and Princeton. Why bother? Anyone who claims to have read the KJB as many as 50-60 times and still doesn't understand ANY of the words with your degrees is either lying or the I.Q. rating you have came from K-Mart.

As far as how many I know the meaning of? All of them. The ones I don't have the ready knowledge of, I look up, just as in any other word I'm not sure of the meaning. Maybe you oughta give it a try sometime,eh, "Doc"?

 

Uh, "Doc", Uh, "any" means aaaannnnnnyyy, not ALL, as in none,like any particular one, not any and all.

Maybe I should have said "any one" of the words, that may well fit your Stanford professors terminology better? Can you name a couple for me, I would love to contact them?

 

Uh, I already did. It was in the post prior to the one you responded to. In case you missed it, here they are again: carnelian,, cors, denarius, drachmas, goiim, hoopoe, ibex, mina, overweening, porphyry, revening, satraps, sistrums, stadia, and terebinth.

 

Yes, I checked them out by looking them up in the dictionary.

My point is that ANY bible will contain words the reader does not know and does not use in daily discussions and will have to be looked up in the dictionary, just as you did to determine what those words mean.

 

Ok, Ok, this is for everyone that has posted here:

Let's have a test. Let's take what we are arguing about to the streets. (or in our case the Youth Group) I'm serious, Will you do this:?

Since I'm a youth pastor, I hear all the complaints that the KJV is hard to understand.

Let's do this Wed. night (or the next time your youth meet):

Read them Col 3:5 "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:" KJV

After that, ask them what the verse just said.

More specifically ask what evil concupiscence is.
Since we should stay away from it we should know what it is!

I bet if you were to explain the verse to them it would sound something like this:
"You must put to death, then, the earthly desires at work in you, such as sexual immorality, indecency, lust, evil passions, and greed (for greed is a form of idolatry)."

Why do teens have to have the Bible explained to them when they can read it for themselves.
The explanation is a quote from the Good News Bible.

I see teens everyday that don't have time to use a dictionary for every other word in the KJV. They have more pressures on them than we do. Why be cold hearted and make them use a Bible they don't understand, when there are some out there that they do?
We can argue which ones are written on which grade level all we want, but the proof is in the pudding. Ask a young person which is harder to read, they will tell you the KJV.
That's why our church bought every teen that comes to youth night a NLT. I asked them which one they like to read and they told me the NLT.
Since I gave them out, they have been carrying them to church (never did before) and using them everyday. I've even had reports of some taking them to School (Praise God).
I'm determined to get God's Word into their minds before they graduate!

And we wonder why teens are leaving KJVO churches in droves! And the ones that do stay are either there by force or have family in it...

So let's do this experiment, and then report back and give the results.
Could any teen explain the verse without using a Dictionary.
That's the point!

 

1. Would like proof that "teens are leaving KJVO churches in droves."

2. Any translation of the Bible is going to have difficult to understand words.

3. Is there any point to this other than to run the KJV itself down? That is what is happening.

4. Isn't America dumbed down enough in most areas that we should not object to using a dictionary? Maybe we should all be using the a bible that has only words that everyone understands in it, from age 5 up? I don't think so.

Jason

 

1. No one here is suggesting that the youth of our churches are leaving KJV-only churches in droves.

2. Every translation has difficult words in it. We agree here.

3. We, the ones who advocate the use of MV's, are not running down the KJV, although it seems to you that we are. The KJV is simply an old translation that is not as readable to our church youth anymore. Why use a version that's almost ancient? IMHO, we should no longer be using the KJV on that account alone. Methinks that in about 250 years, if the Lord doesn't come back in that time, the NIV will also be as difficult to read. Get your head out of the sand! You nor I can change the English language to suit our antiquated KJV; we live in the 21st century and should be using a 21st century English Bible! Gee-whiz!

4. We shouldn't have to use a dictionary for about every three verses in the KJV! Yes, it's a silly argument to suggest that we should translate and write a Bible so that a 5-year old can read it (and by the way, a Bible version is out there that comes pretty close: CEV). The Bible should be translated in clearly understandable English of our time, period. If we have to use a Bible dictionary or the assistance of a study Bible to help us understand, then this is completely acceptable. To claim that America is being dumbed-down is not a problem which using an antiquated KJV is an answer for.

 

The reason for the King James Bible is that the common man could have and read with comprehension the Word of God, and mind this, without error. The reason being that the more complete compilations were in Latin, which is not, nor ever was it the common language of any society since at the earliest ?1500?

What we who advocate mv's and push to the side the KJB, that is yall, not us, is admitting literary defeat. It is disgusting the literary abilities of the most common youth today. Yes, they know too well their terminology in communicating what they're associated with, and that sirs is more commonly "Greek" to most, unless you're "kewl"

The allegation that the youth are leaving in droves is flat out stupid. Oh yeah, they're headed for the CCM churches by the droves, still doing the same things they did before they got "saved", but the accusations deemed forth by tinytim are another example of admitting defeat.

When we see a lack of understanding of our language, it's not time to dumb it down, it's time to educate, even the ecumenical world understands that, take the subject of communicable diseases and teen pregnancy for instance. If we don't educate our children, what hope do they have for a future?

The arguement of the KJB having too many "archaic" words is riddled by opinion rather than fact. You can look at the medical professions for an answer concerning what is called archaic; Latin is a "dead" language, and no I am not advocating Latin bibles, but without it, you can forget your medical career beyond dental assistant or receptionist.

Latin is used in a "profession", is it admission that we who hold to the KJB are the professionals? Just a thought provoking, thought.

May I suggest all you so "highly" educated Bible scholars do something more to educate rather than admit defeat and comprimise literary knowledge by this "dumbing down" to reach our youth.

If you're so fired up in teaching them the Word, then do it, but don't change the words and meanings in the process, effecting doctrinal passages due to your objection of italicized words that only are introduced to give the full meaning. (here they come, the "italicized" word monsters.)

We would all agree that getting them to Jesus is first and foremost,,but lowering our standards, whether they be in language and communication skills or conduct to "bring them in", is not winning them to a mode of Christian conduct, but allowing their immoral and unlearned behaviours control the way the church is headed.( Now I know the "church"/body of Christ, is headed up, but you know exactly what I mean, don't you?")

So take note! Even what many of you will call the "less" educated even in today's terms can understand the KJB to the degree of getting saved, and way beyond that by and through preaching, that is what God chose in the first place to "save them which believe". Even the most illiterate of people can understand PREACHING!

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

I know this passage deals historically with the nation of Israel in that specific time, but since our Bible is the Book of Precepts and Principle, reckon we could learn a lesson or two from the past?

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I would think it to be at the forefront to educate our youth, and I do, but we see here that it's preaching that causes them to hear. A gifted preacher is a teacher, but that doesn't prevent him from preaching.

Oh, yeah, we've got a multitude of teachers, well at least they think they are, but we don't have the preachers in number as we used to, SO WAKE UP!

God puts that little "itch" in your ear to get you awake and out of sleep to come to the cure, not so you can keep "scratching" that itch with more teaching that only lulls you back into sleep. You do remember "Don't scratch that, you'll make it worse!" ?

How about, "If you go take a bath, you'll stop itching like that!"?

Get the picture, or is this too "unlearned" for yall?

 

Remember, QS, that the AV 1611 was written in the MOST MODERN English of its day, as was virtually every other English BV ever made. There is NO SUCH THING as "Church English".

Another KJVO fallacy is that English has been "dumbed down". Actually, the language has simply CHANGED. Now, do you suppose that the average English speaker-reader of 1611 could pick up a copy of "Beowulf" in its original English & read it with comprehension? Or a written edition of Caedmon's Bible? Now, was English "dumbed down" in the time between Beowulf & the AV?

The longest gap between popular English BVs has been the time between the AV and the RV. And every earlier English Bible was written in the English style of its day. Now, did God retire in 1611, or is He still overseeing the printing & distribution of His word in the languages of the day?

 

Once again you post an obvious untruth. If you will read "To The Reader" you will notice it does not contain a single "thee" or "thou" except when it quotes the Geneva bible, or one of the other early English versions. The KJV was obviously not in the common English of that day, but reached back into Middle English and resurrected the old pronouns to bring their case and number into English which the pronouns in common use in 1611 did not do (as proven by "To The Reader.")

 

Once again you post an obvious untruth. If you will read "To The Reader" you will notice it does not contain a single "thee" or "thou" except when it quotes the Geneva bible, or one of the other early English versions. The KJV was obviously not in the common English of that day, but reached back into Middle English and resurrected the old pronouns to bring their case and number into English which the pronouns in common use in 1611 did not do (as proven by "To The Reader.") </font>[/QUOTE]This is NOT a special "Church English" And it was no more removed from the English of that day than "23 skidoo" is removed from today's English.The last GB edition was published a mere 12 years before the first AV edition was.

And you might try reading some of Milton's poetry from a couple of generations later. He made liberal use of the old pronouns. This does NOT make the case for any special "Church English".

 

Please refer to the post above mine. To quote:

Good.

Do you or don't you believe the KJV is an inferior translation? Do you or do you not believe the KJV is not understandable? Do you or do you not believe that the KJV was translated using inferior texts? If you believe the KJV, a bible used by many, many, many Christians in the USA, is nearly ancient and of not much use to us anymore, how can this be construed as anything except a tearing down of the bible that bunches of people use as their daily reading, devotional, and preaching bible? Your anti-KJVO bent has skewed your thinking on the KJV itself.

WHAT WE SEE HERE IS THE OLD BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTIC. FIRST WE HAVE MVers CLAIM THE KJV IS A GOOD TRANSLATION AND THAT OTHER VERSIONS ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE KJV (which I could agree with) AND THEN WE ARE TOLD THAT THE KJV IS AN INFERIOR BIBLE IN TRANSLATION, TEXTS, AND LANGUAGE.

The KJV IS clearly understandable. It is used by a great many Christians, read, loved, and understood. What point are you trying to prove by marginalizing the KJV when your real problem is with the KJVO group?

Jason

 

Once again you post an obvious untruth. If you will read "To The Reader" you will notice it does not contain a single "thee" or "thou" except when it quotes the Geneva bible, or one of the other early English versions. The KJV was obviously not in the common English of that day, but reached back into Middle English and resurrected the old pronouns to bring their case and number into English which the pronouns in common use in 1611 did not do (as proven by "To The Reader.") </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly right.

Jason