Alleged Double Standard of KJVO's

If the translators -or publishers- of said "bibles" weren't cowards,they would have been HONEST enough to put the Roman Catholic Apocrypha in their "work";I mean after all,it is part of the OT and NT canon as INSPIRED SCRIPTURE!! All of this hackneyed nonsense about the A.V. having the Apocrypha in it is just a smoke screen;give it a rest! Why not deal with the two "great unicals"(and their 200+ conflicting "bibles") that contain it as Holy Writ??

 

I don't think cowardice has anything to do with it. But I do think it would be interesting to see an NIV apocrypha, or a NASB apocrypha, etc.

It is?

Do they contain it as Holy Writ, or do they just "contain" it?

 

Nothing at all. Any good preacher using the KJV will explain to his people what the word means today. If he doesn't, he should step down and get a job driving a truck! He's less likely to hurt people. </font>[/QUOTE]So are you saying that preachers should spend their time translating a translation? I would rather spend my time translating from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.

 

Another thing, Scott-from the time God first presented His word in English, the English reader has had it in the English style current for the time. Seems as if the KJVO believes God retired in 1611 & quit updating His word as His languages were allowed by Him to change. The KJVO seems to forget whose word the Bible is, and who created all forms of human communication-and who's still in charge.

 

I might add that they also recognize that God never got going until 1611. God was dead before that time. He wasn't alive until those who resurredcted him in 1611. I wonder what the people in 1611 thought of their new modern version. Every generation has had those who like their old Bible better. I wasn't around in 1611 but I suspect that there were those who didn't want that modern 16111 version then either.

 

If the translators -or publishers- of said "bibles" weren't cowards,they would have been HONEST enough to put the Roman Catholic Apocrypha in their "work";I mean after all,it is part of the OT and NT canon as INSPIRED SCRIPTURE!! All of this hackneyed nonsense about the A.V. having the Apocrypha in it is just a smoke screen;give it a rest! Why not deal with the two "great unicals"(and their 200+ conflicting "bibles") that contain it as Holy Writ?? [/QB][/QUOTE]


Imagine that, AA doesn't even know what is truly the Word of God.
Just to be sure, AA, should the Apocrypha be considered canon?

 

Then you have failed to do your home work and inferred something that is not true.

 

Would you mind citing my statement wherein I made any such ludicrous claim?

 

No, I am saying exactly what I said. Any good preacher will explain the scriptures as he preaches them. Old words, hard words, theological words, archaic words, etc.

How you spend your time is entirely up to you, but the common man in the pew probably can't read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, but must rely on his English translation and it is the preacher's job to foster the deepest understanding possible.

 

Would you mind citing my statement wherein I made any such ludicrous claim? </font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. It was the only part of your post that I quoted:;

"Nothing at all. Any good preacher using the KJV will explain to his people what the word means today. If he doesn't, he should step down and get a job driving a truck! He's less likely to hurt people."

Your answer requires a preacher to "explain what the word means today." That mean that if an honest, spiritually maturing believer is reading their Bible and runs across a word/phrase that is not in English that they understand, you would have them dependent on a preacher rather than simply using a version with language they already understand.

 

And where in my statement do you find the assertion "God's people should not be able to read and understand His Word unless a "good preacher" happens to be available?" - which is what you accused me of saying? Time to tell the truth. You cannot defend Truth with an untruth.

And while you are at it please cite where I "would have them dependent on a preacher rather than simply using a version with language they already understand."

 

Acts 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Philip was a preacher wasn't he? the Ethiopian eunic needed a little help in uderstanding Isaiah 53 didn't he?

Hmmm? And we have the audacity to think we have sole authority to define scripture as we please.

 

Yes. Except all of scripture was not completed. We now have a more perfect witness... however, that witness is not so perfect if the reader cannot understand the meaning.

We are having the same basic argument that Tyndale et al had with the RCC's Latin Vulgate only rule. Our side is saying that the Bible should be in contemporary language because each person is responsible for themselves. Your implicit argument is that "a good preacher" enters into the mix somehow to tell others what the Bible means when the form of language is not understood.

 

And where in my statement do you find the assertion "God's people should not be able to read and understand His Word unless a "good preacher" happens to be available?" - which is what you accused me of saying? Time to tell the truth. You cannot defend Truth with an untruth.

And while you are at it please cite where I "would have them dependent on a preacher rather than simply using a version with language they already understand." </font>[/QUOTE]You have to be kidding... or else I completely misunderstand what you are trying to say.

If I am misunderstanding something then please rephrase what you said so I my error can be cleared up.

However, your very quote says what a "good preacher" will do when the congregation doesn't understand the meaning of a word in the KJV.

Implicit in your comment (to me at least) is:

A) There are words in the KJV that modern readers do not understand.
B) These words are not to be changed/modernized in the text of the Bible but rather should be explained by a "good preacher."
C) It is the job of a "good preacher" to tell modern readers what a "word means today."
D) If these readers are not in the presence of a "good preacher" or for some reason don't have access to one of these "good preachers", they none the less should not use the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.

If I misunderstand your position and you are not opposed to someone using maybe the NKJV for their personal reading and study, I sincerely apologize. But you can't have it both ways... either a preacher is required for someone to understand the language (ie. definitions, usage, phrasing) or not.

I am not talking about understanding the meanings or teachings. This is obviously part of a preacher/teacher/discipler's function. I am talking about words such as "conversation" where a modern word choice such as "behavior" can be clearly and accurately understood by virtually anyone.

 

I think your second option is the correct one.

Obviously, for that is the topic of discussion. Words in the KJV that are no longer in common usage.

Why shouldn't those words be modernized in the text, or if a church wishes to use the KJV, by the preacher in his message?

Yes. If they don't know, the preacher is to teach them. One of the requirements for a pastor is to be "apt to teach."

Why not?

Apology accepted. Forgiven and forgotten.

 

Positive. My bible of choice for daily reading is "The Contemporary Parallel New Testament" containing 8 translations all on the same page. It is rather like a modern version of Bagster's Hexapla or Weigle's Octapla, both of which I own and find very useful.

Well, I do prefer to preach from the KJV, so, on that basis I suppose you might refer to me as KJVp.

That is not a normal personality trait for me, but was forced on me by my teacher and mentor, who is a stickler for accuracy!

I think I agree. All too often the truth is obscured by emotion and evasion. I find Will's writings on this forum to be an excellent example of trying to hide behind "much speaking." When I try to sift through his posts for a few nuggets of wisdom I find I have to first discard several tons of tailings.

 

I have found that the common man in the pew does not understand the KJV very well at all.

The KJV is a literal translation, taken word-for-word. This is a good thing, but English uses a radically different sentence structure than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Not to mention Hebrew not using vowels (other than "rhythym", Emglish just wouldn't work very well with it). I have an interlinear New Testament that I bought several years ago, thinking I would be able to train myself to understand the way thought are put together in Greek. Well, until I am able to take several classes in Greek, I will not be able to..it is totally foreign to my English-trained mind.

The KJV also uses theextremely archaic wordings of the 1600's. Neither myself, or anyone else that I know, use "Thee" and "Ye" as a form of address, and I can't quite recall the last time I used "knoweth" in polite conversation.

Many terms and idioms must be explained and clarified when preaching from the KJV. I couldn't count the sermons I've heard where the preacher talked about "the keys to my mansion in heaven." The problem is, "mansion" in the KJV does not mean "mansion" that we think of today. But most (almost all) the people in the pews believe that they have a Southern plantation house withtheir name in the mailbox sitting on Heavenly Lane and Angel Avenue.

I use the NKJV most of the time. I study in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, Amplified, ASV, RSV, and any other translation I can get my hands on. I prefer to preach from the NKJV, but occasionally use the KJV.

I do not understand the dogmatism exhibited by the adherents of the KJVO position. I do have a problem when they take a new believer and fill his head with the thought that only the AV is God's word, and that they cannot read any other translation. A new believer needs something simple, because he is just starting to deal with spiritual things. A newbie does not need to have to try to decipher the very language before him before he can drink in the nourishment that his soul needs.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I would count anything that the Lord has prepared for His children would more than compare to any mansion hear on earth, even a castle wouldn't hurt the context. The utter splendor of even a "room" in Heaven would dwarf even Solomon's Temple in beauty and extravagance.

"Mansion" is much more fitting than "room" as being descriptive. Anything Jesus has prepard for sinners saved by grace, that "permanant abode" is certainly not even entered into the heart of man, so it is more than glorious, fabulous, even to the point of eccentric.

I'm sorry if my posts bore you, gentlemen. If you feel I'm only dreaming, then you're in my dream, so let me dream on!

BTW, A "mansion" as found in the KJB is SUPERIOR to "room" found anywhere on earth!

 

I think your second option is the correct one. </font>[/QUOTE]And I guess you would be 100% correct. I have stayed away for awhile and assumed for some reason that you were KJVO. I went back and read some of your posts more thoroughly.

I now realize that I owe you a huge apology.