Future of the KJV 1611

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by manchester, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the KJV 1611 is only true Word of God in English. Let's also assume that the KJV 1611 is still legible and understandable to modern readers.

    Clearly the language has changed from 1611 to today. Even though we can read the KJV, there are some parts that are difficult and many words are no longer used after 400 years. After another 1000-2000 years, the English of the KJV 1611 may be completely unreadable to the average reader.

    What do KJVo's think should be done? Should Christians in year 3000 stick with the KJV 1611 as it is, even if they cannot understand any of it, simply because both are called "English"? Should they take the KJV 1611 and translate it into their English? Should they make a new translation from the TR? Or something else?
     
  2. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sincerely believe we all should teach our language to everyone so one can understand the Bible. Your premise is unsubstanciate and a lame duck to anyone who has a working knowledge of how to use a dictionary, unless you're inciting un-education for the promotion of the modern versions, but then you still have the education dilemma: do you really want people to have only an estimation of God's Word? Or actually have His Holy Bible to the English speaking people?

    It's been performed countless times the wording "updates" in comparison, there are many more "confusing" words in the moderns than actually "surmised" in the AV 1611.

    Learn to use a dictionary that gives the etymology of our words, it can ONLY lead to ability to think and deduce that which is undeniably TRUE. :rolleyes: :eek: [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Plain 'ol Ralph. A dictionary are infallible and inerrant. Now if we could just agree upon which dictionary is the "final authority"....
     
  4. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm. Okay, are you saying it is "unsubstanciate" that languages evolve over time, and that English in year 3000 will be far different than it was in 1611? And are you saying that people in other countries should learn English because there never was a Bible until the KJV 1611 and only the KJV 1611 can be the Word?
     
  5. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I sincerely believe we all should teach our language to everyone so one can understand the Bible."
    "
    In the year 3000 KJVO missionaries start out by giving a 3 year course in ancient English and explain the gospel to you after you have graduated from that....
     
  6. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know why anyone would worry about what people will be reading in the kingdom.
     
  7. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    POR wrote:
    Yeah, I remember reading that somewhere, let's see.........Oh, here it is:

    Matthew 28:19 & 20 (KJV)- "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations in English, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them in English to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."


    Why is it that KJVO's lambaste the need of studying God's Word in the original languages in which it was actually written (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic)- and yet will state (with apparent total sincerity) that non-English speakers need to learn English to study & understand God's Word?
     
  8. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it funny that the King James is the only bible that even tells you to study.
     
  9. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    James Newman said "I find it funny that the King James is the only bible that even tells you to study."

    I find it funny that you believe and repeat things without even checking. A quick check revealed the Amplified, KJV21, Douay-Rheims, Webster's, the Geneva, the Bishop's, Coverdale's, Tyndale's, and others use "study" in 2 Tim 2:15. Some of these and other versions use "study" in other places as well.
     
  10. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok, forgive me natters. I knew that some others did indeed use the word study. Just not the better translations that we have available today. Be diligent!
     
  11. Lawson-

    Lawson-
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I prefer the KJB, but I have also been reading a lot of the Literal Translation,(LITV) which is derived from the same texts of the KJB, the TR. I find it to read a lot like the nasb.
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    James Newman said "Be diligent!"

    I am. [​IMG] That's another valid translation for "study" in 2 Tim 2:15, as several other translations show.
     
  13. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm. Okay, are you saying it is "unsubstanciate" that languages evolve over time, and that English in year 3000 will be far different than it was in 1611? And are you saying that people in other countries should learn English because there never was a Bible until the KJV 1611 and only the KJV 1611 can be the Word? </font>[/QUOTE]No. and you obviously know very little about the language of commerce. [​IMG]
     
  14. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it rather humourous that you claim to understand the Bible, introduce such a silly notion, and act as if you aren't speaking English and can see into the future from such a glance. But then I do suppose yall do need some new vision. But also you should learn to study rather than "un-study"
     
  15. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I remember reading that somewhere, let's see.........Oh, here it is:

    Matthew 28:19 & 20 (KJV)- "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations in English, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them in English to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."


    Why is it that KJVO's lambaste the need of studying God's Word in the original languages in which it was actually written (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic)- and yet will state (with apparent total sincerity) that non-English speakers need to learn English to study & understand God's Word?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Funny LarryN, bashes English then quotes the Bible in English, then acts as if no one understands English to promote his versions in English while there are over 400 languages w/o any Bible, now i suppose he will begin teaching an baptizing themall right after he teaches them Hebrew, Aramaic, and grekk, well his interpretation of them anyway, uh, his private interpretation at that.
     
  16. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, We promote the study of the original languages, BECAUSE THEY COMPLIMENT THE KJB SO WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Did everyone HEAR that?
     
  17. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, could you yell a little louder?

    Yes, the compliment the KJV very well. Not 100%, but very well.
     
  18. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't expect everybody to have the mastery of the English language that you have.
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I agree. An absolutely fantastic idea. Just look at Matthew Henry who started studying Greek at the age of ten. We should require of every student before they could vote or become a member in a church that they show a certain proficiency in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Would we ever have an educated church. KJVOism would be eradicated permanently.
     
  20. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    POR replied to me:

    ?!?!?!?- I "bashed" English? How was that exactly? Would that be by simply recognizing the fact that the earthly writers of the 66 books of God's Word didn't speak, write, or read English?

    Say what?

    What versions would those be?

    This is a definite concern, and one that Wycliffe Bible Translators, among others, are working on. They aren't doing those translations from the KJV, BTW, but from the original languages.

    Not at all. Teaching people in the languages they speak & understand is the Biblical model. (see Acts 2:1-8.) At Pentecost, the multitude present wasn't told they'd have to learn another language to hear the message: they all heard the message in their own tongues. Just as we today should make the Gospel available in words they will understand.

    You're the one who made the claim that we should teach the rest of the world English so that they could hear & study God's Word.

    Not sure what your point is here. My "private interpretation" of what; and in what regard?
     

Share This Page

Loading...