How long will KJVO last?

Not you Rippon

 

:tongue3: Hows that....

I was going for an extreme... Maybe I should have worded it better!

 

The typical KJVO'er would not say that the KJVs are their favorite version --- but the ONLY legitimate translation which merits being called the Word of God in the most singular fashion.

The rest of us have multiple favorites with one having special significance.I haven't met any believer who thought that only their version was the only right one except for the members of the KJVO group.

 

Five of you have six posts individually. I have 17! Come on folks.Get with it. How much longer will the "How Much Longer Will KJVO Last" thread continue without the valuable contribution of others?(Just kidding.)

 

I'm trying my best... :laugh:

While trying to get this blasted Rockband game to work on my Ps2!

 

Okay,time to do a current tally.Twelve have no idea how much longer the KJVO movement can possibly last.Eleven think it will fade away by 10 or 25 years.Other opinions don't matter.











Just kidding.

 

I have two copies of The NIV : The Making Of A Contemporary Translation.Kenneth Barker was the general editor.It was published back in 1986.In that book a chapter is included called : Isn't the King James Version Good Enough? (The KJV and the NIV compared). It was written by Edwin H. Palmer (1922-1980).Dr.Palmer was the head of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation. (Apart from NIV-related things he wrote some nice articles explaining Calvinism).

Here are some quotes of his from that chapter.

I love the King James Version.I was converted under it,my first memory verses were taken from it,and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted,sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used translation.
The KJV is not,however,the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons (1) it adds to the Word of God and (2) it has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word.

Some Evangelicals get concerned because some modern paraphrases do not really give us the Word of God. They distort,alter,and revise it. This concern is justified because we believe that the Bible is the very Word of God, and we do not want any paraphrases to change what the Holy Spirit inspired. Yet some of these same evangelicals calmly go on reading the KJv,which in many places has added to (and so changed) God's very words. Such a practice is unfortunate.

 

More from Edwin H. Palmer (p.156)

If we believe that the Bible is God's Word -- inspired and inerrant,an infallible guide for our lives -- are we going to be satisfied with knowing generally and vaguely what God is saying, and only the central truths? Did not God give us his whole Word?Are the details of what God said unimportant? Is it not important to know everything that God said and with clarity?
Yet the KJV adds to (and so alters) God's Word,and it has now-obscure and misleading renderings of many verses... For one who loves God and wants to know exactly what God says to him,a modern translation that is accurate and clear is necessary.Elsewhere I have written:

Do not give them a loaf of bread,covered with an inedible,impenetrable crust,fossilized by three and a half centuries.Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible...
For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic,not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable,and almost unconscionable.

 

Have most said anyone will not be blessed by the KJV, here? I don't recall seeing anyone say this, but I may have missed it, I admit.

Amy.G, while I do not believe you (unlike perhaps others) have any nefarious motives, bad intentions or any particular agenda behind this statement, it is not called for, IMO. FTR, while I'm on the subject, neither was the statement made by superwoman8977, also IMO. BTW, if one of the those statements is an attack on the Bible, so is the other one. One, of any preference, cannot have it both ways.

While I believe I do understand what you are trying to say, I'm not sure I completely buy this. I do see some wisdom in a part of it, however. Every word or phrase opted for, in a translation, is that of one individual, at least initially. Besides, if this is the case, exactly how many are necessary for the :1_grouphug: to be acceptable? The WYC seems to have been initially, effectively the work of one individual in the OT (Nicholas de Hereford), and one (John Wycliffe) in the NT. In addition, John Purvey revised their work, quite likely mostly alone, after the death and likely even at the behest of Wycliffe.

This, was of course, much different in the case of of the KJV we have today, however. Or was it?? Let's look at some Bible history. Erasmus; Estienne; Beza; Luther; Tyndale; Whittingham; Paris; Blaney; Young; Darby; Phillips; Verkuyl; and Taylor are some who come to mind - more than 10 who have worked basically alone, who have some decided influence on multiple Bible versions, including the KJV. The 'TR' has its start with Erasmsus, later followed by Estienne, then Beza, whose 1598 edition served as the primary "chosen text" for the KJV NT. The translation and of Tyndale lies behind, and often directly, both the KJV and GEN of Whittingham. (The GEN sometimes lies directly behind some of the KJV, as well, thus indirectly in this, does the TYN, doubly lie behind the KJV.) Paris and Blaney are the ones responsible for the two most major and competing revisions of the KJV. The KJV text of today is mostly that of the revisions of Blaney, with a much smaller proportion of Paris. The last five are responsible for 5 major versions of the Bible or NT, mostly alone, just as the MSG of Petersen. How many of them are you going to downgrade, as well, if you are consistent, here??

"I gotta' toss my KJV, Preacher.

I just found out one person was the major one-man source, in three different manners including the major reviser. Oh, and incidentally, I'm gonna' haveta' toss my Young's Concordance, and Webster's 1828 dictionary, for the same reason! I don't like the idea of any one person having that much ability to manipulate' something. Or be the one interpreter of what I hear! You know! that 'private interpretation' bit, and all like that!

BTW, who are the other two individuals you are having to preach right alongside you, this week, with all of you speaking at the same time?? I really like this new approach, but we just gotta' get us a wider pulpit. And a new sound system!!! Them three mikes appear to be interfering with each other, and with the 'whistle' and roar, and that sudden noise as the system overloads, I can hardly hear and understand what all of you are saying, due to all the electronic feedback!"

Agreed. And you can also manipulate the text, almost as easily, from a FE or DE version, as well. Don't think so? Check and see. Think Church of Christ, Baptist, "REformed", Pentacostalism, JW, SDA, Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Covenant theology, "Free Grace", Lordship Salvation - lotta' differences, including some cults, there, with a lot of adherents. I don't recall any of them basically arising from any "paraphrase".

What do you, me, or any other, do when we preach or teach? Same difference, I'd say. Think about it.

Ed

 

Why would I want to sit there and figure out what the bible is trying to tell me. I dont speak with thees and thous and giveth and doeth. When I want to sit down and study the amplified has more than helped me because like the amplified I think outside the box (my old professor called it amplifying) and the amplified does that for me. I am glad that my pastor tells you like it is, he doesnt "flower" the words. As for the Message bible you have to read it to understand that it is the closest thing to english speaking in the 20th century. I know its how I think and when I need clarification on trying to understand something in the 21st century I will look at that. I had a lady one time tell me that she witnesses to people with her KJV of the bible and I am like --they actually get what you are trying to tell them? I know I wouldnt. I wasnt trying to attack the KJV as many of you took what I said I just know as a person seeking the Lord I would rather understand the bible written in modern day english without all the thees and thous and I am going to teach my children the same way. But I am into the contemporary come as you are kind of worship as well so go ahead and call me "liberal"

 

I bolded that part of your post because I wanted to make you aware of something...

I doubt seriously you speak like The Message speaks...
when it says in:

For this reason, I don't recommend it to others. I find that phrase very offensive. And it should never be used in a paraphrase.
Especially one that prides itself on the fact that it reads like modern men speak...
I said earlier that I like reading the message as a paraphrase, I would like to retract that now...

 

You arent getting what that verse is saying and yeah I admit there are times where I feel like that when the whole world is caving in around me. Thats why I find the Message Bible the words so modern day, so powerful.

 

1st of all you didn't allow anything but a subjection of an answer for those you refer to as "KJVO", this being the last option to your poll.

2nd is you should have offered the option of believing God has established a milestone for all English speaking peoples to revert back to when question is made concerning what thus saith the Lord.

This poll is only for those who wish to condemn "KJVO"s.

 

Putting aside the little fact, that a similar phrase received quite a lot of notoriety this past year, when a certain Chicago clergyman uttered it, and the fact that you find the phrase offensive, I suggest that "modern men speak" in this fashion, on a regular basis. At least those located here in Central KY do, for I hear this more than rarely, anyway.

However, I would like to note a coupla' things. There are 20 different English Bible versions to be found on Bible gateway. Only 6 of 20 use any form of the word "damn" at all. (I just checked.) The AMP has 1 instance; the NLT has 4, The WYC (NT, only) has 14, The KJV and KJ21 (esentially an updated KJV to eliminate obsolete words and 'improve' and update spelling, punctuation, etc.) each have 15 and the MSG has 16 such instances. I just wonder if you would recommend against the KJV, in the same manner, and for the same reason?

Would you preach a message quoting (I don't want to deliberately offend anyone's 'tender ears' any more than is necessary, here. ) II Ki. 18:27 or Isa. 36:12 from the KJV, or would you inisist on using another version (preferably the NKJV) in this particular instance, because you would find it more acceptable, where it lumps two phrases together as one, and uses a word many might find less offensive, for both? Would the MSG be acceptable here for Isa. 36:12, but not II Ki. 18:27?

(Actually, while I am not really particularly worried about offending someone's ears, I'm just not going to do so, simply to prove I can.)

Are you offended by other words and phrases found in various Bible versions, due to some modern connotations, and prefer others? For a couple of obvious examples, I have, so far at least, seen no versions to describe Rahab as an "escort", or David as committing a "crime of passion". I have, however found a few that spoke of David as a murderer (despite the protest of one, not on this thread, to the contrary) and Rahab as "h*rl*t" (KJV, MSG, DBY), "pr*stit*te (TNIV, HCSB, ESV), and "wh*r*" (WYC).

Let's try another word. How about "b*st*rd"? Good KJV (3) and MSG (5) word. HCSB or NASB? (0) They prefer "illegitimate". [Why not go for the best (WORST??) of both worlds, here and go for "illegitimate b*st*rd" as does the LIV in Jn. 9:34?]

It actually seems the MSG and KJV have several renderings that are quite similar. Strange!!

Here is the point of all this.

Where is "the line in the sand" drawn, as to what is or is not acceptable wording? Is there actually a "Biblical statement" about Biblical renderings as rendered in versions, anywhere? If so, who drew it up? And who gave them that authority to do so?

Ed

 

There's a huge difference. I don't print and package my "preaching" or my interpretation of the scriptures and sell it as bible. If I teach or preach anything it is always with the understanding that the person should not take my word for it, but compare what I say to the actual words of God in their bible. Calling the Message a bible gives it authority as God's word. I don't know of anybody who uses it other than as a suppliment to their actual bible study.
It is just a paraphrase because it is based on the author's opinion (not God's) and much of what is in the text is certainly not in the greek, but has been added from the mind of the author to enhance what he thinks needs to be freshended up.

From an article on BibleGateway.com:

Since the verse numbers have been left out, I cannot even do a reasonable verse by verse comparison. We're left to do a thought for thought (at best) comparison.
Having said all of that, it's still just my opinion. You are free to say that the Message is a bible. That is your perogative, but I disagree. I don't think I "attacked" the Message, just merely gave my opinion of it.


As far as the point I was originally trying to make goes, I think you missed it.

What if I made this statement:

I am blessed to say I was never taught from the MV bibles and neither will my children.

Would you consider that an attack on MV's? I think so. If a KJVO person had made that statement, people would be on them like white on rice. I've seen it before. I have been seeing a lot of this lately on the BB (or maybe I'm just more sensitive to it lately for some reason) and quite frankly, I think it's extremely unfair and immature. Neither side is right all the time, but neither side is wrong all the time either.


And superwoman's statement was certainly an attack on the KJV.

That is what I took issue with. If you disagree that's fine.

 

Don't be so quick on the trigger Dale.There have been a lot of English paraphrase of the Bible (or parts of it).

Henry Hammond did the entire New Testament in the 1600's.

Arthur S.Way did the epistles of Paul and the book of Hebrews.

F.F. Bruce did An Expanded paraphrase of Paul's Epistles.

Kenneth Wuest did the whole New Testament.

And there are many others.Are you willing to cast them all aside and call them non-Bibles?!

A paraphrase is a kind of translation -- a free translation.Paraphrases can't fit into one box.The J.B. Phillips version was looser than F.F.Bruce's style for instance.Some are done very carefully;and others are are done in a slip-shod manner.All paraphrases can't be categorized in the same way.

Paraphrases are not meant to be stand-alone units.They are supplemental to more form-driven translations and should be read alongside the latter.

What would they regard a paraphrase as?What interest would they have in a paraphrase when the KJVs are their consuming passion?