I hate the KJV Poll

Question (2) was hard to answer.

 

Ed, I would like to see some of the ones who voted against the KJV clarify their answer. Do they really hate it? After all it IS the Word of God. Or do they dislike it in preference to another Bible? Anybody who voted you hate it care to elaborate?

 

I think this poll is worded poorly. It isn't a matter of "loving" or "not loving" or "hating" the King James Version. It is a matter of using it.

I'm glad it is still around, but for reading and Bible study, I am glad that there are updated English translations that have utilized advances in Bible translation and manuscript discovery to produce a more readable, useable, accurate English translation. There are two particular reasons I don't use the King James Version:

1. The language is outdated and antiquated. Words have changed meaning and the cultural implications that existed when KJV was originally translated, and even later revised, are no longer applicable. This has necessitated the continued process of upgrading the language and word usage.

2. Discoveries of earlier extant manuscripts since the time of the KJV's translation, along with advances in methods used to translate from the original languages and a much greater understanding of those languages means that the later translations of the Bible in English are much more accurate to the original text than the KJV could possibly.

It was a remarkable feat for its time, but its time is past.

I'm continued to be baffled as to why this is such a contentious issue. Are there some cultural biases or particular doctrines that are held dear by KJV Onlyism that can't be supported by the Biblical text in a more modern, accurate translation? Usually, hang-ups related to a particular translation involve the lack of skills in the original languages on the part of the defender, aren't there any KJV Onlys who are experienced in the Bible's Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, so they can clearly see where the KJV isn't as accurate as the NIV or RSV?

 

Rosell, your points are made in an eloquent manner - and I agree with most, but not all.

It's time is not passed.

I enjoy so much the beautiful language of the KJV as it is read aloud. And every verse I memorized as a child and still remember today is in the antiquated language of the King James Version. For instance, I preach using a modern version, but if an applicable verse comes into my mind while I'm preaching, I will speak it in King James english! (I don't pray in King James English, though!)

I value and cherish my King James Version - as I do my other translations. But as long as God has seen fit to write so much of His Word on my heart in Elizabethan English, why should I fight it? (Should I re-memorize in NIV instead?)

 

I believe the tough stand the KJVO folks make is based upon the honorable intention to never trade in the timeless Word of God for the things of this world. They see the old way as the best way and want to prevent the erosion of valid Christian doctrine.

I sincerely (and with love) believe they are mistaken in believing only the KJV represents the Word of God.

 

Do I love the Bible? Yes. Do I love the King James VERSION most of all? No.

 

Perhaps some of the reasons there is so much contentiousness regarding this subject can be found in your allegations below.

There are a few, very few, words which are no longer in current usage, but for the most part the KJV is understandable to any person of mediocre intelligence. By claiming, without qualification, that the language is outdated and antiquated you have simply fed the fires of that contention you so abhor.

Even though there have been about 500 additional Greek manuscripts discovered since the KJV translators were working, none of those discoveries have added anything to the textual evidence which was not available to the KJV translators. And, you must remember, the KJV translators were not translating from Greek manuscripts, they were translating from Greek (and Latin) texts and using other early versions. They relied primarily on the Greek text of Erasmus as edited by Stephens and Beza. And, of course, Erasmus had access to not only Alexandrian manuscripts but also had access to the readings of Vaticanus. So, even though new manuscripts have been discovered since the 16th century, they have not added any readings which were unknown at the time of Erasmus and later the KJV translators which would affect translation.

No bible's "time is past." Some of my most precious possessions are ancient bibles.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text type and the NIV and RSV are based on the Alexandrian text type. The question concerning which of those text types is more likely to reflect the readings of the autographs is one on which many excellent scholars disagree. I suggest your remarks are as overly simplistic as the average KJVO's.

 

Maybe hate means to "love less?'

 

For me the KJV is simply another Bible translation. Culturally&historically it's an important one ofcourse, but it's impact was somewhere else.
I don't have any strong feelings for good or ill towards it.

 

Perhaps some of the reasons there is so much contentiousness regarding this subject can be found in your allegations below.

There are a few, very few, words which are no longer in current usage, but for the most part the KJV is understandable to any person of mediocre intelligence. By claiming, without qualification, that the language is outdated and antiquated you have simply fed the fires of that contention you so abhor.
Rosell: I guess everything I learned in communications in two degree programs about the substantial and significant changes in the English language, and in its development and usage in America, should be deferred to a KJVOnlyist. This is an argument that doesn't hold water.

Even though there have been about 500 additional Greek manuscripts discovered since the KJV translators were working, none of those discoveries have added anything to the textual evidence which was not available to the KJV translators. And, you must remember, the KJV translators were not translating from Greek manuscripts, they were translating from Greek (and Latin) texts and using other early versions. They relied primarily on the Greek text of Erasmus as edited by Stephens and Beza. And, of course, Erasmus had access to not only Alexandrian manuscripts but also had access to the readings of Vaticanus. So, even though new manuscripts have been discovered since the 16th century, they have not added any readings which were unknown at the time of Erasmus and later the KJV translators which would affect translation.
Rosell: This, too, is just not accurate. The facts related to manuscript discovery and the insights into translation that have resulted just do not support the argument that the KJV is the "preserved Word of God in English." Any modern translation in English will be more accurate to the original, or at least to the earliest extant manuscripts in original languages.

No bible's "time is past." Some of my most precious possessions are ancient bibles.
Rosell: I would certainly agree that the KJV is beautiful in expression, and quite poetic as it is read. I also understand that there are many who have memorized its passages. But for practical Bible study, it extends the time and effort necessary to understand a concept, because the antiquated words have to be understood in their 1611 context first. Why not just use a translation that has already done that? Or better yet, sit under a teacher who has some experience in the original languages and can do some word study that gives some valuable insights?

You are comparing apples and oranges. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text type and the NIV and RSV are based on the Alexandrian text type. The question concerning which of those text types is more likely to reflect the readings of the autographs is one on which many excellent scholars disagree. I suggest your remarks are as overly simplistic as the average KJVO's. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

I love the Word of God, sometimes represented to me by the KJV

 

That is certainly a possibility. You would know the level of your education better than I. As to the substantial and significant changes in English, nobody is denying those changes, but those changes do not make the KJV unintelligible. The KJV is perfectly understandable in about 90% of its readings.

As to deferring to a KJVOnlyist, I would caution against doing so. They tend to be irrational and fail to respond to the actual question/comment, but rather go off on rabbit trails cluttered with personal anecdotes. Uh, kind of like what you did.

Again you have failed to comprehend the point of my comment. The new manuscript finds have not added any readings to the textual evidence which was not available to Erasmus or the KJV translators. I did not mention any nonsense about the KJV being the "preserved Word [sic] of God in English."

Modern versions may be more accurate translations of the text they are based on, but you have not, as yet, proven the superiority of those texts. That issue is still subject to discussion and debate by good, godly, and scholarly men on both sides of this issue. As to "the earliest" manuscripts, there is as much early evidence for the existence of the Byzantine text type prior to the mythical "recension" as there is for the existence of the Alexandrian text type prior to its supposed deliberate corruption by those dastardly Alexandrian scribes.

I have not said otherwise, only that the KJV is still an excellent translation and is still valuable, as are the English bibles which preceded it. My point was that hyperbolic rhetoric from you is no more prudent than hyperbolic rhetoric from the KJVOs.

 

We're not supposed to love the Bible. That would be idolatrous. We're to love the Lord.

 

Psalm 119:97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

Psalm 119:113 I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.

Psalm 119:119 Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.

Psalm 119:127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.

Psalm 119:159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness.

Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Psalm 119:167 My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.

How about a little word study? What is the word of God? (From the common Hebrew use of the words translated.)

1. Statutes = eternal teachings

2. Law = rules for relationships

3. Commandments = contract based on authority

4. Testimony = to give witness to what you have seen and warning of things to come

5. Word = recorded conversation

6. Judgments = the rule of law as foundation for God's relationship to His people.

7. Precepts = God's standard of moral conscience and our responsibility to act accordingly.

All of the above words can be found in Psalm 119:33-40.

 

I think you know what I meant. Besides, I suppose I could use the old Old Covenant / New Covenant arguement, but that would defeat the purpose of the post.

 

If we love God, how can we not love His Word?