Retiring the KJV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Martin Marprelate, Sep 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,497
    Likes Received:
    454
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,085
    Likes Received:
    218
    Yes, it is very interesting.

    main objection - tradition - all my memorization was from "The Version"
     
  3. DiamondLady

    DiamondLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly do not agree with this opinion.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,085
    Likes Received:
    218
    Why is that
     
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The writer makes excellent points. English today is vastly different than the language was in the 17th Century. Words change meaning or fall by the wayside, thus we lose some of the subtleties and nuances, as well as major points.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Dave Miller's article just reflects common sense. There is nothing new in his remarks.

    I liked some of his lines though:

    ''...offer the KJV a gold watch,shake its hand,and let it fade into history.''

    ''Even the traditionalism of KJV-preference can be a little oppressive.''

    His article was inspired by Andrew Wencl's ''resolution''.
     
    #6 Rippon, Sep 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2011
  7. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am 60 years old. I have used the KJV since I was old enough to read. Probably age 5 or 6. It has served me well for some 55 or so years. I see no reason to change. Those of you who want to "retire" it are ridiculous.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You are welcome to retain the inaccuracies of your version of the Word of God.

    Perhaps the reverse is true.
     
  9. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you've been told not to state your OPINION as FACT. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328

    Is that a fact?
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    No single ''proclamation'' will retire the KJV. People will still buy and should be able to with no restrictions. People will accept gifts of the KJV as well.

    But it's just plain common sense that there are many other superior alternatives when it comes to faithful translations of the Word of God.
     
  12. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    There you go stating OPINION as FACT again! Geez!
     
  13. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    :sleeping_2: :sleep: :flower: :1_grouphug:
     
  14. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not going to tell Rippon was bible to use. I'm not that arrogant. He can use what he wants, and I don't think any less of him.

    That being said, allow me to illustrate one point. People beat up on the KJV for being "inaccurate." I'll give the old KJV this much - at least it is consistent in its treatment of biblical chronology. Most modern "more accurate" translations (by the way, you are free to use as far as I'm concerned) say that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt. According to Genesis 46 and Exodus 6, this is chronologically impossible. But yes, throw away the old inaccurate KJV for the more accurate modern translations.

    Here's a better thought. Use your translation and I'll use mine.
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,085
    Likes Received:
    218
    Whats interesting is that the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible with them to the New World, in spite of the fact that "King James went so far as to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony." to be really spiritual maybe we should stop using that new translation of 1611 and go back to the Geneva Bible :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #15 Salty, Sep 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2011
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Perhaps your edition of the KJV is missing Ex.20:7. In the 2011 NIV it reads thusly:''You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God,for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.''
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Well,since about 99% (at most) of KJV users don't own a 1611...
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Perhaps in your haste and presumption you didn't bother to read my post number 11.
     
  19. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is so inaccurate that ALL the noted theologians of the 1900's used it to develop their Systematic Theologies. Odd, innit!

    We used it throughout old fundamental Christianity in defence against the march of liberalism in the 40's, 50's and into the 60's.

    I will stand by my 1945 copy of the KJV (Cambridge) to my dying day. Every copy of the bible has errors, grammatical and otherwise. Don't be lazy in study and sort them out. It is not that difficult.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You mean some theologians of the early 20th century referenced the KJV.


    And by your own admission you have heavily edited it. It could be called the Jim1999 Version. :)

    Okay,but the KJV is especially noted for the above and more.

    Our aim is not to ''sort out'' the problems in the KJV. Why jump through those hoops? Go to a faithful modern version in one's own tongue (said for the benfit of KJV fans) and you will find more accuracy in all respects.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...