The Real Reason I Think People Like the KJV

Yeah, it's called "Dance with who brung ya". if the KJV was one's first bible, and one is used to reading/hearing Scripture in Elizabethan English, I can see where one would be loath to change. But one must remember the KJV is not the ONLY valid English version out there, and not be afraid to use other versions if necessary.

The late Dr. J. Vernon McGee was one such person. He preached from the KJV, but, when asked, he would remind his audience that he used the KJV because he had grown up with it, and it was the version he was most-familiar with, but that he considered several other English versions to be legitimate Bibles also, and one shouldn't hesitate to use any of them if he/she could understand it better.

In other words, he was KJV-PREFERRED, not KJVO.

 

Well, this may explain why some people like the KJV above all others, but it doesn't explain why some hate the modern versions and go to great lengths to make their displeasure known.

 

It may be a leading reason for some or even many who hold a KJV-only view, but it would seem to be an subjective, experience-based reason.

 

For me it's a trust/motivation issue.
The KJV has stood the test of time and blood.
True it is what "brought me to the dance." and I am quite loyal.
I have to ask the question, What is the motivation of the Editors/Scholars? Most might answer, "To have a Bible version that can be understood." IMHO it is money that motivates most printing houses to sell Bibles, with Editors/Scholars raking in royalties from the best selling book of all time.
I just can't see nor have I ever heard of a move of the Holy Spirit to motivate a group of people to EDIT the AV. Who has granted anyone the authority to EDIT the Word of God?

 

The same people who gave the KJV translators the right to edit the word of God.

 

OK. Regarding the KJV...

It was to counteract the widespread use of the Geneva Bible, which often contained notes critical of the monarchy.

Up next?

 

The notes were not the word of God and thus the motive was just.

 

You are exactly right!!

That is why I am not KJVO, but still use the KJV 99% of the time....
I cut my teeth on it...
But I am not so proudful as to say, either use the KJV, or you are not using the true Bible.

I love the KJV... the way it flows, the poetic readings...
Nothing will ever replace it in my book...

But at the same time... I have to be careful to properly interpret it because of the meaning changes over 400 yrs...
A lot of bad doctrine has came about, because ignorant people, that didn't know what a word or phrase meant 400 yrs ago assumed it means the same today.

And while I am ranting, nothing burns me up more than ignorant people skipping words just because they don't understand them, or refuse to learn how to read properly, and then say, "It doesn't matter if I skip a word I don't know, the Holy Ghost is my teacher, and He tells me what the verse meant" HOGWASH!!! The Holy Ghost put the words in there!

Learn to read!!!!

(Ok, my rant is over... you can have your thread back):wavey:

 

Motives of the 1611 KJV

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
Preface to the King James Version 1611

(Not Copyrighted)
THE BEST THINGS HAVE BEEN CALUMNIATED

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience. For, was there ever any-projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying, or opposition? A man would think that Civility, wholesome Laws, learning and eloquence, Synods, and Church-maintenance, (that we speak of no more things of this kind) should be as safe as a Sanctuary, and out of shot, as they say, that no man would lift up the heel, no, nor dog move his tongue against the motioners of them. For by the first, we are distinguished from brute beasts lead with sensuality; By the second, we are bridled and restrained from outrageous behaviour, and from doing of injuries, whether by fraud or by violence; By the third, we are enabled to inform and reform others, by the light and feeling that we have attained unto ourselves; Briefly, by the fourth being brought together to a parley face to face, we sooner compose our differences than by writings which are endless; And lastly, that the Church be sufficiently provided for, is so agreeable to good reason and conscience, that those mothers are holden to be less cruel, that kill their children as soon as they are born, than those nursing fathers and mothers (wheresoever they be) that withdraw from them who hang upon their breasts (and upon whose breasts again themselves do hang to receive the Spiritual and sincere milk of the word) livelihood and support fit for their estates. Thus it is apparent, that these things which we speak of, are of most necessary use, and therefore, that none, either without absurdity can speak against them, or without note of wickedness can spurn against them. :applause:

 

Applying this logic forward, then it was justifiable to revise the AV because its notes were certainly not the words of God; and the notes of the next version were not the words of God, so the motive to revise it was also just, and so on.

 

Editing is part of the process of translating. Translators almost never go with their first draft. The KJV was translated by committee, which meant there was quite a lot of editing of the Word of God going on. I've been on a Japanese translation committee and I know whereof I speak.

Our Japanese version goes through about three or four re-writes or edits before I begin the proof-reading process. (Gasp! Proof reading? You mean actually correcting the Word of God? Yep, just like the KJV translators corrected their work, and the 1611 was actually corrected after it was printed.)

Now, where do we get the right to do this? I consider it more of a responsibility than a right. We believe in the priesthood of the believer, do we not? In the OT, it was the priests who had the responsibility for preserving the scrolls of Scripture. I maintain that in the church age also, it is us priests who must preserve (and if necesssary edit) the Word of God.

 

Good points, Squire.

By the way, the fact that the Byzantine text was preserved by native Greek speakers is a strong argument for the Byzantine priority position. Burgon was not the only one to make this point. Modern Byzantine advocates also point this salient fact out. Those Egyptians just couldn't spell or remember their Greek vocabulary! :type:

 

OK, I am in the KJV camp because I also grew up with it, and the others just don't "sound right". On that note I will stop.

I have been using The Apostles Bible for a little over a year and really like it, especially the EMTV of the NT. But I do have a question for you that are more learned than I. I see so many folks wanting to read the Greek, and to me wasting there time because the learn just enough to be dangerous.

So here is my question. Is there a Word for Word translation of the most popular and accepted Greek Text into English? I mean, if there is why go to the trouble of learning Greek when your time could be better spent memorizing Gods word?

 

//Who has granted anyone the authority to EDIT the Word of God?//

Consider the following:
-------------------------------
Baptist Distinctives, Wikipedia article on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_Distinctives

Baptist Distinctives is a name usually given to a list
of doctrinal titles that have traditionally described
what Baptists as a whole believe. The Baptist Distinctives
usually include:

* Biblical Authority
* Autonomy of the Local Church
* Priesthood of All Believers
* Two Ordinances (Believer's Baptism and the Lord's Supper)
* Individual Soul Liberty
* Saved Church Membership
* Two Officers (Pastor and Deacons)
* Separation of Church and State

To aid in recall, these distinctives are often arranged as shown above to spell the acronym "Baptists."
-------------------------------

Find out about:

Individual Soul Liberty

I have the authority to Edit God's Word!
I'm not a pastor so I don't have a flock I'm in
authority over.
I am a parent so I have authority over my children]
(acutally grandchildren).
I am a husband so I have authority over my wife.
I am a person so I have authority over (well, with)
myself.
So that is pretty much what I have authority over/with.

Because nobody much has authority over me, save
for my pastor (and he has to convince me), I have
to check the translation before I know it is valid.
(Hense It doesn't hurt to know a bit of Greek & Hebrew.
But more - know how to use Strong's numbers.)

I'm cool enough that I share what I find
(but accepting it is up to other Baptists that have
their own Individual Soul Liberity. )

 

Because languages just don't translate "word-for-word". One word in one language can have many meanings in a different one, and on the other hand, one word in one language can have no equivalent in a different language.

With some of the study tools available (E-Sword, for example?) you don't have to be a scholar to be able to look up the Greek behind a Biblical text.

 

The term "word for word" in the vocabulary of translators simply means a literal translation. Another word for this is "formal equivalence." For true formal equivalence you can get an interlinear Bible, with the English words right under the Greek or Hebrew words. The disadvantage of this is that you have to provide your own English grammar and syntax--that is, put it into good English in your head. (Some interlinears have a regular translation alongside to help you in this.)

Young's Literal Translation may be the closest thing to a true word-for-word translation. However, having said all of that, no translation, however literal, can completely give the sense of the original. (Young's often is so literal that it leads the reader astray as to the real meaning of the original.) It is inevitable that something will be lost in the translation. For example, the Japanese verb system is fairly basic compared to the Greek verb system. (Japanese makes up for it with Chinese characters and a complex respect syntax.) So there is no way possible for me to get the full impact of a Greek perfect tense, for example, into Japanese.

It isn't necessary for all Christians to know Greek and Hebrew. However, I believe that believers who are gifted by God in languages should learn the original languages and labor in them for the good of the church. :type:

 

It would seem that the argument that the KJV feels familiar and sounds "Biblical" would be true for those of us of a "certain age" (of which I am chief). But what is going on in the Sunday Schools and homes, where we teach younger people the Bible? Are churches using a standard reference, or are they allowing teachers to use whichever translation they wish?

In the church I served as pastor, we adopted the NRSV as our standard text. Copies were placed in the pew racks, and I always preached from the NRSV. Our children's Sunday School classrooms had NRSV Bibles in them, and when the children reached a certain age, the church gave them NRSV Bibles. We certainly did not legislate that everyone had to use this version, but we did what we could to put it out there. Frankly, I do not know whether the teachers pushed memorization from this text; but I suppose in the interest of consistency, they should have.