Alleged Double Standard of KJVO's

Well, if "target" MEANT something in 1611, but MEANS something now, what is at all wrong with replacing the word in English with an up-to-date word?

 

Nothing at all. Any good preacher using the KJV will explain to his people what the word means today. If he doesn't, he should step down and get a job driving a truck! He's less likely to hurt people.

 

There's something I've noticed in several baptist churches where the pastor is using the KJV-the pastor uses much of his time explaining the archaic English to his audience.

Just the other day I heard a local teleminister, preaching from the KJV, take about five minutes to explain the uses of the word "conversation" in 1 Peter. Now this man is familiar with the Greek of the NT, and he referred to it several times in his explanation.

Seems this is a waste of a preacher's time, which could be better spent preaching the GOSPEL, rather than having to take a fourth of his preaching time defining words. using a BV written in today's language would solve those problems.

 

None, it is a direct statement of my opinion.

And IMO your laughing emoticons are examples of ridicule, mild, but ridicule none the less.

That is not to say that I am totally guiltless, but I am trying to get others to rethink the way they we answer one another, myself included.

HankD

 

LOL! ROFLOL How much time does it take to say, "target means shield?" That preacher must be one s-l-o-w talker! LOL!

 

Here is my favorite "mind-boggler".

1 Chronicles 26
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.

 

Actually, I was referring to the use of the word "conversation" in 1 Peter. Sure, he could've simply said, "In 1611, 'conversation' meant 'lifestyle', but he opted to provide a detailed explanation.

However, this begs the question, "Why not simply use a BV written in today's English?"

 

Here's some more double-standards, to add to my earlier list:

- when presented with a "contradiction" in the KJV, great effort is spent and creative explanations are generated to explain why it really isn't a contradiction. However, when they find a "contradiction" in another version, they are suddenly unable to apply that same creativity. For just one example, 2 Samuel 21:19 in the NIV says Elhanan killed Goliath, instead of "the brother of Goliath" like the KJV does, but KJV-only supporters are unable to come up with an explanation, such as there was more than one man named Goliath.

- that reminds me of another double standard: many KJV-only supporters, pastors and authors have condemned the NIV and other versions as containing a "lie" because of 2 Sam 21:19 ("Elhanan killed Goliath"), and therefore reject it as "the word of God", for God cannot lie. However, most will turn around and say the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, which is the translational basis for the KJV and most other Bibles, *is* "the word of God" (and they will go into great detail about how meticulous its scribes were and how perfectly preserved it is, etc.) despite the fact that *it too* says "Elhanan killed Goliath". Why is the NIV *not* "the word of God" for saying "Elhanan killed Goliath", while the Masoretic *is* "the word of God" when it says exactly the same thing? Why did the KJV translators *add* "the brother of", instead of letting the text stand, and finding an explanation? And how is *adding* "the brother of" a "perfect preservation" of the words?

- when discussing marginal notes in the 1611 KJV and how often they *agree* with "modern versions", or at least provide alternative translations of the same passage, most KJV-only supporters will quip "marginal notes are not inspired, marginal notes are not 'the word of God'". However, over 300 times the KJV translators translated *from the marginal notes* (the "qere") of the Masoretic OT instead of from the main text (the "kethiv") itself. Example #1: Job 13:15a in the KJV says "Though he slay me, yet will I trust **in him**:". That is a translation of the marginal note in the Masoretic, the main text of the Masoretic reads (as the RSV renders it): "Behold, he will slay me; I have **no** hope;". Example #2: In Isa 10:32, the marginal note in the Masoretic (and the KJV and most other versions) say "the **daughter** of Zion", however the main text of the Masoretic says "the **house** of Zion".

- KJV-only supporters vigorously defend "unicorn" in the KJV, but KJV-author Gail Riplinger, in chapter 18 of her book "New Age Bible Versions" says the unicorn is "a popular New Age symbol of Amduscias, the grand duke of Hades". Why is the New Age symbol in the KJV, and not in the "New Age versions"? (This is not a general KJV-only double standard, but applies only to Riplinger and her defenders).

- KJV-only supporters say Jesus is a sinner in new versions because of Matt 5:22, but do not say that God is a sinner in the KJV because of Matt 5:21 (for more detail, see http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/matt5_22.html )

- many KJV-only supporters say Satan was at work in the NIV, because he hates the name "Jesus" and wants to remove it (e.g. Matt 8:29, John 21:5, Acts 19:10, etc.). Why then does a simple count reveal that the name of "Jesus" appears approximately *300* times *more* in the NIV than in the KJV?

- many KJV-only supporters condemn new "gender inclusive" translations for doing things like translating the masculine "uios" as "children" instead of "sons". However, in Matt 5:9, the KJV translators translated the masculine "uios" as "children" instead of "sons" (NIV, NASB, and many others have "sons" here). In fact, in the margins of the 1611 edition, the KJV translators noted over 50 places where they used a gender inclusive translation instead of preserving the gender of the original languages (and there are many other places they didn't make note of).

If I think of any more, I'll post them.

 

Also, there's the fact that several AV translators, & their boss, Archbishop Bancroft, served as judges in the notorious Court of High Commission,

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/rick/influence.html


and the equally-notorious Star Chamber.
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/star-chamber.htm

 

So, we need an preacher to interpret a translation. Whew!!! Nothing biblically wrong with that, of course, and there's nothing biblically wrong with using a translation that uses contemporary verbage, either.

Now as far as the truck driving comment, I couldn't agree with you more .

 

On another thread, LRL71 pointed out another double-standard:

The double standard is this: they tell us the KJV is the "final authority", but that authority does not teach or say to believe in KJV-onlyism! If we're to get doctrine only from the KJV, why do they cling so tenaciously to a doctrine (KJV-onlyism) that does NOT come from the KJV?

 

Indeed and in fact the KJB translators themselves applauded all translations as being the Word of God, even the "meanest of them".

HankD

 

Because KJVO's attack MVs for using certain MSS that contain the apocrapha although no MV (other than the RCC ones) in English contain the apocrapha. The 1611 KJV, however, did contain the apocrapha and the translators of the KJV crossed referenced old and new testament passages to the apocrapha as if the apocrapha was just another bible passage.

 

Not only did the 1611 KJV contain the Apocrypha, it also contained a lectionary of readings to be used in public worship which included readings from the Apocrypha. This suggests that the Apocrypha (sometimes called "deuterocanonical") was accorded some measure of official status as Scripture in the Church of England, albeit subordinate to the canonical Scriptures.

 

Imagine the uproar from the KJV-only supporters if an edition of the NIV, NASB, etc. was published that did the same thing.

 

Yes and I've asked this "what if" question before :

What if a KJVO pastor came to the church service with a real First Edition KJB and in the course of his sermon followed a KJB reference to the Apocrypha and exposited from it?

HankD

 

Nothing at all. Any good preacher using the KJV will explain to his people what the word means today. If he doesn't, he should step down and get a job driving a truck! He's less likely to hurt people. </font>[/QUOTE]Would you mind citing scripture that proves God's people should not be able to read and understand His Word unless a "good preacher" happens to be available?

It seems another group followed this path of reasoning to its inevitable end.

Once upon a time, many if not most church people spoke or understood Latin. They had a Bible that became the only acceptable version. Over time, languages changed and Latin gave way to "vulgar" tongues. But the "Church" insisted that the Bible must not be "changed." So for centuries, "preachers" told the masses what the Bible said and meant. Corruption in the church begat error upon error upon error... until ultimately millions died lost without ever having had God's Word... yet believing they were Christians since they believed what their "good preacher" had told them.

KJVOnlyism isn't far down this road yet. However, we are more than likely less than 3 generations from a time when only a very few will be able to read the KJV and understand its meanings. Contrary to what KJVO's (classes 4 and 5) and various Popes believe(d), God wants His people to have His Word in a form that they can understand for themselves.

The Bible is for the believer not some elite, priestly class. When the common believer cannot understand a Bible translation, that translation has ceased to fulfill its God ordained purpose.