I think everyone should read Dr. Mark Ward's book Authorized. Has anyone else read this?
Book Review: Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible
Great Book On King James Only by Mark Ward
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Reformed1689, Dec 23, 2019.
Page 1 of 6
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
I read it a little over a year ago, shortly after it came out. Even though he and I are on different sides of the fence re the KJV, I enjoyed the book. Authorized is short, well-written, and engaging. Mark treats the KJV with a respect often not found among writers promoting a move to another Bible version. Here is part of what I wrote in recommending it, with a little humor in mind.
- If you are KJVO on steroids, read the book. It won’t hurt you, and might provide some anti-biotic for what ails ya’.
- If you are KJVO regular, read the book. You need to be conversant in the arguments put forward for modern versions versus the King James Bible. It will sharpen your mind.
- If you are KJV-lite, before reading, take several doses of vitamins K, J, and B. After reading Ward’s book, follow up with several more doses of vitamins K, J, and B. If you don’t take my advice, then don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
- If you are anti-KJV, read the book. Ward’s respectful tone towards the KJV is an antidote you need for your bad attitude.
-
I oppose the KJV because I know at least 80% of the U.S. is not able to read it with understanding.
So, if you think I'm not respectful for not giving my money or time to hand out KJV as oppose to a readable Bible version, I disagree. -
MartyF, I do not know you or have any idea of your position, your attitude, or your respect, except that this post does not give me a good impression of it. Rather than respond to David's post and question, you want to argue about the KJV.
-
Now, I simply defended myself and my beliefs. I did not personally attack people like you did.
Don't attack other people if you don't want responses to your post. If you did this in error, just say you misspoke and did not intend to offend others. -
I certainly understand that you responded to my post. That was your choice. However, my post addressed the topic, while yours only addresses what you thought you saw in my post. Now my choice will be to respond no further off topic. -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
To be exact, RL wrote his comments over a year ago,
-
-
alexander284 Well-Known Member
-
- no inspiration of the English translators
- willing to accept that other versions are the Bible
- able to read posts that use different translations without being offended
But still enjoys the full cadence and literalness of the Original KJV
Rob -
alexander284 Well-Known Member
-
Translators do their best to approximate the text.
We judge translations by their fidelity to the original;
- are they faithful to the original?,
- are they trustworthy?,
- are they true?,
- do they accurately communicate the message of the original to their modern audience?
They draw their authority from the original.
Rob -
alexander284 Well-Known Member
-
-
alexander284 Well-Known Member
-
I would not consider it a comprehensive answer to a modern KJV-only theory. -
Non-KJV-only advocates often show much more respect for the KJV than KJV-only advocates would show for other English Bible translations. Many non-KJV-only believers may read the KJV or at least accept it as what it actually is [a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense or in the same way as the pre-1611 English Bibles and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV].
Disagreeing with non-scriptural and erroneous human KJV-only reasoning would not be evidence of showing any disrespect to the KJV. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning attempts to assume and claim that the KJV is something that is merely assumed but not proven, and something that it is not. -
alexander284 Well-Known Member
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
Page 1 of 6