1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is The King James Sacrosanct?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Oct 31, 2010.

  1. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist

    It is to me! :thumbs:
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    That's part of what 'priesthood of the believer' is about.
     
  3. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, the king james version is most sacred to me, inviolable and basically true to what God intended me to know.

    Is it a perfect translation? No. Is the language up-to-date? No. Is it understandable? With some effort, yes.

    What do you understand by sacrosanct?

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Actually, I do not know of any printer that prints a KJV edition today that is every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition. There are over 200 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and most KJV editions in print today. A number of them has been pointed out in another thread.
     
  5. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Use what you want to use, but the archaic language argument is really lame.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you saying that when most folks claim that they prefer more modern versions especially because they can't understand the archaic language of the KJV's -- they are actually lying?

    Do you think that the KJV's contain perfectly understandable language? Would a William Tyndale think that KJV veneration is the way to go? Wouldn't he want a Bible translation that even a garage mechanic could comprehend?
     
  7. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    No doubt about it--the King James Bible is special.

    I read other versions to quickly access the thought behind a passage. However, I am constantly amazed how the King James Version goes deeper than the other versions. Yes, the KJV requires more work. And most of the time it is worth the extra effort.

    My current path to the treasure of the KJV is to read three versions in the following order:

    NIV 1984
    NRSV
    KJV​

    There is simplicity in Bible study--that's when I reach for a modern version. There is also depth in Bible study--which is really why I read the Bible. And the KJV delivers the depth.

    That is where I am with the KJV.

    ...Bob
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do think that William Tyndale's New Testament "delivers depth" or simplicity? You know,of course that the KJV revisers retained as much as 90% or so of Tyndale's renderings. But WT still managed, almost 90 years before the KJV, to write more simply than the latter version.

    Do you think that the NRSV and NASB are in simple form?

    I'd really like to know what you mean by the word depth in this context.
     
  9. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not a professor or minister, but a retired businessman who studies the Bible.

    I did read through the Tyndale New Testament once, many years ago. And yes, I noticed the similarities between the KJV and Tyndale's New Testament. But the KJV committee did not appear to borrow Tyndale's text word for word. I remember reading once that one of the objectives of the KJV committee was to produce a translation that publicly read well in churches--read well according to Elizabethan language standards.

    Many years ago I took a college course in Shakespeare and learned to appreciate what I call the depth of the formal Elizabethan language. I also purchased audio recordings of all the Shakespearean plays and listened to them while I exercised. I also listened to audio recordings of the Bible--KJV, NIV, and NLT.

    . . .


    By depth, I guess I am speaking on two levels. The first level is the depth of the KJV read aloud in public. I agree the KJV must have been translated to be read aloud in churches and other public settings, by people trained in the skill of public reading. Under such conditions, many modern translations pale by comparison--in my humble opinion.

    Related to the public reading quality is how well the KJV works when singing the Psalms. I like to sing a psalm as part of my Bible study. Well, it is not actually singing like the singing of hymns in church. Instead, my psalm singing is more like chanting with an inflection of the voice at the end of each verse. As with reading aloud, the KJV also provides more depth when I sing the Psalms or poetic passages of the Prophets.

    . . .


    The second level of depth is best illustrated by Peter's comment to Cornelius in Acts 10:29.

    "So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?" (NIV 1984, TNIV, NIV 2011)

    "So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?" (NRSV)

    "So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me." (ESV)

    "That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me." (NASB)

    "Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?" (KJV)​

    True, in everyday language and modern text we use the term "objection." However, the term "gainsay" carries a depth that when we object to something we are really speaking from the position of personal gain.

    And when we compare the modern term "reason" with the KJV term "intent", we also see a deeper distinction. "What is your reason?" is mild while "What is your intent?" goes deep.

    . . .


    I do not consider the NASB to be a simple translation, but a literal translation with shades of depth. Some have referred to the NASB as a "wooden" translation. I used to belong to a Bible study group called Line-by-Line that used the NASB because the teacher thought it was the most literal translation in English. I am no Bible translator, but I know from personal experience the NASB does not roll off my tongue like the KJV.

    . . .


    Finally, a while back I attended a KJVO church where the minister had the habit of calling upon members to read aloud specific verses. This was an eye-opening worship experience for me as I observed young and old alike reading aloud the KJV.

    For family reasons, I have moved on to another church that accepts any translation. I sometimes take the NIV when I am in group Bible study so I will fit into the crowd. When I leave the KJV at home I often feel I am missing something in the depth of God's Word.

    Yes, the KJV is special.

    . . .


    I hope I answered your questions.

    ...Bob
     
Loading...