King James Bible Companion

But, isn't that the excuse for all the MV's? "We need a Bible in "our" language? 21st century people don't use the "language" of the KJV, they can't possibly understand it".

Then, how do you expect to communicate with those you're witnessing to if you aren't using "their" language? They're not going to understand you, according to your own reasoning. :tonofbricks:

 

Well,my dear B4L, do you use KJV-speak when witnessing? Do you think that is the way to go? The unsaved,especially those from unchurched backgrounds would think you are mad(to use KJV-speak.) Standard 21st century speech is perfectly acceptable --the Lord will use it. In short,the language of the 2011 NIV,HCSB,NET Bible and NLTse is what they will understand. Then those bricks won't fall on your head because of your frustration.

 

You have mistaken me. I don't defend all of the MVs.

Ebonics and Dublin street talk are not languages. They are coarse crude dialects often including vulgar (in the modern sense of the word) phrases and words. The Ebonics 'bible' is not even an attempt at a literal translation.

There is a big difference between that and English of the 21st century.

 

Btw, I think more unsaved people are familiar with Scripture from the KJV than any other.

 

Then I apologize. :godisgood:

 

I'll pray for you! :tongue3:

 

Are you suggesting that the KJV translators were wrong in offering a similar reason for their making of another English translation when several were already available?

In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators wrote: "We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar [common]."

Are you suggesting that the KJV translators were wrong to update a great deal of the archaic language in the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was offically a revision?

 

Unless you use some sort of supernatural Bible that is not actually printed on paper with ink or not electronically delivered to your eyes or ears then you are using a Bible that wholly man-made.

 

Then what you are saying is that not one single Bible in the entire world is inspired by the Holy Spirit...correct?

 

This is just about the most ridiculous response to a post I've ever read.

 

No translation is inspired in and of itself. That which it is translated from IS inspired. All translations are the works of men's hands, attempts to deliver to us in our own language what God gave in languages other than our own. There is no second inspiration, else the canon would not be complete and we would be spewing out new revelations left and right (like the Mormons do).

 

I personally believe the only truly inspired word is in the original manuscripts. I believe the word has been preserved in essence through the various copies passed down through the ages. Hence, we do have the word of God in our hands.

In addition, this is also what makes systematic theology so important. It does not affirm a doctrine based on an isolated verse, but an accumulated meaning derived from the whole of scripture.

Thus I can hold my KJV and say I am holding the word of God. You may hold your version and truly say you are holding the word of God. The essence of what God gave to us IS contained in those versions, though there may be various differences in some verses, they do not affect the whole.

That is my understanding for what it is worth.

Cheers,

Jim

 

No, I'm saying that Bibles don't grow on trees. Somebody has to physically make them, print them, record them.

But on the hand, the Bible states that holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The KJV translators did not 'speak' new content when translating; the 'speaking' had already been done by prophets and apostles. What competent translators do is praiseworthy, but I wouldn't say that it has the attributes of divine inspiration.

 

Yes, I agree, for tranlation. I would need a dictionary if the only bible I had was in what to me is a foreign language, and Ebonics is a foreign language to me. (Even some words in standard American English either aren't used in British English, or have a completely different meaning - like gas, hood, drapes, sidewalk). But would a person who regularly uses Ebonics need to consult a dictionary to find out what "You be chillin, So be yo hood" means? No more than a Cockney would need a dictionary to understand, "Me trouble and strife took a butchers at me plates of meat."

Yes, it is of course true that not everyone speaks the same modern language. But not everyone spoke the same language in 1611 either. Nowadays, very few people actually use the English of the KJV as their main language. I would suggest that not even the most zealous KJV supporter would say to their family doctor, "Go, I pray thee, to my house,
for my wife hath a sore sickness of long continuance."

I hope that you can also understand and accept that there are many of us who use a translation other than the KJV, who at the same time are not against the KJV.

I apologise sincerely if you thought anything I have posted was meant to make make you look stupid. I assure you that wasn't my intention.

Yes, I praise God indeed for His great blessings, both those everyday things like food and clothing, and those amazing things He has done to enable a sinner such as me to go to His glorious heaven.

 

But Rippon didn't ask whether you used the KJV when witnessing, but whether you use what he called "KJV-speak". In other words, when you are witnessing using your own words, for example, giving your testimony, would you say to your hearer something such as this:
"Suffer me to tell thee how the Lord hath dealt with me. Aforetime I walked in ways of iniquity. Mine eye was blind to the good tidings of the gospel. But lo! the Lord hath now verily removed my blindness."

 

Amen! This is the problem. We have many christians believing there is no 100% inspired bible anywhere on the face of the earth. That God failed to keep His promise to preserve His word when he said: My words shall endure forever.

 

So you believe that God does not get involved when it comes to His holy Word? Or let me put it another way, God was not involved at all when the KJV translators set out to translate? That God just went away and allowed His word to be tampered with beyond restraint?

God can and does use all types of men to get His will done.