-
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!
Questions From A KJV-Onlyist
- Thread starter Baptist in Richmond
- Start date
Many would say that the english of that day was the highest level of lanuage we have ever seen. It must be understood that the Greek language is able to transmit the truth of Gods word better than english is. The truth of the Bible is deep, and often incomprehensible to the finite mind. Just becasue you have trouble understanding the KJV does not mean you need to dumb it down! By doing so, many times the passage becomes understandable, but some of the truth is lost!
By the way, all of my children have been raised with the KJV. They were never read bible story books, they were read bible stories - out of the KJV. My 6 year old reads the KJV. He does his devotions out of it, and - I know this will be hard to believe - he understands it. I know a man who has a 6th grade education, and is a bit slow. He reads it and does not seem to have a problem.
I think that the expectations are wrong, people today are taught, by the "christian leaders" that the bible should read like a novel. This is not the case - it should be pondered, and thought on.
The case for the hardness of the KJV to read is overstated - just ask my 6 year old.
He likes to look up passages in the TEV and compare them. My 4 year old does this with him. They look up passages they have memorized and laugh becasue the passages are so different, and sadly often lacking in real bible truth.
Not "exactly".
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm
The KJV translators and those who followed were dilligent in the correction of the AV1611.
Today we have a highly refined (although somewhat archaic) English version of the TR type Greek text in the 1853 KJV revision.
The text has been completely modernised in the NKJV and hopefully the NKJV translators will carry on the KJV legacy of refinement as well.
HankD
It is great to find out how many "wonderfully gifted genius level children" the KJVo's have. We MVers must have kids that are not bright at all. Every one of them will tell you their six year old can understand everything the KJV says, now heres one who's four year old is doing a textual criticism of the KJV vs. the TEV. Its just amazing!
Lacy Evans
New Member
I really don't feel like listing examples but do you suppose there are words in the ______(insert your pet-MV), that are new to a 6 year old, or perhaps used in a different way than they are used on Bart Simpson?
Quick....Ask your six year old to grab a dictionary. Now that's a teachable moment!
And besides, if he can't understand, he can always ask his preacher.
Lacy
Quick....Ask your six year old to grab a dictionary. Now that's a teachable moment!
And besides, if he can't understand, he can always ask his preacher.
Lacy
I wonder what the KJVO's do with the changes from 1611 to 1769?
Take a look and see at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm
It's amazing how any changes have been made. Which are the MV's? Which one's ahve added or subtracted from God's word? In many cases they have changed from a singular to a plural or vice versa. What a change of God's word! Who made the changes? Which one is correct? Which KJV can I trust if any? Sounds like what the NIV has done--change upon change.
Take a look and see at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm
It's amazing how any changes have been made. Which are the MV's? Which one's ahve added or subtracted from God's word? In many cases they have changed from a singular to a plural or vice versa. What a change of God's word! Who made the changes? Which one is correct? Which KJV can I trust if any? Sounds like what the NIV has done--change upon change.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
But the day will come when the child is in need of knowledge and won't have a preacher to fall back on. I guess he is just supposed to tough it out, huh?
Besides, listen to what you are saying. "I was raised on the kJV, and it makes perfect sense to me." Of course it does, since it is all you have ever known. "My kids grew up on the KJV, and they understood it." Yeah, just like Pop. "My kids compare the KJV to the TEV." Side by side shows that they are different, not necessarily wrong.
It is sad when people must depend upon a preacher to chew their meat and regurgitate it for them every Sunday morning. I know, because I was once there.
I didn't grow up on the KJV, or any other Bible. I grew up heathen, as they put it in these parts. But when I came to the Lord, the church gave me a brand new, $4.99 gift Bible (KJV with no references). Boy, was I ever confused by what I tried to read (and, contrary to what a few might think, I am pretty sharp and quick on the uptake). Problem was, nobody told me that you could find the Bible in an easier to read format. And when I did, I was told that they were not 'real' Bibles, but man's interpretation of what they thought the Bible meant.
My spiritual growth was nil for several years because I could not make a whole lot of sense from the archaic style and words of the KJV (and, since it was hard work, I didn't bother). But thank God that I was blessed with a pastor who was able to take that confusing book and make perfect sense as to what it was trying to say!
As I grew, I found Christian radio programming, and I added to my list of teachers. And I also discovered that I had been lied to about other Bibles besides the KJV, and began to make use of them.
Today I have no problem with the KJV. But it is not my translation of choice. The NKJV holds that distinction. But I often wonder how much further along I'd be now if I had had a Bible that I could actually understand back when I first came to Christ.
In Christ,
Trotter
Besides, listen to what you are saying. "I was raised on the kJV, and it makes perfect sense to me." Of course it does, since it is all you have ever known. "My kids grew up on the KJV, and they understood it." Yeah, just like Pop. "My kids compare the KJV to the TEV." Side by side shows that they are different, not necessarily wrong.
It is sad when people must depend upon a preacher to chew their meat and regurgitate it for them every Sunday morning. I know, because I was once there.
I didn't grow up on the KJV, or any other Bible. I grew up heathen, as they put it in these parts. But when I came to the Lord, the church gave me a brand new, $4.99 gift Bible (KJV with no references). Boy, was I ever confused by what I tried to read (and, contrary to what a few might think, I am pretty sharp and quick on the uptake). Problem was, nobody told me that you could find the Bible in an easier to read format. And when I did, I was told that they were not 'real' Bibles, but man's interpretation of what they thought the Bible meant.
My spiritual growth was nil for several years because I could not make a whole lot of sense from the archaic style and words of the KJV (and, since it was hard work, I didn't bother). But thank God that I was blessed with a pastor who was able to take that confusing book and make perfect sense as to what it was trying to say!
As I grew, I found Christian radio programming, and I added to my list of teachers. And I also discovered that I had been lied to about other Bibles besides the KJV, and began to make use of them.
Today I have no problem with the KJV. But it is not my translation of choice. The NKJV holds that distinction. But I often wonder how much further along I'd be now if I had had a Bible that I could actually understand back when I first came to Christ.
In Christ,
Trotter
So your six year old son knows the difference between expiation and propitiation? That’s incredible. Few adults know that.
The TEV was written for those who don’t attend church and have a sixth grade reading level or less. That means you cannot use latinisms to translate words. It was written so non-believers can read the message.
You do know the majority cannot even explain salvation. Most people don’t know that salvation has a temporal and eternal aspect to it. They often explain salvation as being saved. But when pressed and asked to explain what that means, they really don’t know. If you don’t believe me just start asking some people you know in church. Ask the people you know to explain what good salvation is. Most of the time they will tell you it is going to heaven. Then ask them what good it is now. Most don’t know.
When we are saved, we are saved from hell to heaven. But also our entire being is saved (James 1:21, “Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”
Great points GB and Trotter,
Trotter you hit the nail on the head on my thaughts. "Grew up on a KJV." Yes, I did, but I still can't read it and understand it as well as my ESV. I don't care WHAT people say, their six year old can read the words, but probably does not absorb 30% of the message.
I've said this before, but I remember as a child when the Good News for Modern Man hit the churches. I was only nine or ten and I devoured it during church; reading things that I had "no idea" were in the Bible I had been reading since I could read. And I was also reading at a very young age. It amazed me.
The KJV understandability has a lot to do with being raised on it, but understanding the words and "knowing what the words meant in the 18th century" are two different issues.
Trotter you hit the nail on the head on my thaughts. "Grew up on a KJV." Yes, I did, but I still can't read it and understand it as well as my ESV. I don't care WHAT people say, their six year old can read the words, but probably does not absorb 30% of the message.
I've said this before, but I remember as a child when the Good News for Modern Man hit the churches. I was only nine or ten and I devoured it during church; reading things that I had "no idea" were in the Bible I had been reading since I could read. And I was also reading at a very young age. It amazed me.
The KJV understandability has a lot to do with being raised on it, but understanding the words and "knowing what the words meant in the 18th century" are two different issues.
Quick....do a homework assignment. Ask your six year old what the word "quick" in the KJV means. </font>[/QUOTE]Quick ask your pastor what a satrap is. Its used in the NIV...
Or, ask your kid what the word quick means in the NASB (Lev 13:10) Its the same as the KJV...
You know, I think you are missing the point here. Is the goal to creat a bible that reads at the first grade level?
Or better yet, at what educational level does a person understand all of the timless truths of God?
The point is that he can read it, and understands it. Does he understand all of it? Do you? I don't... and never will. Does he come to me with questions? Sure. Am I teaching him how to look up words in a dictionary, sure. Whould I have to do that with any other version? Yes.
The point is this, I have chosen to educate rather than to dumb down the word of God.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Amen, Phillip.
I got to preach last night at church. I use a NKJV, but almost everyone in the church uses a KJV (some are borderline onlies). So I printed off my text as side-by-side KJV and NKJV. That way I could read and interchange them.
It was amazing at the reaction I got from some of them when I read a verse from the NKJV, and followed it by the KJV. You could see the lights begin to flicker on. But, on others, you could see the shades being drawn. I guess if I could have actually said what I was trying to say it would have been different (my mind outruns my mouth, or is that the other way around?).
But, yeah, putting the two next to each other to open up the meaning really seemed to help a lot of them who never really understood what the text said.
In Christ,
Trotter
I got to preach last night at church. I use a NKJV, but almost everyone in the church uses a KJV (some are borderline onlies). So I printed off my text as side-by-side KJV and NKJV. That way I could read and interchange them.
It was amazing at the reaction I got from some of them when I read a verse from the NKJV, and followed it by the KJV. You could see the lights begin to flicker on. But, on others, you could see the shades being drawn. I guess if I could have actually said what I was trying to say it would have been different (my mind outruns my mouth, or is that the other way around?).
But, yeah, putting the two next to each other to open up the meaning really seemed to help a lot of them who never really understood what the text said.
In Christ,
Trotter
Not "exactly".
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm
The KJV translators and those who followed were dilligent in the correction of the AV1611.
I would respectfully disagree. The KJV we use today differs only in spelling and font style from the 1611. The NKJV has changed word order, and is traslated differently.
I am not saying this is bad (translating changes) only that it is a departure from the tradition of revisions to the KJV. If there are word changes from the 1611, I would like to know, i often read a copy of the 1611, goffy font type, and spelling to people with modern "1611's" and have never found a difference.
Today we have a highly refined (although somewhat archaic) English version of the TR type Greek text in the 1853 KJV revision.
The text has been completely modernised in the NKJV and hopefully the NKJV translators will carry on the KJV legacy of refinement as well.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]
Please, don't put words in my mouth. It is disrespectful. I never said anything about your kids, and if the implication was there, I am sorry.Originally posted by Phillip:
It is great to find out how many "wonderfully gifted genius level children" the KJVo's have. We MVers must have kids that are not bright at all. Every one of them will tell you their six year old can understand everything the KJV says, now heres one who's four year old is doing a textual criticism of the KJV vs. the TEV. Its just amazing!
The point is that even a 6 year old can read the KJV and profit from it if he so desires.
Why no mention of the adult with the 6th grade educaiton?
Quick....do a homework assignment. Ask your six year old what the word "quick" in the KJV means. </font>[/QUOTE]Quick ask your preacher what the word Satrap means, its used in the NIV...
Quick ask your 6 year old what the word Quick means in the NASB - its the same as the KJV.
Please, don't put words in my mouth. It is disrespectful. I never said anything about your kids, and if the implication was there, I am sorry.Originally posted by David Rea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
It is great to find out how many "wonderfully gifted genius level children" the KJVo's have. We MVers must have kids that are not bright at all. Every one of them will tell you their six year old can understand everything the KJV says, now heres one who's four year old is doing a textual criticism of the KJV vs. the TEV. Its just amazing!
The point is that even a 6 year old can read the KJV and profit from it if he so desires.
Why no mention of the adult with the 6th grade educaiton? </font>[/QUOTE]David,
This are a "deeeebate" site. We tease each other a lot, so don't feel bad. If ya' gets teased here, ya is one o' tha' group. Gets it?
I learned a long time ago that I had to have thick skin to take some of the debaters in here.
In all seriousness, I don't think the idea of a modern version is to "dumb" the Bible down any. I think it is actually to provide people with a version that is closer to the actual language we use on a daily basis. English is quite complex and I don't think it has "gone downhill" since 1611. (Except, of course, in the area of street slang) But, I think it is quite possible to render God's words into any language. I just do not feel that it HAS to be the KJV version.
Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
[QB] I really don't feel like listing examples but do you suppose there are words in the ______(insert your pet-MV), that are new to a 6 year old, or perhaps used in a different way than they are used on Bart Simpson?
Quick....Ask your six year old to grab a dictionary. Now that's a teachable moment!
And besides, if he can't understand, he can always ask his preacher.
Or his dad...
The premise that the word of God can be brought down to the comprehension level of man in any language is false. Even having a working understanding of Greek, many passages elude my understanding. Looking at it in English, Greek, reading many comentaries - all without answering the quesiton. But I can take that same passage and read it in a modern version and it makes sense, but the question I have is lost in the transaltion.
My only point is that people can read and understand the KJV.
Trotter,
My pastor does a lot of Bible study on Wednesday nights where he goes into more detail in understanding scripture than he does on Sunday (Yes, he uses a lot of scripture, just doesn't break it down for the specific cause of "study")
He likes to project it on a screen we have from a computer. It works out nice because our church is full of a lot of older people who have used nothing but the KJV. He will show a passage on the screen and then say, "and some versions will use this word" and then change a word to the same as from the NKJV. This works very well and not one person has complained.
I got to teach a class on Genesis during Sunday evenings and the last class the people wanted to go into Bible history (where the Bible came from). It was very interesting to find that although most of the older folks just preferred their KJV that they had no problem if someone wanted to use another translation. Many of these are older folks who are very, very conservative.
The pastor then asked me if he did a study out of the NKJV would I think there would be a problem. I told him that I had yet to see anybody in our church who was a KJVo. So, he used the NKJV and people loved it. Not one complaint. When we selected "pew Bibles" it was voted to use a KJV. But people seem to follow right along with their KJV and the NKJV. So, that is the reason for the pastor's choice of translation. That is the reason I think the NKJV will "finally" become the new KJV standard within fifty years or so. Every single time the KJV was modified, there were people who complained; then it would finally be accepted by the next generation.
In all seriousness, I don't think the idea of a modern version is to "dumb" the Bible down any. I think it is actually to provide people with a version that is closer to the actual language we use on a daily basis. English is quite complex and I don't think it has "gone downhill" since 1611. (Except, of course, in the area of street slang) But, I think it is quite possible to render God's words into any language. I just do not feel that it HAS to be the KJV version.
I will agree that it does not HAVE to be the KJV. But the problem is that the new version are translated from different texts. These texts are missing verses, and have some real issues. So, it is logical that the KJV is guilty of adding to the Word of God, or these new versions are guilty of taking away from it. Both are serious sins - and both are prohibited in the NT. One is guilty. The question then arises: which one. We may disagree on this, and that's ok.
English has gone downhill since at least the 1800's. I have started reading sermons from the 1800's - Charles Finney is a great one. I have to read it with a dictionary. Our language has REALLY gone down hill in the last 50 years in the US, due to outcome based education.
It is interesting to study the history of the US. One of the first laws passed by the puritons was called the great deluder act. It provided for education of children to read, so that the great deluder (satan) could not decieve the people into religious heresy, as was done by the RCC's in Europe.
I see the same thing happening today with our educational system. This problem transcends the bible debate because it doesn't matter how simple you make the lanuage - if they can't read!
I will agree that it does not HAVE to be the KJV. But the problem is that the new version are translated from different texts. These texts are missing verses, and have some real issues. So, it is logical that the KJV is guilty of adding to the Word of God, or these new versions are guilty of taking away from it. Both are serious sins - and both are prohibited in the NT. One is guilty. The question then arises: which one. We may disagree on this, and that's ok.
English has gone downhill since at least the 1800's. I have started reading sermons from the 1800's - Charles Finney is a great one. I have to read it with a dictionary. Our language has REALLY gone down hill in the last 50 years in the US, due to outcome based education.
It is interesting to study the history of the US. One of the first laws passed by the puritons was called the great deluder act. It provided for education of children to read, so that the great deluder (satan) could not decieve the people into religious heresy, as was done by the RCC's in Europe.
I see the same thing happening today with our educational system. This problem transcends the bible debate because it doesn't matter how simple you make the lanuage - if they can't read!