-
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
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Ditto
So your six year old son knows the difference between expiation and propitiation? That’s incredible. Few adults know that. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't want to be mean, but i never said that he understood every word. I said that he profited from it.
Please don't put words in my mouth!?!?!?!?!?
Hey, the new version have some of those BIG fancy words too. If they did not what use would they be? THE POINT IS THAT A SIX YEAR OLD CAN USE THE KJV AND SPIRITUALLY PROFIT FROM IT.
The bias against this statement is evident from this post. Why is this? Why has no one said - PRAISE GOD! A kid who likes to study the BIBLE!
Wow - what a concept!
Again I don't want to be mean, but are why are people so offended at this? We preach to hundreds of kids each week with the KJV. Its not a problem. Our (church) teenagers not only read it - they preach out of it. It's not a problem in thier lives.
By the way I asked him (my son) if he understood it. He said that most of the time he does. When he does not know a word, he looks it up in my concordance, and reads the definition of the word.
Did I say he had absolute understanding? Never. So why bring up words like expiation and propitiation? That is not the point. He could look them up.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT??????????????????????????????
So your six year old son knows the difference between expiation and propitiation? That’s incredible. Few adults know that. </font>[/QUOTE]Would you feel better if he used some new version of the bible?
Would this be better?
What about his memorization? What version should we use?
Both my 4 year old, and 6 year old have over 200 verses comitted to memory - they have entire chapters memorized. If I use a new version, this will confuse them. They have entire sections of the KJV memorized.
At 3 my daughter quoted Ps. 23 in her sleep.
My point is not to brag, but to illustrate that these kids can learn! God has given them the ability.
My kids are not unique - another family in church is more commited that us! Their kids can quote from memory entire chapters. Why? It is the priority in the home. The kids don't watch TV, movies, or cartoons. They play. They use thier mind.
My concern is do we need easy reader versions for the lost people - or for the saved?
I cannot understand why people are hostile to the idea that a 6 year old reads the KJV!? Is this not a good thing? Is he not developing his mind? Should we not chalenge our kids?
This kid comes up to me and says, "dad, I think we need to go knock some doors and pass out tracts, too many people are going to hell." He loves to witness. He is exposed to only the KJV, and he is exhibiting great spiritual growth.
Yet all I hear from this board are jabs and cuts.
Why?
It is a proven fact that the simpler the language the greater the comprehension.
You are just kidding yourself if you think people really understand that language. Few do.
I have had several preachers tell me if they use the KJV their sermons will be longer because they have to explain the words. What a waste of time to think that someone would spend the time doig that when a more modern transaltion would do that.
"For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." [D. A. Carson, "The King James Version Debate" p. 102]
You are just kidding yourself if you think people really understand that language. Few do.
I have had several preachers tell me if they use the KJV their sermons will be longer because they have to explain the words. What a waste of time to think that someone would spend the time doig that when a more modern transaltion would do that.
"For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." [D. A. Carson, "The King James Version Debate" p. 102]
David, GB is simply trying to explain that children will likely "learn" a lot more about the Word of God if they can be allowed to read it in the language that they use, not a language that is over 300 years old.
Don't get so defensive, nobody is trying to put words in your mouth. Listen to what you are saying: Your three year old quotes Psalms 23 when she is asleep. That means that I am sure she understands what she is saying.
There is NOTHING at all wrong with a KJV, but with today's modern versions, it is ridiculous to make teenagers in your church have to use such old language. (Yes, technically it is not olde English, but yes, it is definitely a far distance from what the kids learn in school.) You yourself mentioned how bad the kid's language is today. This is just another reason for allowing them to use something they understand.
This reminds me of the song we sang in church: "When the role is called up 'yonder". For ten years I couldn't figure out what a "pyonder" was and why a roll would be called a "Pyonder". Now you may think I am silly and that is really dumb, but in reality that is the way kids understand and view things--at their level. It is so cute to see a child memorize and say Psalms 23 in KJV and no doubt that will only help the child as they grow older. But, don't you think your child would understand a lot more if they were to read in the language they speak?
In NO WAY am I calling the KJV a bad Bible. It is an excellent translation; but, is it the best for children, or even adults today? Just because someone can read the words, claim they understand them does not mean they really "get the picture".
A dictionary is fine, but not if they look up the modern version of the definition.
What GB is also saying, and I must agree is that your children probably understand a lot less than you think they do. You yourself made a statement that makes me think that this is true. When you mentioned they read a modern translation and "laughed" at it because it was different; because most modern translations are so close to the original meaning, it makes me wonder if your kids really do understand it because they do not seem to see that the "message" is the same--not just the individual "words."
It was even Dr. Bob who mentioned that Sunday School classes typically took twice as much time explaining terminology than when using a Modern Version.
The fact that you even allow your children to laugh at a translation of the Word of God brings up an interesting question: I sense that your real issue is not the reading level of the KJV, but the fact that you are probably a KJVo believer.
This which puts a whole different spectrum of light on the subject and possibly on what should be the real debate--not whether or not the KJV is as understandable as an MV. Am I correct?
If this is the case, then let's debate KJV-onlyism instead of the level of comprehension of a 400 year old translation.
Don't get so defensive, nobody is trying to put words in your mouth. Listen to what you are saying: Your three year old quotes Psalms 23 when she is asleep. That means that I am sure she understands what she is saying.
There is NOTHING at all wrong with a KJV, but with today's modern versions, it is ridiculous to make teenagers in your church have to use such old language. (Yes, technically it is not olde English, but yes, it is definitely a far distance from what the kids learn in school.) You yourself mentioned how bad the kid's language is today. This is just another reason for allowing them to use something they understand.
This reminds me of the song we sang in church: "When the role is called up 'yonder". For ten years I couldn't figure out what a "pyonder" was and why a roll would be called a "Pyonder". Now you may think I am silly and that is really dumb, but in reality that is the way kids understand and view things--at their level. It is so cute to see a child memorize and say Psalms 23 in KJV and no doubt that will only help the child as they grow older. But, don't you think your child would understand a lot more if they were to read in the language they speak?
In NO WAY am I calling the KJV a bad Bible. It is an excellent translation; but, is it the best for children, or even adults today? Just because someone can read the words, claim they understand them does not mean they really "get the picture".
A dictionary is fine, but not if they look up the modern version of the definition.
What GB is also saying, and I must agree is that your children probably understand a lot less than you think they do. You yourself made a statement that makes me think that this is true. When you mentioned they read a modern translation and "laughed" at it because it was different; because most modern translations are so close to the original meaning, it makes me wonder if your kids really do understand it because they do not seem to see that the "message" is the same--not just the individual "words."
It was even Dr. Bob who mentioned that Sunday School classes typically took twice as much time explaining terminology than when using a Modern Version.
The fact that you even allow your children to laugh at a translation of the Word of God brings up an interesting question: I sense that your real issue is not the reading level of the KJV, but the fact that you are probably a KJVo believer.
This which puts a whole different spectrum of light on the subject and possibly on what should be the real debate--not whether or not the KJV is as understandable as an MV. Am I correct?
If this is the case, then let's debate KJV-onlyism instead of the level of comprehension of a 400 year old translation.
Obviously, you are not reading all of the posts. I gave you a compliment above by agreeing that many people can read the KJV. Did you miss it? I was wondering since you didn't respond. Maybe you are just looking for the jabs?
I quote and paste it here:
I don't think anybody here is "jabbing" you because your children read the KJV. That is great and if you raise them reading the KJV, all the more power to you; but obviously you are teaching them that it is the only translation that is accurate based on your comments about how they make fun of another Bible; THIS is where the problems begin.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by David Rea:
My only point is that people can read and understand the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I don't disagree with that for one minute. I know this is right.
High-Five Oklahoma buddy!
Exodus 12:13 CEV "The blood on the houses will show me where you live, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. Then you won't be bothered by the terrible disasters I will bring on Egypt"
Exodus 12:13 KJV "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."
The problem is that while the CEV is easier to read, it's not right. God allready knows where the people live! He does not need blood on a door for that! And it's not about the people being "bothered", it is about them not being destroyed!
While it is true simple language leads to more understanding, some concepts do not lend themselves to simple language! Would you advocate writing a manual for a nuclear reactor at a 2nd grade reading level? Would not a few important concepts be lost?
The passage they laughed at was in the CEV, Exodus 12:13. They found it funny that God needed the blood on the doorposts to know where the people lived. They have always been taught that God knows everything. They were shocked that a "bible" taught, or seemed to teach, that He does not.
Exodus 12:13 CEV "The blood on the houses will show me where you live, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. Then you won't be bothered by the terrible disasters I will bring on Egypt"
Exodus 12:13 KJV "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."
The problem is that while the CEV is easier to read, it's not right. God allready knows where the people live! He does not need blood on a door for that! And it's not about the people being "bothered", it is about them not being destroyed!
While it is true simple language leads to more understanding, some concepts do not lend themselves to simple language! Would you advocate writing a manual for a nuclear reactor at a 2nd grade reading level? Would not a few important concepts be lost? </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you are missing the point. The bottom line is Modern Translations are NOT WRITTEN to "DUMB" down the Bible. They are written to translate it into a language closer to what we currently speak. You are wrong about the language of 1611 being more complex.
The quote you made is an accurate translation of the Hebrew, whether you like it or not. We do NOT translate to what we WANT to hear, we translate to the most accurate translation into English that is possible.
I am now beginning to realize that the problem is not the language of the KJV, but the fact that you are KJVo. The only question is; how far do you take it:
Are you KJV preferred. Thinking it is the best translation, but realizing that it is a human translation? or do you go as far as to believe it is word-for-word without error whatsoever.
If our language has been going downhill for many years; why don't we pull out the 1611 King James and use it since it is probably more complex than the KJV.
Where do you stand on the KJV stance and lets debate that, since that is obviously your real issue here.
If you will look at the Hebrew; God is telling the people to place blood on the houses so He knows or can tell where they are, or are located.
Now, should I laugh at the Word of God because God says He wants blood so He can tell where the people are located or "are" in the Hebrew?
Shouldn't God already know that?
In this case the CEV is probably a better translation into today's English. Although both get it right, the CEV states its accuracy to the Hebrew a little better. I did notice where you obtained the reference. THAT tells me a lot.
Now, should I laugh at the Word of God because God says He wants blood so He can tell where the people are located or "are" in the Hebrew?
Shouldn't God already know that?
In this case the CEV is probably a better translation into today's English. Although both get it right, the CEV states its accuracy to the Hebrew a little better. I did notice where you obtained the reference. THAT tells me a lot.
To an extent you are. The issue is more complex. I am not opposed to a translation different than the KJV. However, all modern translations are based on a different Greek text. The modern translations are sold based on the "readability" argument, no mention is made that they are trasnlated from a different Greek text. The public, as a whole, has no comprehension of this.Originally posted by Phillip:
The fact that you even allow your children to laugh at a translation of the Word of God brings up an interesting question: I sense that your real issue is not the reading level of the KJV, but the fact that you are probably a KJVo believer.
This which puts a whole different spectrum of light on the subject and possibly on what should be the real debate--not whether or not the KJV is as understandable as an MV. Am I correct?
If this is the case, then let's debate KJV-onlyism instead of the level of comprehension of a 400 year old translation.
Other issues are memorization, and unity in Church. It is hard to follow when multiple versions are used, and it is imposible to have unified public readings. But these issues are secondary to the changes in the Greek text.
If one would like to debate which text is best, I would suggest John 1:18. Should it read only begotten God, or only begotten son?
Is their a problem with a beggoten God? Not if your a JW! The debate needs to center around, not our interpretation of the verse, but the textual evidence for each reading.
Two manuscripts, and two paparus fragments are used to support the "only begotten God" reading. The earliest of these is P66, dated in the early 3rd century. All of support for these readings come from Alexandria Egypt.
In contrast, their are over 170 quotes or alusions to the "only begotten son" reading all before the 3rd century. In addition to this all of the other manuscripts, and paparus fragments are unified in rendering the verse "only begotten son". This is significant becasue it isolates the "god" reading to one physical location. It is also interesting that it is this location in which the Arian Heresy arose in the late 2nd century. It is here that Arius was a pastor. It was this Heresy that was denounced by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
So, do we reject the unifed testimony of the early church fathers prior to the 3rd centruy, and the unified body of textual evidence outside of Alexandira for two fragemnts and two manuscripts? All the new version do.
Then if you do accept it, how do you explain Christ being called begotten? Even if you use the alternitive definition for begotten (mongenes) you still have two explain two Gods - one in Heaven that no man has seen, and one on earth.
This is an example of an Arian coruption of a text that has found its way into the modern bibles.
Why don't we look at it in a more literal translation like the NASB. I myself am not a CEV fan nor do I know that much about it. So, I stick to the mainstream MV's and the NASB is about as close to the Hebrew as you can get--and as we know, we are dealing with the Old Testament so it is simply a translational issue, not a manuscript problem.
Here is about as close as accurate as you can get in translating the actual Hebrew:
Exodus 12:13 NASB
And the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
Notice God wants to see the blood. Why does He need to see the blood in order to pass over. Does He not know where they live?
Here is about as close as accurate as you can get in translating the actual Hebrew:
Exodus 12:13 NASB
And the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
Notice God wants to see the blood. Why does He need to see the blood in order to pass over. Does He not know where they live?
Originally posted by Phillip:
If you will look at the Hebrew; God is telling the people to place blood on the houses so He knows or can tell where they are, or are located.
Now, should I laugh at the Word of God because God says He wants blood so He can tell where the people are located or "are" in the Hebrew?
Shouldn't God already know that?
In this case the CEV is probably a better translation into today's English. Although both get it right, the CEV states its accuracy to the Hebrew a little better. I did notice where you obtained the reference. THAT tells me a lot.
What word in Hebrew signifes that?Originally posted by Phillip:
If you will look at the Hebrew; God is telling the people to place blood on the houses so He knows or can tell where they are, or are located.
Now, should I laugh at the Word of God because God says He wants blood so He can tell where the people are located or "are" in the Hebrew?
Shouldn't God already know that?
In this case the CEV is probably a better translation into today's English. Although both get it right, the CEV states its accuracy to the Hebrew a little better. I did notice where you obtained the reference. THAT tells me a lot.