Here's an interesting morsel from the S.B.C.
http://sbcvoices.com/its-time-to-re...eed&utm_campaign=Feed:+SbcVoices+(SBC+Voices)
[Stands well back]
Retiring the KJV
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Martin Marprelate, Sep 8, 2011.
Page 1 of 3
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Yes, it is very interesting.
main objection - tradition - all my memorization was from "The Version" -
I certainly do not agree with this opinion.
-
-
The writer makes excellent points. English today is vastly different than the language was in the 17th Century. Words change meaning or fall by the wayside, thus we lose some of the subtleties and nuances, as well as major points.
-
Dave Miller's article just reflects common sense. There is nothing new in his remarks.
I liked some of his lines though:
''...offer the KJV a gold watch,shake its hand,and let it fade into history.''
''Even the traditionalism of KJV-preference can be a little oppressive.''
His article was inspired by Andrew Wencl's ''resolution''. -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I am 60 years old. I have used the KJV since I was old enough to read. Probably age 5 or 6. It has served me well for some 55 or so years. I see no reason to change. Those of you who want to "retire" it are ridiculous.
-
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Is that a fact? -
No single ''proclamation'' will retire the KJV. People will still buy and should be able to with no restrictions. People will accept gifts of the KJV as well.
But it's just plain common sense that there are many other superior alternatives when it comes to faithful translations of the Word of God. -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
:sleeping_2: :sleep: :flower: :1_grouphug:
-
I'm not going to tell Rippon was bible to use. I'm not that arrogant. He can use what he wants, and I don't think any less of him.
That being said, allow me to illustrate one point. People beat up on the KJV for being "inaccurate." I'll give the old KJV this much - at least it is consistent in its treatment of biblical chronology. Most modern "more accurate" translations (by the way, you are free to use as far as I'm concerned) say that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt. According to Genesis 46 and Exodus 6, this is chronologically impossible. But yes, throw away the old inaccurate KJV for the more accurate modern translations.
Here's a better thought. Use your translation and I'll use mine. -
Whats interesting is that the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible with them to the New World, in spite of the fact that "King James went so far as to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony." to be really spiritual maybe we should stop using that new translation of 1611 and go back to the Geneva Bible :smilewinkgrin:
-
-
-
-
The KJV is so inaccurate that ALL the noted theologians of the 1900's used it to develop their Systematic Theologies. Odd, innit!
We used it throughout old fundamental Christianity in defence against the march of liberalism in the 40's, 50's and into the 60's.
I will stand by my 1945 copy of the KJV (Cambridge) to my dying day. Every copy of the bible has errors, grammatical and otherwise. Don't be lazy in study and sort them out. It is not that difficult.
Cheers,
Jim -
Page 1 of 3