Why has the KJV been so popular?

This is not true. "every honest question"? Some perhaps.

If you believe God created everything that ever will be, how can anything not be part of the original miracle?

Jesus warns about calling people fools.

 

Those would be the same who say that we should use the Kjv to correct any mistakes in the Greek/Hebrew texts themselves.
I remember one time in a Macdonalds after mid week church, when a close friend and I discussed what we had heard in the sermon, and 2 elderly men thanked us when we left for talking about the Bible, and just wanted to let us know they noticed we did not use the Kjv, and should, since "It was good enough for moses, good enough fore us"

 

This is ambiguous. Let me try this. Please define "miracle." What I'm getting from you is that you think every act of God is a miracle, no matter if it is providential (taking up to 1000s of years). Is this your definition?

You didn't interpret Scripture, though.

Not the topic. "Miraculously" was not in the OP, nor was "preferred."

For the record, I say the KJV has endured so long because of:
1. Its accuracy (in 1611 Middle English)
2. Its beauty of language
3. Its basis in the Masoretic OT and the TR, which many believe are where the Scriptures are preserved
4. Conservative religionists, of which I am one, do not like change

 

I can't get him to answer me on it, but 1689Dave appears to follow the "purified 7 times" theory, based on Ps. 12:6, which supposes that the KJV is perfect now due to revisions, even if it was not perfect in its original manuscripts (which no one knows the location of).

Of course, it's a huge leap of logic to get the English language into the book of Psalms, but that doesn't stop the advocates of this theory.

 

Indubitably!

 

I base my claim for providence as being part of God's original creation. So it is itself as miraculous.

I usually do not interpret scripture for others unless necessary.

All of which are part of God's providence.

 

In other words, you can't or won't define "miracle." This means that no one can disagree with you, because no one knows what in the world you are talking about when you use the word "miracle," or "providence" for that matter. Others have clearly defined both on this thread, but not you. You are content to generalize every specific.

Yeah, I've noticed. This is another reason you are very hard to figure out. You simply throw a proof text out there, assuming it proves your point. That leaves the rest of us guessing what in the world you are talking about. In this case, your proof test wasn't even about the subject at hand.

Come on, gather your courage and say exactly what you mean next time.

Well, yes, I agree, except for #4. Humans being stubborn is not God's fault, is not part of God's providence usually, although He is completely able to use human stubbornness for His own purposes.

 

I will define a miracle as: God interrupting his divine habit of controlling and sustaining all in his usual manner, called natural order. Having planned and inserted from eternity past, a supernatural happening that causes a subsequent chain reaction of "normal" events that follow. 1689 LBC Chapter 3:1 In simple terms.

Normally, if the text speaks for itself, no comment is needed.

I believe all are under God's wrath and stubborness is part of it. Just as with Pharaoh and the Jews God blinded so they could not repent.

 

I just go to Merriam-Webser Dictionary:

miraculous: of the nature of a miracle : supernatural
miracle: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

providence: divine guidance or care

 

Since the topic will soon be closed, I would view the events from the birth of Moses to Joshua leading the people to victory over Jericho and into the promised land as "miraculous providence".

(KJV ... not so much).

 

I like KJV because it is reliable and it is beautifully written. I really don't care what anyone else uses. I know there are some bad translations out there and I would object to them. I use several translations and have many translations at home but now I have even more on software. I think that the KJV is fading, especially in the SBC. Since I am on borrowed time, I guess that I can use the KJV. And the younger generation will find other translations that they like better and the scholars will find others that are more accurate although not as beautiful for sure.

 

See, that wasn't so hard. Somewhat obtuse, though. Why is there a "subsequent chain of 'normal' events"?

I prefer to follow Francis Shaeffer, following Aquinas, I think it was, in that a miracle is when God reaches down from the realm of grace into the realm of nature, and causes an event that is contrary to nature.

Or in NT terms, a miracle is a "sign": an event showing that God is with the miracle worker: Jesus or an apostle.

Now please define providence. How is it different from "miracle"?

One of my students very wisely differentiated in this way: a miracle is an event, but providence is a process.

Not one single time have I thought that the verse you quoted proved your point, so explanations would have helped.

So is man's stubbornness providential or not?

 

Most of it was in the English language of translations used about 85 years prior to that of 1611.

It was not generally thought to have "beauty of language" until the middle of the 18th century.

A minority believe that.

Keeping the ancient form which has never been the spoken vernacular of anyone is regressive thinking.

Calling conservative, evangelical Christians "conservative religionists" is rather odd of you.

 

It is normal Elizabethan English. Written language is always more formal than spoken language. What translation do Baptist most favor? NIV?

 

No, it is written in the style of the era in which king Henry V111 reigned.

Yes, the NIV.