Why I love the King James

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

There seems to be a great dividing line drawn in the sand by KJVO persons. Based on what Christ said, division of this nature -- especially concerning the Word of God -- is likely not of Christ, but rather of His enemy.

 

Turn off the TV and other distractions.

Put a CD in a good player and listen to Alexander Scourby read the KJV. Turn up the volume so his voice will fill the room. That's about as close as I can get to what you described, Luke.

I usually read along with him, but sometimes just sit, close my eyes, and listen to the power in the words of the KJV. Something, IMHO, that is somehow lost, when a Bible reads like a newspaper. So far, have listened to the NT and will soon be to Psalms and Proverbs. I'm especially looking forward to hearing Alexander read those.

FWIW, I also think you're right about the "knee-jerk" reaction, especially to the extreme KJVO crowd. I've read some well thought out and presented viewpoints from some who take that position. And, often agree with them. OTOH, I've been disgusted with those who have to resort making vile comments about other versions and/or people who support them.

IMHO, they are destroying what they claim they are trying to support. Same thing on the other side of the issue, BTW.

Picture this:
(Not only for the KJVO controversy, BTW.)

A person climbs on their personal soap box to express their opinion. The person is a professing Christian, a witness to their salvation by Jesus Christ.

Seated in the first row, in front of their soapbox is Jesus Christ, Himself, after He arose, before He assended.

How many would say, in front of Him, the same things they say to others today? Especially when their words are conveyed by a keyboard.

 

Not yet. I'll try to get to it.

 

One thing I've been noticing about debates on the KJVO issue is the intentional fallacy that dictates that the KJV is THE standard by which all other translation efforts is judged. Who determined that and by what criteria?

And, if so, then why the updates of an "already perfect" translation?

While a good -- perhaps even great -- translation, it is not the only, not the most accurate, and not even the most understandable.

As far as the language being "our" language, it is not -- not in precise terms. Language changes over time and to select one snapshot out of the lifespan of any given language and then say that THAT moment in time was the culmination of the language is to ignore the facts that language is fluid and that usage changes with context and with time.

If we use the former proposition as the basis for deciding about the veracity of any given language, then we must also take God to task for causing the original NT to be written in Koine Greek instead of Classical Greek. Shame on Him for using the gutteral language of the marketplace -- akin to 21st century American English as compared to 1611 King's Court English -- for He failed to capitalize on the culmination of the Greek.

The entire proposition just does not make because at its heart it is an a priori presupposition in favor of ONE particular cultural expression instead of a general principle that regards usage and culture at any given moment -- and with that, the fact that God intends for His Word to go to ALL the people of the world IN THEIR LANGUAGE AT THEIR TIME.

 

You misunderstood me!

was referencing as faulty the scholarship used to 'support' that the KJVO is correct!

KJV itself best of its time, just that times hvae changed!

 

problem is that it seems majority of the KJVO hold that those of us not think that means we view the KJV as bad version!

It was the gtreatest english version of all time, but there are modern ones better suited to our times!

 

You know that statement makes absolutely no sense, don't you? :laugh:

 

exactly!

best english version as in most important one ever made, yet a product of its times...

IF English had stayed the same in word meanings, would still be the best, but it has not, so modern versions better suited to convey the message of God to us for today!

 

I knew what you meant, was just teasing you.:thumbs:

 

verily, thou has speaketh the truth!

 

Kjv

I love to use the kjv. I have much more confidence in its scholarship than that of many modern versions. In many ways textual criticism was less liberal the than it is today.

The kjv contains many passages that are today woefully considered to be spurious by liberal scholars, the trinitarianbiblesociety.org is helpful when it come to issues of this nature. The TBS was formed when much liberalism was entering the church such as the denial of the trinity.

I have a 1999 Geneva Bible that has been updated to modern spellings and I find the footnotes very helpful. It has been a lost treasure for some time for most of us. Most of the kjv was based on the Geneva bible. It took a while for the kjv to be accepted but it has certainly stood the test of time. It doesn't take long to understand the language, especially when you hear it read. It is a wonderful book.

http://onedailyhope.blogspot.com

 

Welcome to the BB Gbaty.

You are dead-wrong. Most conservative scholars believe there are numerous additions that were not in the original autographs. Machen and Warfield from the first quarter of the last century to name but a few from yesteryear. They were as conservative as they come.

 

Not only is this a grammatical nightmare, it is completely false. Modern translations use better manuscripts. They are far superior than the KJV.