Why I love the King James

Yes because my love for God is not the same as love for a translation or any Bible.

I lived in areas of America where sunsets over the water were a daily occurrence. I have never heard anyone say they love sunsets. I have heard many other expression use the word love.

[/quote]Again, would you have written that statement if the name of your preferred/primary Bible version was in the title of this thread and under discussion, instead of the KJV?[/QUOTE]Yes because my love for God is not the same as love for a translation or any Bible. People who cannot read and write can love God.

 

That was my point. And the reason for the question about your reply quoted earlier. IMHO, it was easily understood that the OP didn't equate the love of a particular bible version to be the same as his love of God. If memory serves, he even qualified it with statements about the "love" to hear English spoken in the manner of the KJV. Just as others would say they "love" to hear the hymn "The Old Rugged Cross".

I well understand, too, that people who cannot read and write can love God. My father couldn't sign his name. Yet, I know we'll meet again, in heaven, one day. While he couldn't read, he could understand the spoken language. If he didn't understand the meaning of a particular word, he would ask for an explaination. That's no different from checking an on line dictionary, when I encounter a word that I don't recognize and can't figure out from the context of the writing.

My father's situation was, in some ways, similar to the situation that was faced by people during the time of Jesus. They were, as he was, still expected to follow 2 Tim 2:15 using the resources available to them.

BTW.....

In a preceeding post, you mentioned a series of technical items. Some I recognized, and others would take maybe 10-15 minutes with a search engine to find the definition or particular fact involved. IMHO, using industry specific technical terms is much different than discussing language change or lack thereof with terms used in everyday general conversation or print. Whether it's the local newspaper or a version of the Bible.

I'm a hobby woodworker. I wouldn't expect the average person on the street to know the difference between scarf joints, butt joints, lap joints, coped joints, and half lap joints. However, if they want to become a hobby woodworker, too, I'd expect them to apply 2 Tim 2:15. STUDY.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

That was my reaction to one who posted that people are getting dumber. Those terms were terms that have been used for quite some time. Some are generic and others are specific to a particular field of study.

I learned what those were in seventh grade and learned how to cut dovetails by hand much later.

 

Yup... I've seen it.

All the false humility, downgrading, calling oneself a "worm," etc. are driven from a flawed view of what is actually being said in the text. Not JUST that particular verse, mind you, but a combination of multiple ones with similar issues in word usage.

 

Tell that to the French from Canada and then tell that to the French from France.

The words changed meaning over the time period scripture was written. Look up the Greek words prebuteros and episkopos and trace them from the OT through the NT.

 

You mean like the feeble old man who doesn't have enough to eat and can hardly walk? Heard that too.

 

What's the "worm" passage you're referring to?

 

That makes sense in some cases, but here's where I'm coming from. There is NO doctrine called KJV-only as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in evangelical seminaries and colleges. It doesn't exist in systematic theology. The only place it actually is believed is in a small, minute, unimportant, fringe congregations sprinkled here and there. The fact that more than a few of them are on BB, well, doesn't make any difference. As far as any credible theological scholarship is concerned, they don't exist.

That's where I'm coming from. And let's say the TR does agree 95% of the time. When you're talking about scholarship that is very difficult already, like biblical translation, 5% is a big deal. It's not just that the older manuscripts differ, but most of them agree.

The KJV is very important. It was the best that could have been done, and it served us well, but it's time for us to retire it for personal use and serious study.

Let's see, the oldest manuscripts agree with each other in the majority of their differences with the TR. There are many known translation errors in the KJV to begin with. You can't be serious to actually believe that it's unprovable.

And I'm fine with being called ridiculous, since ALL credible evangelical textual critics would make the same statement. You are clearly in the minority here.

Read a book. And not one written by one of the fringe wackos who actually perpetuates the KJVO weirdness.

 

I'm not. But I've heard it from countless church-goers.

Likely from a hymn "for such a worm as I..."

 

The Greek of the NT was the trade language of the day which was common Greek. Is the English of the KJV common English?

Where are the loud cymbals from Ps. 150? and the trumpets. Di they get thrown by the CCM of the 1950's?

 

Or...we could use the NKJV. I don't think any of the older translations should be locked away. They should stay available to anyone who wants to use them, but their language is outdated and can easily be misunderstood.

 

I am not an English scholar, but my understanding is the language of the KJV 1611 was not the common English of 1611.

 

Do you know what percentage of the English people in 1611 could read?

 

Yeah, straight off the 'Sojourn Music' website LOL: