Jump to content
Online Baptist

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. When you use "archaic" in reference any word in the KJV it shows you've already drunk the modernist cool aid and believe in their errant reasoning. I don't say that to be harsh but rather to ask that you reconsider that concept in reference to the words of the KJV. Every trade, and even sub cultures, has words that are more common among that trade than the general populace. The translators used a unique English format so that it could be cross cultural with minimal effort. The problem with modernist logic is that now they must make a separate "simple" U.S. update, a separate "simple" U.K. upda
  4. I think you came here with your mind made up already! Can you give examples of words you consider to be archaic, and the words you think may be an appropriate 'modern' replacement? I'm very curious as to whether your suggested updates would be appropriate replacements. Examples of grammar would be welcome as well. Also, how do you purport to appropriately replace the oft-maligned thee's and thou's without losing the distinguishing of singular and plural pronouns that is lost with the common modern usage (i.e. using 'you' for both singular & plural situations)? The word 'a
  5. Thank you for your comments everyone. In my opinion, the KJV is a wonderful but archaic 400 year-old translation. Couldn't updating it for the modern English speaker help people better learn God's Word compared to using a version with archaic English? Many words in the KJV are generally unknown today. And the grammar is at times very different than what is used in English today. Is this really necessary or best? Do you all share the KJV with non-Christians who are not familiar with KJV English? Wouldn't that make it difficult for non-Christians to read and understand God's Word? If som
  6. I would add that I extremely doubt we have any scholars nowadays with the breadth of expertise in the original languages to retranslate at the same level of depth and accuracy. We have also lost manuscripts (both Biblical and otherwise) in the intermediary years that would prevent any new translators from having access to the same breadth of knowledge as the KJV translators.
  7. The problem here is, the language actually isn't 400 years old. The fact is, the language of the King James Bible really never existed in time, it is a mish-mash of styles, many much older than the KJV, used because it was more precise in its interpretation of some of the Greek and Hebrew; it is literally a language style specifically created for the KJV-if you read the introduction written by the translators, you'll notice it is very different from the text of the Bible-this is why I would really not be in favor of it.
  8. Personally I see no use. I was not raised KJV but am now convicted in its usage as the purist translation. I enjoy the older english, it feels set apart from the modern way of thinking, of Acadamia never not changing. Which provides the text an etheral feel of being unaffected by time. Which should be true to God's words, unaffected by time. Its translation is so much more perfect as an experience of God, and by simply downgrading it to just a text or just another rendition of the bible, really is a disgrace. Where all other bibles are fitted to this world, we are fitted to this One.
  9. Hi Alan, thank you very much for the time you took to respond and your heart for God's word. I agree with you that the KJV is accurate. I think it would help if I clarify the meaning of the poll because I think there has been a misunderstanding. The title is "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?" The simple and accurate is referring to the update, not the KJV. My meaning is: "Would you use a KJV update that is simple and accurately updates the KJV?" This is not at all meaning that the KJV is not accurate, as I certainly believe it is. Next time it may help you to be sure you are
  10. Last week
  11. In my estimation the poll title is misleading and should not be used on this forum. The poll title is: "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update? The poll title insinuates that the KJV is not simple and is not accurate. And, the poll title insinuates that that those who disagree are not willing to use an accurate version of the Bible. Furthermore, since the poll is public on a KJV forum, the poll, due to its misleading title will be sending the wrong message to the reading public. Besides being an inaccurate poll title, those individuals, such as 115 Timothy, here on
  12. Pro.30:5a Every word of God is pure: even those in italics. When I get to the words in italics in the bible, I make an emphasis on that word; that's what italics is used for, for example: Ex.20:2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The word am is in italics. Decades ago a seminary student once told me "that anytime you see a word in italics it is not in the original Greek and/or Hebrew." I did not fall for it then, and I am not going to fall for it this time. Every time a new version comes out it is an attack on the word of God,
  13. Why would you need to update anything? The ‘old language’ is still perfectly good English.The fact that modern folks are too lazy to learn the meanings of words is no reason to change the Bible. Save your trouble and buy a dictionary. You’ve hit a bone of contention for me - not so much in defense of the KJV, but in defense of good English. You can’t really ‘simplify’ something without removing the depths of the meaning of the larger words. I think such an attempt, if made honestly to retain the true meaning, would result in unnecessary wordiness and a more confusing text. Also,
  14. I hear preachers and evangelists on the radio using the MEVs* frequently--BUT, when they quote, they fall back on the kJV language they memorized and understand. So, you're saying for 400 years folks had no trouble understanding the language of the KJV, correct? So, now I'll ask you a question or two. Have people dumbed down that they don't understand what people have understood for 400 years? Or, sadly, is it possible preachers and evangelists are dumbing down? No, I didn't take your poll. *Modern English Versions.
  15. Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the language is basically 400 year-old English. So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified. In Christ, Joseph
  16. This is not exactly accurate. The word "repent" has different meaning depending on context, in the OT testament there are at least two different Hebrew words translated as repent. While one of the words translated as repent, Shub, means to turn, the more common word translated as repent however is Nacham, which means more of like "to sigh" and by implication means to be sorry, if you look at that particular Hebrew word and study it more you get the sense of someone has changed their thinking inwardly. Imagine a person "sighing" and changing their mind about something and realizing they were wr
  17. By a careful examination, and the correct dividing of the Scriptures, one of the important doctrines of the Bible is the restoration of the nation of Israel, as promised by God to the patriarchs. Along with the restoration of the nation of Israel the Lord Jesus will reign as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS and David will be raised to reign as King over Israel. In this lesson we will look at the prophecy of Ezekiel 37:24 and the references to, ‘David my servant shall be king over them;.’ The prophet Ezekiel prophesied, “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have
  18. The basic meaning of "repent", in the Bible, is to "turn" from or against. The Ninevites turned from sin in their hearts in faith. Why was it faith? Because they believed the words of Jonah. about God's coming wrath. The "repenting" came first and the "works" followed. So the King of Nineveh had to "repent", by faith, in his heart, before deciding to don the sackcloth and order the citizens to do the same. But, It's also an example of others being able to see your faith BY your works.
  19. Thank you for this brilliant answer.
  20. No! The dictionary definition for "fatalism" is "the belief that all events are determined by fate and, therefore, inevitable; acceptance of every event as inevitable." The first difference between a believer in the Biblical God and a fatalist is the the "source" of "determination" for events -- For the fatalist that "source" is a completely impersonal, uncaring "fate;" whereas for the believer that "source" is a very personal, great and good God. From this first difference flows various others -- "Fate" is impersonal, and therefore neither wise nor unwise in its arrangement of events; wher
  21. I was recently called a fatalist because I stated that we cannot when we die. Is believing that God has a set time for our death fatalistic?
  22. Alan

    Joseph and his Jewish Dreams

    In December 2017 I made this video, in English, on Taiwan, on Genesis 37:5-11. I do hope that it is a blessing and an encouragement to your life. "Umbrella Rock." On the East Coast of Taiwan. Photo by Alan
  23. I've written extensively in mine too. Sometimes the things the Holy Spirit revealed to me. I woulld like to get my old cambridge rebound some day.
  24. Have you accepted this position? "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." [Matthew 28:18-20] Satan and those who are confused or deceived by Satan will, in Satan's case knowingly, and in the case of the deceived, knowingly or unknowingly do any/every-thing to preve
  25. I also am a fan of wide margins bibles. I write extensively in my Bible with exegetical and theological notations.
  26. O.K. Here are pics of my older one, Cambridge wide margin, I bought it in Va. Bch. while attending Tabernacle Baptist Church in Va. Bch., Va. in about 1983. I bought my most recent from Local Church Bible Publishers located in Lansing, MI and the inside is a page by page copy of my Cambridge, exception being the inclusion of the translators preface and the dedicatory of the 1611. Otherwise even the page numbers for the books of the Bible are the same and also has wide margin. I prefer a wide margin for notes. I also prefer not to have study or notes of others, just the KJV. I've seen others le
  27. Earlier
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...