Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?

Rate this topic


Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Mine is a personal opinion only. I do not consider any update of the KJV necessary or even possible, without errors of omission or commission. I suspect that in today's world there are no Bible scholars that are on a  par with the original translators.

Of first and foremost importance is the verifiable fact that the manuscripts they worked from are no longer in existence; therefore, any update can only be from using the existing KJV, complete with its language and grammar.

As for the ability, or lack of it for the average person to understand, I have heard it said that our KJV is understandable to all who have even an eighth grade level of schooling. I, myself only have a sixth grade education. It (the KJV) is perfectly understandable to me; and even more important, it was understandable for me, when the sermon that saved my soul was preached from it.

Ecclesiastes 7:25 (KJV) I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 for the ability, or lack of it for the average person to understand, I have heard it said that our KJV is understandable to all who have even an eighth grade level of schooling. I, myself only have a sixth grade education. It (the KJV) is perfectly understandable to me; and even more important, it was understandable for me, when the sermon that saved my soul was preached from it.

This is based on the Flesch Kincaid evaluation which is really flawed. That method mainly focuses on syllable length and sentence length. 

it does not take into account difficult/archaic grammatical structure nor does it take into account archaic word difficulty or archaic idioms. 

As for perfectly understanding the KJV, you might think you perfectly understand it but I highly doubt that. Even if you perfectly understand it now, I highly doubt you always have. 

I am constantly finding things in the KJV that I have misunderstood and have to had to refine in my own understanding. My Bible is full of synonyms  I have written in the margins and explanations of certain idioms and such as a fruit of my own studying of the word of God. 

The first time I read Psalm 23:1 Years ago I had no idea “want” did not mean desire but instead meant “to lack”. I have heard some refer to words like these as “false friends”, meaning they are words that you think you know the meaning, but because you are unaware that it has an archaic meaning and has changed meaning you won’t be as likely to look the word up in a dictionary. The whole “look things up in a dictionary” is hard to do if you don’t even realize a word you are reading has changed meaning. 

Jim, I sincerely doubt you have not had many occasions through your Christian life where you did not have similar things happen with words. 

It’s one thing to have a more mature understanding of the KJV after having had years of reading, studying, and hearing it preached. It’s quite another to pick it up and read it not having gone through all that. Learning the King James English is almost like learning a new way of speaking and reading. 

When I first started reading the KJV 10 years ago I was frequently frustrated with some of the archaic words and there were many times where I assumed a word or phrase meant one thing and then later learned it meant something else. I have a hard time believing that anyone else’s experience has not been the same. 

Let’s not pretend like the KJV is just like the normal or even formal English that we use today. There is a huge learning curve to being able to read, understand, and handle the KJV skillfully. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The problem with modernist philosophy is not just using corrupt texts but also the lack of care toward word accuracy which historically brought about those corruptions in the first place. They always go hand in hand. Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. (ie. Easter and Passover are the same Greek word equivalents but carry separate English meanings, drawn from historical and biblical context in order to convey more than the original Greek word itself ever could. Additionally things like Author vs starter, beginner, or orchestrator, writer, etc as in Hebrews 12:2). Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism does injustice to the importance of precise accuracy and stability of one's language.

In addition to this they disregard the historic stability which the scripture always brings to any language it has been translated into and then used faithfully. Rather than follow pioneers who created and stabilized whole languages for the scriptures to prosper in, they have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language.

I'm sorry Bro. Jordan Kurecki but your stories of always being frustrated at finding a word you didn't understand and wishing a simpler or more common word was in it's place, rather than having the joy of learning a new timeless word and the nuanced meaning it brings to bare, does not endear me to your efforts of scripture translation. Rather, it bothers me whenever a biblical linguist seems to have a distain for learning his own historic language, and the stability it brings, in deference for something that will change within a few years and from region to region.

Because of this the "better English translations" and "KJV word updates" you seek are a fleeting dream that you will never obtain. You may not believe it now and it will take you a long time and much effort to understand that they are diametrically opposed philosophies of biblical translation but if you are honest with yourself you will see that what I said is true. The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text.

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

James 1:5-7 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Ephesians 4:14 ...henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:
TO THE MOST
HIGH AND MIGHTY
PRINCE, JAMES
by the Grace of God,

King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland
Defender of the Faith, &c.

The Translators of the Bible
wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace through Jesus
CHRIST our LORD


[What follows is the Dedicatory Epistle of the King James translators to King James I who commissioned the translation of the Kimg James Bible.  It is included here that the reader might have a basis of comparison between the language and style of the 1611 Authorized King James Version and the language and style this Dedicatory Epistle.  Note the sharp contrast between this epistle and the KJV. This dedicatory epistle is not included in most King James Bibles published today]

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well upon our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad.
But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time pent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.
Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth about Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty’s loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort,and they bless You in their hearts,as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed), and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.
There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in Your Majesty but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labors, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labors shall more honor and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without, by the powerful protection of Your Majesty’s grace and favor, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.
    The Lord of Heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honor that Great God, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.

The above, you might recognize. One main thing I would mention is the complete lack of 'Ye', 'thee', 'thy' or various other forms of how today we just say 'you' or 'your', which is how it is written herein. Those forms, however, were put into the KJV because they are more precise in meaning, in that Ye and You and your are all plural, (directed to many), which Thy, and Thine are singular.  The general entire style of writing is very different too, overall. 

Hi!  Thanks for the response.  I think the reason there is no thee or thou when writing to the King is because the respectful form at the time was to use the plural "you" for those of higher social status, even if it were a single individual.  Have you read the Preface to the KJV 1611?  The Preface to the Reader does use thee, ye, thou, thy, and thine.  That indicates that this form of English was still in regular use at the time.  According to my research outside the Bible, these singular and plural forms of pronouns were still in use in 1611. 

So is there any other feature of the English in the KJV that you think was very different than the English of that time and place?  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

John 14:26 (KJV) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1 Corinthians 14:7-9 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, John Young said:

The problem with modernist philosophy is not just using corrupt texts but also the lack of care toward word accuracy which historically brought about those corruptions in the first place. They always go hand in hand. Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. (ie. Easter and Passover are the same Greek word equivalents but carry separate English meanings, drawn from historical and biblical context in order to convey more than the original Greek word itself ever could. Additionally things like Author vs starter, beginner, or orchestrator, writer, etc as in Hebrews 12:2). Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism does injustice to the importance of precise accuracy and stability of one's language.

In addition to this they disregard the historic stability which the scripture always brings to any language it has been translated into and then used faithfully. Rather than follow pioneers who created and stabilized whole languages for the scriptures to prosper in, they have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language.

I'm sorry Bro. Jordan Kurecki but your stories of always being frustrated at finding a word you didn't understand and wishing a simpler or more common word was in it's place, rather than having the joy of learning a new timeless word and the nuanced meaning it brings to bare, does not endear me to your efforts of scripture translation. Rather, it bothers me whenever a biblical linguist seems to have a distain for learning his own historic language, and the stability it brings, in deference for something that will change within a few years and from region to region.

Because of this the "better English translations" and "KJV word updates" you seek are a fleeting dream that you will never obtain. You may not believe it now and it will take you a long time and much effort to understand that they are diametrically opposed philosophies of biblical translation but if you are honest with yourself you will see that what I said is true. The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text.

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

James 1:5-7 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Ephesians 4:14 ...henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Well John. 

The fact that you accuse me of a lack of care about word accuracy tell me you know very little about my actual position. As I stated repeatedly over and over again that I was not for making any changes that caused a loss in meaning.

Secondly, you stated "Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. "

This is ironic to me, you seem to assume that because two words are different that it ALWAYS means there is a distinction in the meaning. John, you need to go and read the KJV translators to the readers because they themselves would disagree with you on the point you are making. In their preface they talk about how others were criticizing them for not translating a particular Hebrew word consistently but how they chose to use SYNONYMS for various reasons. You can find numerous places in the KJV where the translators used a variety of synonyms to translate one particular word and in some of those cases it would simply a stylistic choice or a choice based on any of the various reasons they stated in their preface for doing so. 

"Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism " John that is an extremely gross misrepresentation of my position and I don't see how you could possibly conclude again that I have no care for word accuracy. I am flabbergasted that you would make such an accusation.

you said "just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning." John, you have an assumption that different word choices ALWAYS mean a difference in precise meaning, which is NOT the case. Sometimes yes there are some "synonyms" that have slightly difference nuances and connotative meanings. But that is NOT always the case. And you are in error to make that assumption. 

you said "t
hey have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language."

This is NONSENSICAL John, you are trying to equate people wanting to having the Bible in modern vernacular and using language that makes it sound like they are no better than someone who literally changes the meaning of the word of God to fit the culture.  I have zero desire to change the meaning of God's word to fit our corrupt culture. Wanting to put the King James Bible into modern english is not in the same category as something like the "Queen James Bible" that was put out which removed all reference to sodomy. The fact that you would try to act like anyone trying to take the bible and put it into modern vernacular is in the same category as something like that is mind boggling to me. 


again you stated " The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text." 

These accusations are ridiculous John. If you actually read what I said carefully, you would realize that I place a premium on "logistical accuracy". My guess is that you place anyone who disagrees with you into the category of not caring about "logistical accuracy". 

The cultural pandering accusation is insane John. John, when you speak to people and preach your sermons, do you say every word or phrase in King James style English? No you do not. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of "cultural pandering"? Is speaking in a style that is close to your audience cultural pandering John? You and I know it isn't. You apply one standard to one area, and another standard to another. 

Why is it ok for a preacher to get up and spend time explaining the meanings of archaic words, but it wouldn't be ok to just put that better understood word the preacher used into the text instead. Tell me John, What meaning has one lost if one says "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not lack" rather than "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want". You can argue about style and whatever all day, but what MEANING has been lost. What NUANCE has been lost John? 

Your argument rests on the simple accusation that anyone who wants to update words is going to eventually lose meaning and nuance. And your accusation is simply false. 

Also your verses that your quote are completely out of context. I hope this is not how to teach people to handle and use the word of God. 

First of all, If the passage in Proverbs mean what you actually says it does, then you better stop using the KJV and go back to one of the Older English Bibles, because the KJV certainly was a change.

Ephesians 4:14 has nothing to with taking the bible and putting it into an accurate modern vernacular. 

Maybe we should all go back to using Wycliffe's old english translation, after all we should not meddle with those given to change right? and if we just ask God for wisdom he will help us understand Wycliffe, and if you disagree with me it's just because you are tossed about with the wind. 

Come on John, Don't use the Bible as your bludgeoning board to attack anyone who disagrees with you. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, John Young said:

You may not believe it now and it will take you a long time and much effort to understand that they are diametrically opposed philosophies of biblical translation but if you are honest with yourself you will see that what I said is true.

Take it as you will. Just trying to help save you a lot of time and effort.

9 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Also your verses that your quote are completely out of context. I hope this is not how to teach people to handle and use the word of God. 

First of all, If the passage in Proverbs mean what you actually says it does, then you better stop using the KJV and go back to one of the Older English Bibles, because the KJV certainly was a change.

Ephesians 4:14 has nothing to with taking the bible and putting it into an accurate modern vernacular. 

They were in the context of trying to encourage you to ensure you focus on things of God when translating and that you do not change anything based on modernist methods of looking at men and whims of culture. Not as proof text for not translating or updating. If you keep trying to nitpick small points of argument then you will miss the main point entirely.

I do not have a problem with bible translation or using the best synonym for a word but rather, the philosophy and mindset of translation you use is key to proper translation and in my opinion, by using words like archaic and superstition, and frustration, in regard to word accuracy, its clear philosophically you are already leaning towards modernist thinking rather than historic biblical translation methods.

9 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

In their preface they talk about how others were criticizing them for not translating a particular Hebrew word consistently but how they chose to use SYNONYMS for various reasons.

I have no problem with using a variety of English words for a singular Greek or Hebrew word (even conversely one English word for several Greek or Hebrew words to show unity of meaning), however, as a mode to convey precision and style, with the particular passage to be translated in mind and with specific intent to convey scriptural meaning. Not simply for variety, popularity or culture preference and whims at the time of writing. Though those things can be considered for certain aspects, they should never be the driving factor of biblical translation.

Your philosophy drives your translation. Even though you claim an allegiance to the "correct manuscripts" that matters not if you yourself are still translating them with modernist methods over that of biblical methods. I have no interest in condemning you for it but rather to encourage you to move away from that mindset. 

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't mean to get in the middle of this debacle between you two. But John I do believe you have misinterpreted the spirit of Jordan's support of a new updated translation. 

Jordan isn't talking about updating words willy nilly for the simpler pallet of the modern tongue. But more about updating actual words that are archaic. Yes are archaic. Using the example above, the word 'besom' changed to 'broom' would not endanger the spirit of the kjv. Honestly I think changes like that may be in the best interest, there would be very few changes. 

Now I don't see this as a necesarry update, but yeah if the money got put in place to where it need be, then I would fully support it. 

Infact a good publicly moderated, (ie. Wikipedia style moderation) rendition online would allow everyone to supervise such a thing and make sure that it is fully compatible with the KJV. Of course every change would be discussed, and debated upon like in the original foundation of the KJV

I see no issue with that idea, but I may be flawed in my thinking. What do you think? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My contention is not about word choice but on the philosophy that determines what words are chosen and why. Take "besom" for instance, which is a TYPE of broom. The considerations for changing even this word will be different based on translation philosophy.

The Biblicist asks: "What will best convey the meaning into English?" 

Modernist asks: "What will my reader understand with minimal effort?" 

On the surface or in the rushed opinion, one might think they can be held in harmony or that the ease of the reader should be the upmost concern but that is not the case. Which philosophy keeps these command of Deuteronomy 4:2 and comes from a true heart for God's word as expressed in all of Psalm 119?

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Psalm119: 38 Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.


Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

These aught to be at the forefront of our mind and not the frustration of words we do no yet know and wishing those "old" ancient people could have used a more "modern" word and style which we do know. 

The Word must be conveyed in such a way that it lifts the hearer up to it rather than diminishes it to the minimal understandings of the lost man or those unwilling to learn.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I am simply amazed that there are people that find it so incredibly difficult to add looking up a word to their Bible study habits. It should be a crucial part of good study habits.

After all, if you come upon a word like the one posted below; "besom" and you look and see that it means "broom", is it still not understandable the next time you see it?

No, it is still understandable; simply because you have studied correctly and actually learned something.  :4_12_2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm trying not to be an advocate but those objections hardly seem argue worthy. Not everyone has a dictionary handy, nor are even in the practice of looking up words. ( I agree they should be, it would be unwise for them not to be) Besom was the word for broom back then, as that was what the broom was.

Maybe something between our wants are not being communicated well enough for an image board. Anyways this is going to my last post in this thread, I see no edification in this any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
55 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I am simply amazed that there are people that find it so incredibly difficult to add looking up a word to their Bible study habits. It should be a crucial part of good study habits.

After all, if you come upon a word like the one posted below; "besom" and you look and see that it means "broom", is it still not understandable the next time you see it?

No, it is still understandable; simply because you have studied correctly and actually learned something.  :4_12_2:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary?  Shouldn't we be able to have understandable words in such a scenario?  Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
28 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I see no edification in this any longer.

Not all edifying conversations are agreeable in nature and at times will reveal an area of disagreement between those engaged in it but its still an edifying conversation because the intent is still, as Webster's 1828 says, "To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness."

I don't have any malicious intent in dealing with this matter here but am simply trying to help and show the reason for the greater conflict among translators. The only way we (modernist, Biblicists, and those who try to mix the two systems) will ever come to any sort of consensus is if we have the hard conversations about our innate philosophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Anyway the version I use is modern enough. Since most of use the 1769 KJV (often referred to as the authorized version).

Other than spelling, were there any substantial updates in the language of the KJV from 1611 to 1769?  1769 is still about 250 years ago....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
38 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary? 

ASK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
40 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

This is the excuse that has generated numerous modern perversions of God's word. You are certainly free to use any or all of them; or update the KJV as you see fit. 

I am no Bible scholar, but I believe that God is perfectly able to not only preserve His word as He has promised, but use it as He has to save the souls of a lost and dying world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

ASK

The best ways to solve an issue is often the simplest.

Practically all modern versions were made to solve the problem of "archaism" yet many still want to make another and another. I'm beginning to think our problem is not a lack of updates but rather that too many people refuse to give up the KJV for updates, so they keep offering us more.

They ask: "How much change will you accept to move from the archaic version?"

Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new updates, much less collaborate with you to make a single change.

If you came to me and asked if I would have an interest in purifying and helping to convey scripture to a people who did not have a pure, accurate and precise bible in their language then I would perhaps consider the project. But I have no interest in the fools errand of changing the scripture from a pure, accurate and precise language into something less in the name of ever changing "archaism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...