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

  • Members

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

32 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would anyone have a problem updating a word like bruit?

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 minutes ago, Salyan said:

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Who can tell us what bruit means in Nahum 3:19?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I agree it is so valuable to go witnessing, but does that mean there is nothing else worthy of our time?  Shouldn't a discussion take place about so many of God's people using a Bible with antiquated language throughout the entire Scriptures?  Isn't it good and worthwhile for God's people to spend time discussing having the Holy Scriptures in language that people in their day actually use (for the believer and the non-believer)?  Do you think the archaic language of the KJV has no disadvantage?  And is it true that the best Bible we can have today is one that generally uses archaic language?

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

The first time I needed clarification I had to actually ask someone about it, imagine that; setting aside pride long enough to admit ignorance. It was Matthew 24:7 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." As a pre-teen I had nothing to worry about because my home was an enormous distance from a sea or an ocean. Have you allowed yourself to confront someone over your own lack of understanding?

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Did you use the microwave oven method of study? Add a few more seconds next time.

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/28/2021 at 1:57 PM, Salyan said:

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

I think "rant" should be removed from present use and substituted with "wild vehement action." Of course someone will come along and ruin it by making their own language changes. Then I'll have to declaim them violently. Couldn't resist 🤣.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

And these are more of the FACTS that should be considered in the discussion; for whenever we disregard or distort the facts of truth, we always end up going astray in some manner or fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
5 hours ago, Salyan said:

 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

I don't think so, either - although that is where things head when one decides to "make it more understandable.' If it ain't broke (and it ain't) don't "fix" it. 🙅‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.

16 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, John Young said:

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

I'm actually amazed you think that.  You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners?  You don't use the Bible when you go witnessing?  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the Bible.  Wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
35 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners? 

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In verse 14, it does not say the "non-believer."  The Scripture specifically says the "natural man."  These are the secularists who reject everything spiritual.  But there are some non-believers who are spiritual and believe in spiritual things.  If you interpret the natural man to mean all non-believers, then how would a non-believer ever receive the gospel and convert?  Non-believers do receive the things of the Spirit of God when they hear the good news and believe.  No, the "natural man" in that text does not mean all non-believers.

The Bible was written for non-believers.  God speaks to non-believers and believers through it.  We should want them to have it in a language they can understand without putting in all the effort to learn archaic English.  And non-believers can certainly read and understand parts of the Bible on their own.  Some things are very obvious in the Bible.  Many non-believers do in fact read the Bible and understand some things on their own.  I heard of a non-believer who studied the Bible 10 years and then became a believer.  First you said it was not written for non-believers.  Now you say it was not written for non-believers to read and understand on their own.  So you're saying a non-believer can only read and understand it when someone explains it to them?  Only then they can receive the things of God?  But where do you get that?  How is that different than when they read it on their own.  I think your position is lost and very unhelpful for the lost.  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the text of Scripture.  God can speak directly to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 47 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...