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
8 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.  🙂  ❤️ 

 

 

You are reading something into the passage that's not there. There's the natural man and the spiritual. The unregenernated and regenerated. The saved and the lost. The Christian and the non-Christian. There is nothing in between. A Christian may be carnal in behavior but he in still a spiritual man with the mind in Christ in him. It's just a matter of yielding to that mind.

The bible was not intended for the natural, i.e. lost man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 2/1/2021 at 2:43 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "SureWord,"

That is a valuable point to consider why the original translators chose the word "besom" in that context, rather than the word "broom."  Whatever their reasoning may have been (if we are able to discern it) is worthy of consideration whether the word "besom" is more significant for the context than the word "broom."

I always give the KJV the benefit of that doubt and consider that the translators had a valid reason to choose the words they chose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/30/2021 at 10:23 AM, BibleBeliever5 said:

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.

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.

You won't be quoting the NLT to the "non-believer that you meet on the street" either. Or, for that matter any other version unless you just happen to have your large print New Living Translation with you as you approach Walmart. So, that argument doesn't fit either.

No, you still won't admit that the 1769 has MANY changes to words. The "v" for "u" was one of 1000s. I think you were caught off guard when you discounted significant changes from 1611 to 1769 only to find there are thousands. We have the best Bible available to english speaking people and it has been for almost 300 years. Your argument isn't holding water or, for that matter attaining your goal of agreement for a another new version. Why don't you just stop "as one that beateth the air:" [1 Cor. 9:26]  and move to a different topic; "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." [1 Timothy 2:16] "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." [Galatians 5:26]. There is "discord among brethren" [Proverbs 6:19] being sown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/30/2021 at 1:16 PM, BibleBeliever5 said:

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?

No, you actually have to remain with them and disciple them submitting yourself to the Holy Spirit to be used in aiding the unbelieving to understand God's truth and the Gospel of Christ. It's not a microwave oven process...its not a drive up window give me a small fry and a burger. These are souls of men.

 

On 1/30/2021 at 1:16 PM, BibleBeliever5 said:

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?

Which one of these words can't you understand? I'll help you with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/30/2021 at 1:39 PM, HappyChristian said:

Well, I guess the medical world doesn't realize that. Imagine that...an archaic word being used in modern times. Unprecedented. lol

In modern scientific endeavors, NEVER! 😲 That settles it, I won't be getting the Chinese virus vaccine. 😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Here is wherein I can have agreement with you -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as presented in the Holy Scriptures, IS for the unbeliever.  (Note: This does NOT mean that I believe the entirety of the teaching in God's Holy Word is for the unbeliever, as per my previous discussion with you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

Would you use the KJV if you were a missionary to a place that doesn't speak English or would you use an equivalent version in the language of the country you are going to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Edited by WellWithMySoul
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Thanks. Unfortunately, that would not be the proper way to translate to the other language. You would want someone who is a linguist to translate from the original Greek/Hebrew to get the most accurate translation. A lot is lost when you translate from one language to another and it is always best to go back to the original language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes.  That is exactly why I responded to the OP only.  I probably shouldn't have replied to the question of what I would do as far as translating to a  foreign language...I have no knowledge overall on the process.  Please forgive me for responding inaccurately.  I'm just a lil ole lady, striving to love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 minutes ago, WellWithMySoul said:

Yes.  That is exactly why I responded to the OP only.  I probably shouldn't have replied to the question of what I would do as far as translating to a  foreign language...I have no knowledge overall on the process.  Please forgive me for responding inaccurately.  I'm just a lil ole lady, striving to love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
47 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastorj said:

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

People can read the King's English. That's what counts. 

15 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Yes, the gospel. As I said previously the gospel is all that God has to say to the lost.

8 hours ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

I've read this is quite common these days to translate from the KJV itself..

In China there also is a movement among Christians who only preach and teach from the KJV believing it is the pure words of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

That translation though should not be from the KJV. It should be from the original languages. The KJV is a translation. When you translate, you never translate from a translation.

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, 1 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...