Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Jordan Kurecki

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Reputation Activity

  1. I Agree
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from Hugh_Flower in Consistency and the KJV   
    There is a big difference between what you personally feel God wants you to do as an individual, and someone claiming an objective fact based on their own “conviction”. 
    I suppose the important question is what is ones “conviction” based on. 
    Ones “convictions” might not necessarily correlate with reality always. Just because someone has a “conviction” does not make something factually true. 
     
    Often peoples “convictions” are based on the current (and sometimes false or misleading) knowledge that we have. There are many people who have “convictions” that are nothing more than them adopting and following the examples they have seen modeled or taught to them by a respected source. These sources may or may not be correct at times. In other words we ought to be careful what we base our convictions on. 
    I guess my point is personal convictions have no bearing on what is or is not true. I mean you having a conviction about something has zero binding authority on any one else nor does your conviction necessarily determine reality.
    There is a huge difference between having a conviction that you should personally use the KJV and the KJV is perfect. 
    You feeling like you should exclusively use the KJV is not making a declaration about truth or reality for others. I have zero problems with that. 
     
    Its quite different to assert that the KJV is perfect based on a conviction and to state that conviction as if it has any kind of authority to declare reality or determine truth.
  2. I Agree
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from Hugh_Flower in Consistency and the KJV   
    Also personal revelation would be God in no uncertain way declaring to you infallible truth. Revelation is infalible whereas ones personal convictions can be based on a number of things such as application of scriptural principle, logic, knowledge, etc. Revelation is not fallible while ones convictions certainly are fallible.
  3. I Agree
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Hugh_Flower in Consistency and the KJV   
    I think no.2 you listed is hard to say. What is the difference between conviction  and personal revelation? 

    I am convicted that the KJV is the one I should use. God has revealed in my heart that I should turn to his word through the one faucet he has prepared for me… Now I don’t think it’s sin to use another even as I believe God has prepared me a proper version for me, in this day and age.
    I suppose a question to you, is it wrong to be convicted in this manner? If so why
  4. I Agree
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from Hugh_Flower in Was the King James Bible itself inspired?   
    God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. 

    God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver. 
  5. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Defining a PERFECT BIBLE   
    So then, those who DO believe that God has preserved His Holy Word in and through a given translation need to provide Scriptural support that the Lord our God did indeed promise to preserve His Word through translations.  If this can be done, then a given translation may be presented as fulfilling this divine promise (if it fulfills the Biblical requirements for such).  However, if this cannot be done, then claiming such for any given translation goes beyond the specific doctrine that is taught in God's Holy Word concerning preservation.
  6. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to PastorMatt in Tobacco Use   
    While I agree with your statement, I must first find out why a person is obese, is it from gluttony or a medical condition. I'm pretty sure gluttony is what you were referring to in which I agree. 
    As part of my message a few weeks back I talked about gluttony, a few comments came from the crowd that said, "Oh, boy...here we go".  It's a sin in the Bible, I'll preach it just as hard as other sins.
  7. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from BrotherTony in Tobacco Use   
    I have never understood why tobacco is viewed in the same vain as things like fornication or drunkenness and what not. 

    Not that I think smoking is really the best thing for people.

    I don't understand why it's acceptable for someone to be 300 pounds and obese and no one says anything, but if someone smokes they are treated as if they are a fornicator. 

     
  8. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.
  9. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from John Young in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.
  10. Thanks
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from busdrvrlinda54 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.
  11. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating.  You have again revealed your priorities.  
    By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy.  (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught  is NOT an argument against this provision.)  This is the manner by which God made it possible for me to learn their importance and meaning.  This is the manner by which God has made it possible for me to teach others concerning their importance and meaning.
    You, on the other hand, do not seem to care, but only seem to want to avoid the subject of their accuracy.  (Note: At this point I remain very uncertain that you even know the grammatical significance/meaning of those pronouns.)
  12. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Pastorj in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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.
  13. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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).  
  14. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Pastorj in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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.
  15. Strongly Disagree
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to WellWithMySoul in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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.
  16. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 
  17. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from BibleBeliever5 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    That’s not what the Gospel of John says 
    John 20:30-31 KJV
    [30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [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.
     
  18. Like
    Jordan Kurecki reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    So that there is understanding of my own position here - I would agree with the above comment.  There are likely to be many words which some would classify as "archaic" that are viewed as such simply because of societal ignorance.  However, as I stated in my posting above to Brother Young, I am still compelled to acknowledge that there are indeed some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  To give an example - Ending verbs with "th" is now an "archaic" element of the English language.  Do I believe that this "archaic" element hinders understanding overmuch.  No, I do not.  Yet I am still compelled to acknowledge the fact that it is an "archaic" element.  
    By the way, I myself do NOT believe that an "update" is of much value in the present day; and I would NOT likely be interested in supporting such an effort or using such a product.  The primary reason is that the controversy over the matter of translations has grown far too large for yet another revision/update attempt.  Even more, this controversy exists because the deception of false translations has grown beyond measure in our time.  I do not see that it is valuable for us to add yet more to the mix, but to remain firmly planted on a foundation of proven ground (even if it requires a little extra effort in Bible study and Bible learning).
    So then, why did I even engage the matter of "archaisms"?  I did so because from my perspective the existence of some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation is a FACT.  Even so, (from my perspective) denying or ignoring facts on a subject can only skew a legitimate consideration and understanding of that subject.
  19. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from BibleBeliever5 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I have no interest in discussing something with someone who wants to keep caricaturing my position as being more concerned with catering to the reader than accuracy of word choice. You keep asserting this false either or fallacy and It’s quite annoying.
    The whole point of Bible Translation in the first place is to put the words of God from Hebrew and Greek into language understood by the reader. 
     
    Not one single person in this thread has advocated for making any changes that would diminish meaning, yet you keep making unfounded accusations that those in favor of any kind of update simply don’t care about accuracy. Just because you keep repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.
  20. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from Hugh_Flower in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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 "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."

    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. 

     
  21. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from BibleBeliever5 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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 "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."

    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. 

     
  22. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from BibleBeliever5 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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.
  23. Strongly Disagree
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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 "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."

    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. 

     
  24. Like
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from BibleBeliever5 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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. 
  25. Strongly Disagree
    Jordan Kurecki got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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. 
×
×
  • Create New...