OT: Some thoughts on the KJV

Page 5 of 9 (174 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
This post has 173 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 32517
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 12:21 AM

Michael Childs:
I actually prefer it for Psalms.

But doesn't the Book of Common Prayer use the Coverdale Psalms? They're classy too.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 5:39 AM

Matthew C Jones:
My point is there is not one KJV-Only post.
C'mon Matthew. How many KJO'ers do you think own Logos or prowl these forums? Why would someone spend big bucks for software designed to compare Bible versions (and other enlightening resources) If all they ever intend to read is the sacred KJV? There are sites you could go to if you want a debate.Smile Try some of the Independent Baptist sitesStick out tongue

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 5:54 AM

Schezic:
How many KJOers do you think own Logos or prowl these forums? Why would someone spend big bucks for software designed to compare Bible versions (and other enlightening resources) If all they ever intend to read is the sacred KJV?

This made me wonder if Ruckman has a list of suggested resources like MacArthur's 850 Books for Biblical Expositors ...Hmm

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 5:59 AM

Schezic:

Matthew C Jones:
My point is there is not one KJV-Only post.
C'mon Matthew. How many KJOers do you think own Logos or prowl these forums? Why would someone spend big bucks for software designed to compare Bible versions (and other enlightening resources) If all they ever intend to read is the sacred KJV? There are sites you could go to if you want a debate.Smile Try some of the independent Baptist sitesStick out tongue

Now who is the testy, intolerant one?

We once had a Catholic MVP who resigned his star because of narrow-mined Logos forum posters who thought no self-respecting Catholic would own Bible software so dominated by non-Catholic resources.

We also had a Calvinist who fanned the flames of  dissension because in his estimation Logos was Pro-Calvinist & anti-Arminian.

I'm married to a godly woman who uses KJV only. She has her own license. She rarely posts. She thinks Christians should get along and treat each other with respect. She allowed me to buy Portfolio Edition and for Christmas she gave her blessing on my purchase of the 2010 Master Collection

Don't ask me to choose between my wife & my Logos software.

And finally (as if anyone is paying attention this time)  I am not KJV-Only. I just figure I can accept them since Jesus can overlook their faults.

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 325
Michael | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 6:24 AM

Very interesting thread, thank you all for posting.  I wanted to add my two cents to the conversation (it's probably not worth 2 cents).  I am a lay person with no formal biblical training.  I am not college educated, but my IQ is relatively high, and I scored a 1390 on the SATs back in the early 80's, so I don't consider myself uneducated.  Before I became a child of the King, I was searching.  During my search I read the KJV and recieved nothing from it.  The archaic language was a barrier that I probably could have worked through, but as someone looking for answers it was too much work and the effort seemed pointless.  Eventually, I was introduced to the NIV and found that the "complicated" Bible really wasn't so complicated.  The ease of reading the NIV helped me to grasp concepts and basic theology that I would have missed or struggled with using the KJV.

Long story short, I currently have a KJV, NIV, RSV, and NET on my bookshelf (plus all the versions in Logos Big Smile).  The ability to read a version such as the NIV helped lead me to Christ, so it served a purpose in my life that the KJV couldn't at that time.  Each translation has a purpose in God's plan for believers (Jer 29:11) and the NIV just happened to be the translation that he used in my life.  For others it may be the KJV, ESV, RSV, HCSB or any of the other translations out there.  If a particluar translation is what helps you get closer to the King of kings, then by all means that's the translation you should use.

JMHO.

Be blessed!

 

Mike

 

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 7:15 AM

I think it is worth mentioning that not everybody that uses "only" the KJV could be termed a KJV-Onlyist (Onlyer? Onlyite?)  For a long time, the KJV was the only Bible I used...for various reasons...but I never got on board with most of the "doctrines" that characterize many of the KJV-Only groups.

Matthew C Jones:
they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.

Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point?  Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 6 2011 9:42 PM

Ron Keyston Jr:
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point?  Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!
I,too, am waiting for clarification on this point.

Posts 2796
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 7 2011 3:10 PM

Jack Caviness:

 I had a senior staff member of the second largest IFB in this county sit in my living room and state, "I believe that we can use the KJV to correct the Greek and Hebrew". He did not limit that claim to W-H or UBS.

[

Found an interesting comment on the Vulgate – “”it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages””  

[[I found it on the web so it must be true Devil :) ]]

Posts 2796
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 7 2011 8:28 PM

Hi George, [while we are all waiting for Matthew to reply to a couple of questions] 

 George Somsel Replied: Tue Apr 5, 2011 5:33 PM

          David Ames:  On the other hand the KJO group goofed - they should have gone with the LXX instead of the BHS. 

 GEORGE ->  The AV follows the Massoretic text.  If they think the LXX is original,

          DAVE -> I said “KJO group goofed” The early Christen church seems to have used the LXX not the Hebrew and yes, the AV uses the Massoretic in the Old Testament.   IMHO a big fatal error in the arguments of the KJO group of accepting a bible not using the Greek OT.

 GEORGE -> Obviously they know nothing about judging which text tradition is older and how it developed.  Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt. 

          DAVE -> [they would say that] “”That just shows that you are a convert to Textual Criticism””  and they would follow up with the statement that the TR is perfect [except of course where it needs to be corrected by the KJV]

 GEORGE -> I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions

          DAVE -> interesting Book – will have to re read it – it has been a few years

 GEORGE -> I really think the KJO group has gotten ahold of the wrong end of the stick.  They first choose what they want the text to say (AV version) then decide what text they prefer when they should first investigate what text has the greater claim to reliability and then choose an English version which represents that.

        DAVE -> I, Dave, agree (for the most part if we are talking about textual criticism  - BUT check out  the comments on Matthew 27:49 where Jesus is speared and then cried out and died in some BIG NAME manuscripts but it is ignored because it does not follow the accepted doctrine of the Textual Critics – therefor it must be a scribal error.

As in EMPH | Mt 27:49 but the rest said— Stay! let us see whether Elijah is coming? and will save him. But another taking a spear pierced his side, and there came forth water and blood.     [it is verse 50 where he cries and dies]

 The KJO groups reply would again be “”That just shows that you are a convert to Textual Criticism””  and they would follow up with the statement that the TR is perfect [except of course where it needs to be corrected by the KJV]

 But as Matthew will tell us it is not completely about textual criticism [I.E. there is a big part of the story that we have not yet told – I will let Matthew handle that part]

Posts 32517
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 7 2011 8:44 PM

David Ames:
Found an interesting comment on the Vulgate – “”it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages””  

Hey, good old Jerome used the best textual criticism available in his day. It's not his fault his access to manuscripts was severely limited by the available technology. Let's get a time machine and give him a second shot.Wink

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 5:44 PM

Ron Keyston Jr:

Matthew C Jones:
they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.

Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point?  Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!

UPDATE !!!!

Matthew is still alive. He was not abducted by aliens. He is responding to other threads. I assume he is still compiling an answer for us. Be Patient !!!

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 6:01 PM

Schezic:

Matthew C Jones:
they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.

Ron Keyston Jr:
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point?  Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!

From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture.  What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 6:07 PM

George Somsel:
From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture.  What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.
Then they distorted the truth, long before the modern versions existed. We can't blame the modern versions for their blindness. If a modern version is closer to the original meaning, It  is not establishing new doctrine, but attempting to return to the original "doctrine".

 

Gal 1:8

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

 

 

Posts 2796
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 6:13 PM

George Somsel:
 

From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture.  What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.

They do ascribe to the primacy of scripture [most of them anyway] they just reject the current findings of the 'science of textual criticism' [since say 1800]

They fully accept the textual criticism as accepted by the protestant world of say 1600.  [they accept the KJV -- they reject the DRV -- most of them have no clue what the DRV is but that is what they reject]

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 6:24 PM

David Ames:

George Somsel:
 

From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture.  What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.

 

They do ascribe to the primacy of scripture [most of them anyway] they just reject the current findings of the 'science of textual criticism' [since say 1800]

They fully accept the textual criticism as accepted by the protestant world of say 1600.  [they accept the KJV -- they reject the DRV -- most of them have no clue what the DRV is but that is what they reject]

In other words, they hold to the primacy of [their] tradition.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 6:26 PM

George Somsel:
In other words, they hold to the primacy of [their] tradition.

 

 Mark 7:7-8

"in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

 

As a side note...The KJV ads the following which is not even hinted at in the original.

 

Mark 7:8

"as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

KJV

 

 

Posts 2796
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 7:24 PM

Schezic:

As a side note...The KJV ads the following which is not even hinted at in the original.

 Mark 7:8

"as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."  KJV

 

Mark 7:8   [DRV of 1582 follows the KJV here.  [Jerome included it in the Vulgate (380 AD)] Some words (see below) are added in the BYZ text or deleted from the N-U text]

 8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

 Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, Kurt Aland and Institute for New Testament Textual Research (U.S.), vol. 1, Analytical Greek New Testament : Greek Text Analysis, Baker's Greek New Testament library, Mk 7:8 (Cedar Hill, Texas: Silver Mountain Software, 2001).

 8αφεντες γαρ την εντολην του θεου κρατειτε την παραδοσιν των ανθρωπων βαπτισμους ξεστων και ποτηριων και αλλα παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε

 William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek : According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, Mk 7:8 (Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers, 1995).

 

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 7:45 PM

David Ames:

Schezic:

As a side note...The KJV ads the following which is not even hinted at in the original.

 Mark 7:8

"as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."  KJV

 

 

Mark 7:8   [DRV follows the KJV here.  (the DRV of 1582)   Some words (see below) are added in the BYZ text or deleted from the N-U text]

 8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

 Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, Kurt Aland and Institute for New Testament Textual Research (U.S.), vol. 1, Analytical Greek New Testament : Greek Text Analysis, Baker's Greek New Testament library, Mk 7:8 (Cedar Hill, Texas: Silver Mountain Software, 2001).

 8αφεντες γαρ την εντολην του θεου κρατειτε την παραδοσιν των ανθρωπων βαπτισμους ξεστων και ποτηριων και αλλα παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε

 William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek : According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, Mk 7:8 (Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers, 1995).

 

That, of course, derives from v 4. 

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2796
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 7:59 PM

George Somsel:

That, of course, derives from v 4. 

So this is seen a being copied from Mark 7:4 (and by the rules of Textual Criticism it was most likely not in the original)  By the way Jerome added it to the the Vulgate so its history goes back to before 380 BC.  [Just padding my post count]

Posts 465
Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 8 2011 8:28 PM

Hi Matthew

Thanks for your patient and respectful contributions in the exchange of views on this issue.  I often read the forums and have followed this discussion closely. I've noticed in different forums out there (and in some churches) that those who particularly honour the KJV (and I understand you are not a KJV-Only" advocate)  come in for criticism and are usually unfairly called to defend themselves. 

I use the KJV as my primary Bible - for worship, prayer and study. If I really want to know what God is saying to me, to find support, comfort etc this is the Bible to which I will turn.  This Bible is sacred and in the English language it really has no peer. I've used the NIV, Jerusalem, NRSV etc,  but cannot regard any of them as coming close.  Naturally, people will have their own views - and I've become used to being called a dinosaur!    

I also bought the Logos Portfolio Edition and from time to time invested in additional Bibles - why would I do that if I am satisfied with the KJV?    The reason is that there is wonderful scholarship out there and writers who enrich us whether or not we agree with them. I may read with horror what Hort and Westcott did in the 19th century or worry about the rationale for accepting particular Greek manuscripts over others as authoritative or squirm in my seat at church as "The Message" is read in place of Scripture etc, but the point is that with the Logos tools I and many others are now empowered to look more closely at these things. 

Take care

Paul  

 

 

                                                    

 

 

Page 5 of 9 (174 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last » | RSS