Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Britton
    I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster s Preface to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that Noah was reformed,
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's Preface
      to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
      Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.

      Among some of his points:

      1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct and
      perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin; peculiarly
      adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity with
      beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
      ought not to be altered."

      2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
      place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
      obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen
      into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use,
      is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
      version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
      understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and
      who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
      words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
      when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false
      ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
      which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
      original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
      God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
      most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
      injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
      scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
      sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
      ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
      words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
      present version, fail to do this, is certain."

      3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to delicacy
      and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
      conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
      retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in company
      without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
      exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
      authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
      religion."

      4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all hands
      to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
      offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly made
      any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
      different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
      tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
      Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
      support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I as
      a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares if
      the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]


      3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
      use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
      controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.


      Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how to
      get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself & my
      family to grave error.

      Your thoughts are appreciated,

      Tom
    • Thomas Britton
      Here is the url to what I m refering to (Duh) http://www.kjvonly.org/other/webster_bible.htm Sorry, Tom
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Here is the url to what I'm refering to (Duh)

        http://www.kjvonly.org/other/webster_bible.htm

        Sorry,

        Tom
      • humble_soul2003
        Tom, I m not sure I understand exactly what your question is. I understand your concern about not wanting to expose you or your family to error. Do you think
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Tom,

          I'm not sure I understand exactly what your question is. I
          understand your concern about not wanting to expose you or your
          family to error.

          Do you think the KVJ is in error somehow, or are you wondering if
          you should look at other versions?

          From what I understand the KJV is a compilation of about 80% (from
          the Bishop's Bible) and 20% (from the Geneva Bible).

          Here is a good primer on the KJV:
          http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/KJVBible.htm

          I personally have a New King James, but that's because I didn't grow
          up with KJV, and the language seems more natural to me. I have 9
          different historic Bible versions.

          One of the coolest things I've ever bought is a Hexapla, here is
          more information about it:

          THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA EXHIBITING THE SIX IMPORTANT ENGLISH
          TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES, WICLIF, TYNDALE,
          CRANMER, GENEVAN, ANGLO-RHEMISH, AUTHORIZED OR KING JAMES VERSION
          (1841)

          Everything is here in parallel, it includes the greek text too! You
          can see that the Bible, even though has changed a couple of words
          here and there, it pretty much exactly the same in the different
          versions. At least the meanings are the same.

          I would encourage you to check out other "good" english translations
          of the Bible if you would like, but don't throw out the KJV, it's
          good to go.

          A good english speaking Bible scholar should have multiple versions
          of the Bible in their own language, and at least *try* to understand
          the original languages.

          Here are a couple of other links that might be helpful:

          http://www.bju.edu/resources/faith/1982/issue6/kjv.html
          http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/bibtabl.htm

          The bottom line is that you shouldn't let anyone try to scare you by
          saying newer translations don't use the exact same words. KJV-
          onlyism to me is ignorance -- why wouldn't our people today be much
          more adamant about say, the Geneva Bible, I mean, that's the Bible
          the pilgrims used!!! The KJV is fine, but it's not the be all end
          all. It's much easier for today's people to understand a NKJV or
          NASB, than a KJV, you know?

          If there are important differences that should be mentioned (from
          the ORIGINAL texts to ANY of the translations), a good
          scholar/teacher will be able to point them out to you and help you
          avoid any error.

          The most important thing I can say is that ANY translation of the
          Bible (KJV, etc), can be MISINTERPRETED and MISAPPLIED. These
          errors are by far more dangerous than anything you will expose
          yourself to by using a "good" Bible translation.

          If hope my post answers your question.

          -humble_soul




          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
          <bander1643@y...> wrote:
          > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
          Preface
          > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
          > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
          >
          > Among some of his points:
          >
          > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
          and
          > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
          peculiarly
          > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
          with
          > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
          > ought not to be altered."
          >
          > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
          > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in
          others,
          > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
          fallen
          > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
          use,
          > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
          > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
          > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
          and
          > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
          > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they
          had
          > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
          false
          > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from
          that
          > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
          > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
          > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
          > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
          > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
          > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
          > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
          > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
          > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
          > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
          >
          > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
          delicacy
          > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I
          have
          > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
          > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
          company
          > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
          > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
          > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
          > religion."
          >
          > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
          hands
          > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
          > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
          made
          > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which
          the
          > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
          > tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there
          weren't
          > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
          > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
          as
          > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
          if
          > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
          >
          >
          > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians
          should
          > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
          > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
          >
          >
          > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
          to
          > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
          my
          > family to grave error.
          >
          > Your thoughts are appreciated,
          >
          > Tom
        • weeping_calvinist
          Personally, I think the AV could use some work (let s get the word Easter out of there, for example). But I still think it s the best available English
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Personally, I think the AV could use some work (let's get the
            word "Easter" out of there, for example). But I still think it's the
            best available English version and it's usage ought to be retained.

            gmw.


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
            <bander1643@y...> wrote:
            > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
            Preface
            > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
            > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
            >
            > Among some of his points:
            >
            > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
            and
            > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
            peculiarly
            > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
            with
            > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
            > ought not to be altered."
            >
            > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
            > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
            > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
            fallen
            > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
            use,
            > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
            > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
            > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
            and
            > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
            > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
            > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
            false
            > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
            > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
            > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
            > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
            > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
            > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
            > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
            > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
            > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
            > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
            > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
            >
            > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
            delicacy
            > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
            > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
            > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
            company
            > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
            > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
            > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
            > religion."
            >
            > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
            hands
            > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
            > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
            made
            > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
            > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
            > tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
            > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
            > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
            as
            > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
            if
            > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
            >
            >
            > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
            > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
            > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
            >
            >
            > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
            to
            > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
            my
            > family to grave error.
            >
            > Your thoughts are appreciated,
            >
            > Tom
          • SteveZ167
            The 1599 Geneva Bible is a better Bible than the KJV and it does not have Easter in it pages: Geneva Bible 4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison,
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Message
              The 1599 Geneva Bible is a better Bible than the KJV and it does not have Easter in it pages:
               

              Geneva Bible

               

               4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.

               

              Steve

               
               
              Home Page
              1599 Geneva Bible Online

               

              1 Corinthians 14:8 And also if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?
              Yahoo Group Owner
              -----Original Message-----
              From: weeping_calvinist [mailto:raging.calvinist@...]
              Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:21 PM
              To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

              Personally, I think the AV could use some work (let's get the
              word "Easter" out of there, for example).  But I still think it's the
              best available English version and it's usage ought to be retained.

              gmw.


              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
              <bander1643@y...> wrote:
              > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
              Preface
              > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
              > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
              >
              > Among some of his points:
              >
              > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
              and
              > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
              peculiarly
              > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
              with
              > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
              > ought not to be altered."
              >
              > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
              > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
              > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
              fallen
              > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
              use,
              > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
              > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
              > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
              and
              > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
              > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
              > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
              false
              > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
              > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
              > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
              > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
              > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
              > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
              > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
              > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
              > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
              > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
              > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
              >
              > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
              delicacy
              > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
              > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
              > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
              company
              > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
              > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
              > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
              > religion."
              >
              > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
              hands
              > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
              > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
              made
              > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
              > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
              > tenets."  So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
              > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
              > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
              as
              > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
              if
              > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
              >
              >
              > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
              > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
              > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
              >
              >
              > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
              to
              > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
              my
              > family to grave error.
              >
              > Your thoughts are appreciated,
              >
              > Tom



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Thomas Britton
              Yup, Down widat TdB ... Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment

                Yup,

                Down widat

                TdB


                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              • Thomas Britton
                The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not. (E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20 And
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment

                  The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not.

                  (E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20

                  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. A.V.

                  But for Adam [1] no suitable helper was found. NIV

                  But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. New "King James".

                  The NKJV follows the NIV not the Authorized version.)

                  Not really wanting to start a faithful translation vs. unfaithful translation debate. I was interested in the question of using Webster's or the Geneva Bible within the context of covenanted uniformity.

                  Hope this clarifies,

                  Tom


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                • SteveZ167
                  Question... Why is the KJV called the Authorized Version? My answer is because a King had a bias to God s Word the Geneva Bible because it threatened his
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Message
                    Question... Why is the KJV called the Authorized Version?
                     
                    My answer is because a King had a bias to God's Word the Geneva Bible because it threatened his kingship besides the Catholics wanted the Geneva Bible to be replaced also. Plus the Geneva Bible was against Freemasons and secret fraternities which have proven throughout history to be worshiping Lucifer and not the God of the Bible.
                     
                    Steve
                     
                     
                    Home Page
                    1599 Geneva Bible Online

                     

                    1 Corinthians 14:8 And also if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?
                    Yahoo Group Owner
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Thomas Britton [mailto:bander1643@...]
                    Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:20 PM
                    To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

                    The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not.

                    (E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20

                    And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. A.V.

                    But for Adam [1] no suitable helper was found. NIV

                    But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. New "King James".

                    The NKJV follows the NIV not the Authorized version.)

                    Not really wanting to start a faithful translation vs. unfaithful translation debate. I was interested in the question of using Webster's or the Geneva Bible within the context of covenanted uniformity.

                    Hope this clarifies,

                    Tom


                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                  • Dan Fraas
                    Tom, I d suggest you try using the New King James Version. Although I personally think that it is an inferior translation in some ways, largely because modern
                    Message 9 of 9 , Sep 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tom,

                      I'd suggest you try using the New King James Version. Although I
                      personally think that it is an inferior translation in some ways,
                      largely because modern English is ill-suited to a translation from
                      antiquity, it has many advantages in comprehension for your average
                      reader.

                      Riley
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
                      <bander1643@y...> wrote:
                      > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
                      Preface
                      > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
                      > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
                      >
                      > Among some of his points:
                      >
                      > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
                      and
                      > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
                      peculiarly
                      > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
                      with
                      > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
                      > ought not to be altered."
                      >
                      > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
                      > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
                      > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
                      fallen
                      > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
                      use,
                      > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
                      > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
                      > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
                      and
                      > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
                      > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
                      > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
                      false
                      > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
                      > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
                      > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
                      > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
                      > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
                      > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
                      > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
                      > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
                      > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
                      > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
                      > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
                      >
                      > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
                      delicacy
                      > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
                      > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
                      > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
                      company
                      > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
                      > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
                      > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
                      > religion."
                      >
                      > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
                      hands
                      > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
                      > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
                      made
                      > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
                      > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
                      > tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
                      > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
                      > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
                      as
                      > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
                      if
                      > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
                      >
                      >
                      > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
                      > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
                      > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
                      >
                      >
                      > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
                      to
                      > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
                      my
                      > family to grave error.
                      >
                      > Your thoughts are appreciated,
                      >
                      > Tom
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.