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

Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Sep 5, 2003
      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 2 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
        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 3 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
          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 4 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003

            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 5 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003

              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 6 of 9 , Sep 6, 2003
                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 7 of 9 , Sep 8, 2003
                  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.