KJV haters

OzSpen · Feb 8, 2016

The Portuguese Baptist said:
I do not hate it. Partially, it is a good translation, but there are some really bad things in it. Firstly, it has passages which (may) have been added in and are not present in some of oldest and most reliable manuscripts (e.g., Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53, John 8:1-11, Acts of the Apostles 8:37, 1 John 5:7-8). Secondly, it originally included the Apocrypha, which are rejected by Protestants. Thirdly, it has words incomprehensible to us nowadays. Fourthly, some of the archaic words used have actually changed meaning over the past four centuries, making them extremely misleading (e.g., conversation, carriages, mansion, prevent and suffer).

I do not hate KJV readers; I hate KJV-onlyism, which is the belief that only the KJV should be used, which is extremely ridiculous. I also think that KJV readers should seriously consider reading other versions as well.

How can you possibly understand these things? ‘Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both’ (Job 9:33, KJV). ‘O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.’ (2 Corinthians 6:11-13, KJV) What does this mean?

God's Word should be translated into modern English so that people nowadays may understand — not into the way they spoke English four hundred years ago.

I would kindly disagree: the NIV is much easier for me to memorise.

I think the KJV is an interesting translation, but it is just not very good for regular usage. The NIV is much better.

You have stated this so well, my brother in Christ.

You cited 2 Cor 6:11-13. The 1611 King James Version for 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 reads:

11 O yee Corinthians, our mouth is open vnto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Yee are not straitened in vs, but yee are straitned in your owne bowels.
13 Nowe for a recompense in the same, (I speake as vnto my children) be ye also inlarged.

This is even more difficult to understand since not only the spelling has changed (although recognisable in most instances) but some of the letters of the alphabet have changed:

yee = ye
vnto = unto
owne = own
Etc.

I commend you for bringing evidence into this conversation.

In Christ,
Oz

Goodbook · Feb 8, 2016

Its just spelling the words mean the same.

I cd spl lk ths n ppl stl vunderstan me.

Goodbook · Feb 8, 2016

Dont be hung up on spellings, the Bible is actually meant to be read out loud.
Even Paul says to read his letters out to the church.

Albion · Feb 8, 2016

OzSpen said:
You have stated this so well, my brother in Christ.

You cited 2 Cor 6:11-13. The 1611 King James Version for 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 reads:

11 O yee Corinthians, our mouth is open vnto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Yee are not straitened in vs, but yee are straitned in your owne bowels.
13 Nowe for a recompense in the same, (I speake as vnto my children) be ye also inlarged.

This is even more difficult to understand since not only the spelling has changed (although recognisable in most instances) but some of the letters of the alphabet have changed:

yee = ye

vnto = unto

owne = own

Etc.

I commend you for bringing evidence into this conversation.

In Christ,
Oz

Few people consider the modest updatings in spelling (like, for instance, owne to own) that have been made to constitute a good argument for going to a totally new translation. As we all know, hardly anyone even owns a copy of the KJV with the original spellings.

The Portuguese Baptist · Feb 8, 2016

Goodbook said:
Its just spelling the words mean the same.

I cd spl lk ths n ppl stl vunderstan me.

I understand, but it takes twice or thrice the time to read it, because I have to go back and think, ‘Wait. What was that?’ But do you really want to start spelling like that?

OzSpen · Feb 8, 2016

Goodbook said:
Its just spelling the words mean the same.

I cd spl lk ths n ppl stl vunderstan me.

You have given typographical errors here. In the 1611 KJV, the way of writing (incl. letters of the alphabet) and the meaning of words have changed drastically from 1611 to 2016.

By the way, most KJVs used today are the 1769 revision and not the 1611 version.

OzSpen · Feb 8, 2016

Albion said:
Few people consider the modest updatings in spelling (like, for instance, owne to own) that have been made to constitute a good argument for going to a totally new translation. As we all know, hardly anyone even owns a copy of the KJV with the original spellings.

Albion,

With 2 Cor 6:12 (1611 KJV), it states, 'Yee are not straitened in vs, but yee are straitned in your owne bowels'. What on earth does that mean to a commoner in the pew today?

Surely the ESV translation makes much more sense: 'You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections' or the NIV translation, 'We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us'.

I know which one I'll share with my Bible study group tomorrow. It won't be the 1611 KJV. Even though our Aussie heritage is British, that KJV 1611 British translation uses lingo that is a country mile from what is acceptable today to communicate with Aussie people and our secular culture. The mass media would have a hay-day if I were to quote the 1611 KJV. It would further indicate how antiquated and out of touch I was.

Let's try 2 Cor 6:12 (NLT) to gain a contemporary understanding for a new Christian: 'There is no lack of love on our part, but you have withheld your love from us'. That meaning sure sounds better than the 1611 KJV.

As for anyone owning a copy of the 1611 KJV, there is a fellow in his 40s who comes to my church who is such a KJV-only advocate that he brings his 1611 KJV with him every Sunday. There is access to it online if one wants such archaic language.

Oz

OzSpen · Feb 8, 2016

Goodbook said:
Dont be hung up on spellings, the Bible is actually meant to be read out loud.
Even Paul says to read his letters out to the church.

I'm not hung up on spelling. It has to do with meaning for a contemporary audience.

The 1611 KJV for 2 Cor 6:11-13 reads:

The 1611 King James Version for 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 reads:
11 O yee Corinthians, our mouth is open vnto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Yee are not straitened in vs, but yee are straitned in your owne bowels.
13 Nowe for a recompense in the same, (I speake as vnto my children) be ye also inlarged.

The ESV reads:

11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. 12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. 13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.

The NIV reads:

We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.

When it comes to reading this passage in church on Sunday, I know which translation I'll be using - to be accurate and make sense for my Aussie audience - and it will not be the KJV of 1611.

Oz

Albion · Feb 8, 2016

OzSpen said:
Albion,

With 2 Cor 6:12 (1611 KJV), it states, 'Yee are not straitened in vs, but yee are straitned in your owne bowels'. What on earth does that mean to a commoner in the pew today?

Surely the ESV translation makes much more sense: 'You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections' or the NIV translation, 'We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us'.

I know which one I'll share with my Bible study group tomorrow. It won't be the 1611 KJV. Even though our Aussie heritage is British, that KJV 1611 British translation uses lingo that is a country mile from what is acceptable today to communicate with Aussie people and our secular culture. The mass media would have a hay-day if I were to quote the 1611 KJV. It would further indicate how antiquated and out of touch I was.

Let's try 2 Cor 6:12 (NLT) to gain a contemporary understanding for a new Christian: 'There is no lack of love on our part, but you have withheld your love from us'. That meaning sure sounds better than the 1611 KJV.

Oz

Here's the way I look at it. The Authorized Version (KJV) is the best known and certainly most beautiful of all translations. If it were viewed as nothing more than a book of prose, it would be a tremendous loss to us and our descendants if it were to fall out of use. Innumerable phrases and expressions we use all the time outside of church as well as the most edifying passages are from the KJV translation. Some presumption in favor of preserving the KJV ought to exist for this reason alone.

But, what modern language translation would people go to? How accurate or uplifting is its wording? In fact, this push for a more easily read (by a 9th grader, that is) translation is a push for a plethora of mainly dumbed-down, uninspiring, books. We're not talking KJV vs. XXX when we get into this kind of discussion. It's KJV that everyone has some familiarity with versus a dozen alternatives.

Then too, it's a fact that none of these is perfection itself. For every questionable translation that people point to in the KJV, there are some in each of the suggested replacements, also.

So what of the fact that some people have difficulty with certain passages (in truth, it's not all of the KJV, although people arguing for another version always pick a tough verse and present it as though it's characteristic of the whole Bible)? The answer is too obvious--teach and learn. Other religions do it. The Jews even teach the Scriptures to their children in the Hebrew language!

We Christians teach all the time in churches and church schools and Bible studies, but then we act as though we couldn't possibly educate a church member who's having difficulty with such as the passage you used for an example in your post to me (1 Cor 6.12). Why not??

For that matter, the use of one of those publications where several different Bible translations are presented side by side on the same page would settle all of this without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as it were, and for nothing.

I also consider it something of a red herring to constantly talk as though only the 1611 edition of the KJV is to be considered in this discussion or as though that's the edition anyone uses.

OzSpen · Feb 9, 2016

Albion said:
Here's the way I look at it. The Authorized Version (KJV) is the best known and certainly most beautiful of all translations. If it were viewed as nothing more than a book of prose, it would be a tremendous loss to us and our descendants if it were to fall out of use. Innumerable phrases and expressions we use all the time outside of church as well as the most edifying passages are from the KJV translation. Some presumption in favor of preserving the KJV ought to exist for this reason alone.

But, what modern language translation would people go to? How accurate or uplifting is its wording? In fact, this push for a more easily read (by a 9th grader, that is) translation is a push for a plethora of mainly dumbed-down, uninspiring, books. We're not talking KJV vs. XXX when we get into this kind of discussion. It's KJV that everyone has some familiarity with versus a dozen alternatives.

Then too, it's a fact that none of these is perfection itself. For every questionable translation that people point to in the KJV, there are some in each of the suggested replacements, also.

So what of the fact that some people have difficulty with certain passages (in truth, it's not all of the KJV, although people arguing for another version always pick a tough verse and present it as though it's characteristic of the whole Bible)? The answer is too obvious--teach and learn. Other religions do it. The Jews even teach the Scriptures to their children in the Hebrew language!

We Christians teach all the time in churches and church schools and Bible studies, but then we act as though we couldn't possibly educate a church member who's having difficulty with such as the passage you used for an example in your post to me (1 Cor 6.12). Why not??

For that matter, the use of one of those publications where several different Bible translations are presented side by side on the same page would settle all of this without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as it were, and for nothing.

I also consider it something of a red herring to constantly talk as though only the 1611 edition of the KJV is to be considered in this discussion or as though that's the edition anyone uses.

You are not dealing with the issues I raised.

You state that 'The Authorized Version (KJV) is the best known and certainly most beautiful of all translations'. In my part of the world, the KJV is not the best known and beautiful of translations. That is your perspective.

Goodbook · Feb 9, 2016

I just watched a movie about the King James Bible it was very interesting.

The politics of the time of england were such that King James who was already king of scotland before he came to the english throne called for a new english translation of the Bible so that the two factions within england would stop squabbling - the bishops and the puritans. The bishops had the bishops bible and the puritans read from the Geneva bible.

kIng James, who studied scripture..he knew latin, greek, and I presume hebrew called for a new translation so that english churches would be on the same page. It took them seven years to complete the new translation and the most learned scholars were on the task to check everything...and suprise both the bishops and puritans were united for common cause. But really it was the dissenting puritans who left for america because they interpreted the bible their own way and despised the authority of the bishops.

King James wanted the new translation to be without bias..and no footnotes or commenatry or anything without scripture in it, which a lot of bibles had at the time..church agendas and dissensions. Just plain scripture.

The king James bible drew upon a lot of what scholar tyndale had already translated, he got in trouble with the catholics as they saw it as a threat to their latin bibles. They burned him at the stake.

Goodbook · Feb 9, 2016

I think a lot of kJV hating comes from america actually. Not the catholics so much who respect it now but the ones from the puritan tradition.
Which is ironic because the strongest churches in america read from the kjv. Some even insist on KJV only. Lukewarm churches often read from other translations.

Goodbook · Feb 9, 2016

And nobody I know even uses the Geneva bible anymore. Its a poor translation. King James didnt like it. Nobody uses the bishops bible anymore either. kjv wasnt popular at the time though. But look how it has endured.

Goodbook · Feb 9, 2016

After the november 5 guy fawkes gunpowder plot was foiled I think the catholics left england alone. And we still celebrate november 5 guy fawkes day today. Even in nz.

Ppl often dont know why we let off fireworks on that day.

Well, short answer is the catholics wanted to blow up english parliament cos they werent in power. It was like england 9-11 which got averted.

Albion · Feb 9, 2016

OzSpen said:
You are not dealing with the issues I raised.

You state that 'The Authorized Version (KJV) is the best known and certainly most beautiful of all translations'. In my part of the world, the KJV is not the best known and beautiful of translations. That is your perspective.

If that were the case, I'd be inclined to say that your "part of the world" is an exception to the rule. The point is still valid.

But neither do I actually believe a claim that Australia is remote from the KJV and from the Anglican Church that produced it, used it in worship, and introduced many peoples around the globe to the Gospel by means of it.

Goodbook · Feb 9, 2016

Guy fawkes was their paid hitman. If he had suceeded many people would have perished. Not just the people in parliament on that day but innocent civilians as well, there was HEAPS of gunpowder.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

Goodbook said:
. Lukewarm churches often read from other translations.

Please provide the evidence. Otherwise, this is your assertion with no verification.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

Goodbook said:
And nobody I know even uses the Geneva bible anymore. Its a poor translation. King James didnt like it. Nobody uses the bishops bible anymore either. kjv wasnt popular at the time though. But look how it has endured.

It's too bad that printers even bother with printing the KJV 1611 edition as it is antiquated in English word usage and grammatical constructions. It does not come in relevant English. It sounds nice to someone who wants that kind of sound, but it is not meant to communicate Jesus to people in 2016.

Oz

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

Albion said:
If that were the case, I'd be inclined to say that your "part of the world" is an exception to the rule. The point is still valid.

But neither do I actually believe a claim that Australia is remote from the KJV and from the Anglican Church that produced it, used it in worship, and introduced many peoples around the globe to the Gospel by means of it.

What has that comment to do with what I wrote?

DawnStar · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
Please provide the evidence. Otherwise, this is your assertion with no verification.

Exactly. Her statement sounds more like an arrogant statement from a misinformed child than an educated statement from an adult.

KJV haters

Regular Member

Reading the Bible

Reading the Bible

Facilitator

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Regular Member

Reading the Bible

Reading the Bible

Reading the Bible

Reading the Bible

Facilitator

Reading the Bible

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Pragmatist

Similar threads