KJV

ChubbyCherub said:

Some of us were raised with the KJV and it is a source of comfort and nostalgia and often the first time we came across the Bible. The language used isn't a barrier because, when I was growing up, we read it and sought understanding if we didn't understand. We didn't just give up trying to learn out of the effort it required or lack of resource.

Why don't people up their knowledge instead of decry what is from when it was from?

It's great there are newer versions, in more modern text, but I will always say the Lords Prayer via KJV, Psalms 23 etc.

The KJV reminds me of my grandma, church, poetry and the homage and respect language gave to God at the time it was written.

Re: Wycliffe, I read this as well as the Geneva. If I don't understand the phraseology or the letters etc, I find out.

Click to expand...

I was given a KJV Bible at age nine. I memorized verses in KJV, especially the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23.

David Lamb said:

Why expect teachers in schools to teach that "carriages" used to mean "luggage," that "fetched a compass" meant "turned around," etc.? Such meanings are not "correct usage" in the English of today.

Click to expand...

Because it's not only the Bible that uses historic vernacular.

Take for instance the Romans and how they phrased quotations on engravings underneath their monuments or busts, and then think about if we had teachers rephrase these quotations so that we understood them in modern context. Why wouldn't we apply this to other writings?

Now, if we argue that we can't expect secular teachers to teach us the changes within our Bible, fine. But, surely, this is where the church comes in?

For example, our church uses the NIV. Seemingly, even some of the words and phrases which I consider to be 'everyday' and basic, are beyond the scope of what some have been taught or come across often, so our pastor provides alternate words or summarizes phrases in a more 'modern' way for generalized understanding.

The responsibility for learning has to lie somewhere. We can't all just delegate responsibility to someone else or just cease the pursuit of knowledge. There are many paths to learning if someone is willing to pursue them.

ChubbyCherub said:

Because it's not only the Bible that uses historic vernacular.

Take for instance the Romans and how they phrased quotations on engravings underneath their monuments or busts, and then think about if we had teachers rephrase these quotations so that we understood them in modern context. Why wouldn't we apply this to other writings?

Now, if we argue that we can't expect secular teachers to teach us the changes within our Bible, fine. But, surely, this is where the church comes in?

For example, our church uses the NIV. Seemingly, even some of the words and phrases which I consider to be 'everyday' and basic, are beyond the scope of what some have been taught or come across often, so our pastor provides alternate words or summarizes phrases in a more 'modern' way for generalized understanding.

The responsibility for learning has to lie somewhere. We can't all just delegate responsibility to someone else or just cease the pursuit of knowledge. There are many paths to learning if someone is willing to pursue them.

Click to expand...

I don't wish for this to sound flippant so apologies if it has come across that way.

My point here, I guess, is I learned Shakespeare in school, I learned about Plato, I learned geometry and about Magellan and governments of countries I've never even heard of. None of my knowledge regarding how people spoke, learned or wrote at the time their ideas were formulated was inherent, some of my knowledge changed from how it was presented to me initially etc and if I had curiosity about them at a later date, due to a passing conversation or something I read, I sought to update what I thought I knew or reconfirm what I'd already learned.

I have taken the point of this post to be that there is no reason for us to speak in the colloquial ways of the KJV and it is not understood why anyone would choose to do so since no one really understands what is being said, in the main. However, I don't see that as true across the board and there are reasons why the KJV is referred to by many despite the language being outdated.

I also think that if a church is using the KJV, then it's okay to ask them about what certain things mean if we don't understand since we don't always know how to apply KJV text to modern language. They would have, in my opinion, a responsibility to clarify but we would have the responsibility to ask so we can learn.

I can't imagine being bothered by someone learning, teaching and applying physics just because I didn't understand it or the origins of it. If I felt that strongly about my lack of understanding, it would seem to me that it's my responsibility to learn so that I do understand or learn enough so that I can ask questions from the appropriate source.

Apologies if I have misunderstood the post!

ChubbyCherub said:

Well, that is a failing in our school system, I guess.

Click to expand...

I'm tempted to emulate US writing conventions, circa 1860, in reply, but since I'm not literally taking "pen in hand," perhaps it's best to refrain. Or we could peruse the writings of the deist Thomas Paine, or the naturalist William Bartram or Reverend Johnathan Edwards to get a feel for 18th Century English. I noticed that when our children studied Shakespeare, they and their friends had an excellent grasp of the Bard's writings, and that likely came from familiarity with the KJV.

My point? Whether it's the focus of schools to teach meanings of words and idioms of times past depends on the class. An elementary school teaching reading and writing not so much; the same for introductory history. Once you get beyond that and begin to consult primary sources, then a class would be very much amiss not to address changes in the meaning of words.

All of this is neither here nor there, to borrow from 19th Century US vernacular. This topic is basically a KJV only discussion from the POV of those who see no reason for continued use. Whatever. The stated point of modern translations is the same as those of times past: To make God's Word more accessible. Having grown up with the KJV, I don't find it makes it inaccessible, and meaning by contest is enough to gain understanding of the rather poetic "fetched a compass." That said, for personal use I prefer the NASB, 1995 version. But if someone asked me my opinion of The Message bible vs the KJV, I'd direct them to the KJV. The biggest issue is accuracy of the translation, and the more you get into paraphrase, the more you get into the realm of commentary.

I will mention that I saw the Good News for Modern Man and the first The Living Bible translations, and having scripture in the language of the time doesn't seem to have had much impact on the continued decay of Western society. It's good to be able to more easily understand God's Word, but it doesn't automatically follow that the reader will come under conviction.

So we’re gonna keep casually ignoring KJV is the only translation that says Christ was crucified before the Galatians?

jonojim1337 said:

So we’re gonna keep casually ignoring KJV is the only translation that says Christ was crucified before the Galatians?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but where does any translation of the bible say that Christ was crucified before the Galatians? The word "Galatians" doesn't even appear in the KJV (except in the title of Paul's letter to the Galatians. "Galatia" is mentioned 8 times, but not once in connection to the crucifixion:

Ac 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
Ac 18:23 And after he had spent some time [there], he departed, and went over [all] the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.
1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
Ga 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Ga 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen. [To the] Galatians written from Rome.
2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

“O foolish Galatians”, “who hath bewitched you”, “before whose eyes”, “evidently set forth”, “crucified among you”

jonojim1337 said:

“O foolish Galatians”, “who hath bewitched you”, “before whose eyes”, “evidently set forth”, “crucified among you”

Click to expand...

That surely doesn't mean that the crucifixion took place in Galatia. We are told that it was outside Jerusalem at Golgotha. Galatia was hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem.

David Lamb said:

That surely doesn't mean that the crucifixion took place in Galatia. We are told that it was outside Jerusalem at Golgotha. Galatia was hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you…

Also