KJV Alone?

[John Robie]

If you're not for something, you're against it.

Please speak for yourself. You don't know me. You cannot make that claim about me.

 

[graphuto]

That claim goes for everyone.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

You don't think that can be applied in a broader sense?

 

[John Robie]

That claim goes for everyone.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

That's talking about Jesus.

 

[graphuto]

I know what it's talking about.
It can also be applied in a broader sense to a range of things.

 

[graphuto]

Don't sit here and pretend indifference. Your posts show otherwise.

 

[John Robie]

I know what it's talking about.
It can also be applied in a broader sense to a range of things.

Sure. But not everything.

 

[John Robie]

Don't sit here and pretend indifference. Your posts show otherwise.

Please show where I've once said anything negative about the KJV, or tried to say that it shouldn't be read.

 

[graphuto]

If you're for modern versions, you're against the KJV by default. It has been good enough for every English speaking person for the past 400 years.

 

[Boidae]

If you're for modern versions, you're against the KJV by default. It has been good enough for every English speaking person for the past 400 years.

Got to love the faulty logic!

Not every English speaking person can read the archaic language. I know that I myself get distracted having to wade through the KJV because of the archaic language. I failed the portion of English class where we had to read Shakespeare because the language distracted me and I couldn't get through a single piece of his work.

I myself prefer the Esv which is more literal than the KJV, but is in the vernacular that I speak. I do not get distracted when reading any other Bible, other than the KJV.

 

[High Fidelity]

If you're for modern versions, you're against the KJV by default. It has been good enough for every English speaking person for the past 400 years.

Lots of things were 'good enough' for a period of time.

Today, however, there are better versions.

 

[John Robie]

If you're for modern versions, you're against the KJV by default. It has been good enough for every English speaking person for the past 400 years.

Please stop with this false accusation. I'm perfectly happy if someone wants to use the KJV.

 

[High Fidelity]

Got to love the faulty logic!

Not every English speaking person can read the archaic language. I know that I myself get distracted having to wade through the KJV because of the archaic language. I failed the portion of English class where we had to read Shakespeare because the language distracted me and I couldn't get through a single piece of his work.

I myself prefer the Esv which is more literal than the KJV, but is in the vernacular that I speak. I do not get distracted when reading any other Bible, other than the KJV.

Not to mention the 300-400 words that aren't used today or don't have the same meaning.

 

[John Robie]

And now we are back to, if you can't defend your point, make personal attacks against opponents.

 

[graphuto]

Context clues, reading comprehension.
Important things.

I don't find any of the language to be archaic. Interesting.
Then again, I know how to read.

 

[High Fidelity]

Context clues, reading comprehension.
Important things.

I don't find any of the language to be archaic. Interesting.
Then again, I know how to read.

Speaking as an Englishman, I can guarantee that we don't speak like that now.

It isn't about 'knowing how to read'. I could read German from a page but have no idea what it means if I don't know what the specific words mean. Same applies to some of the words that aren't used or have different meanings now.

 

[High Fidelity]

In addition to the analogy; Newer versions are not only more accurate, but they speak for themselves. They don't require additional resources to understand words that aren't used or hold different meanings now.

 

[graphuto]

Regarding the ESV :
There’s one itsy-bitsy problem with the publishers ancestry claim to the “original”. Just a small one. . . We do not have the “original words” or the “original texts” or the “original manuscripts.” We do not have the “original” books penned by Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or the apostle Paul. We wouldn’t even know they were the originals if we held them in our hand! We have copies of the “originals”. We have many copies. And we have different copies. Over 6,000 “pieces” of the Greek New Testament exist. And not all are the same. . .



That introduces an interesting dilemma – what was the Lord “referring to” when He stated in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”? (There are hundreds of other verses proclaiming the importance and promise of the preservation of the Word of God.)



We can glean a couple of very important facts from Matthew 24:35:



1) God has clearly promised to preserve His words – “my words shall not pass away”.

2) God has clearly placed a lot of importance on His words - “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”? .



And we learn something else – something very important. And it’s something that has completely eluded this generation regarding the preservation and inspiration of the Word of God.



The “original” manuscripts are not the “my words” of Matthew 24:35!



And I can prove that statement with one simple, indisputable, irrefutable, FACT.



The “originals” have “passed away”! And God’s “words shall NOT pass away.”



If the “original manuscripts” are the only true, God-breathed, genuine words of God (as proposed by the majority of today’s “original-blind” Christian leaders) then Jesus Christ lied in Matthew 24:35 (and tons of other verses) because the “originals” are “passed away”. All the bold proclamations of true to “the originals” are simply a big fat lie. Preachers who stand in the pulpit week after week telling his congregation “the original says” is lying. Bible publishers who claim to be “true” to the originals are lying. No one on this earth “knows” what the originals say because we do not have “the originals.” Anyone that sells you a Bible or tells you the “original text” or “original” says is either flat-out lying or grossly ignorant of Bible manuscript evidence. There is no middle ground. Truth is truth. And the truth is we do not have the “originals”.

 

[brinny]

Oh, I know how to read. I can read just fine. However, I cannot be expected to know how to read an archaic language when my everyday vernacular is not that archaic language. Besides, I am speaking for myself. You seem to be speaking for all and believe that just because you can do something, so can everyone else, which as we know in real life doesn't work that way.

Do you read Shakespeare? (i will elaborate why i bring his writings up, if you wish)

Thank you kindly.

 

[brinny]

brinny said:
Do you read Shakespeare? (i will elaborate why i bring his writings up, if you wish)

Thank you kindly.

I have mentioned this already Brinny. I failed the section of English regarding Shakespeare as the language is distracting to me. That doesn't mean I have a reading comprehension problem, it simply means that I am just not going to read Shakespeare and I haven't since High School.

Does this mean that Shakespeare's writings should be done away with?

Thank you kindly.

 

[brinny]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the KJV be done away with. So this is a red herring.

Not sure what a red herring is, but my question is legitimate. Am i to assume that Shakespeare's writings are valuable just the way they are and should stay just as they are, from the above post?

Thank you kindly.