KJV Only?

[Nord Christian]

I love the King James and use it, but I'm not King James Only.

I remember trying to read my Grandmother's years ago, and just couldn't understand it. Perhaps now I should try giving it a read?

I have an NSRV here.

 

[yesyoushould]

For some reason, I never thought it such a gift, but I can understand the kjv, by the grace of God.

 

[Nord Christian]

For some reason, I never thought it such a gift, but I can understand the kjv, by the grace of God.

Well that was several years ago, when I tried to start reading that King James version of the Bible. I was unsaved then, and really didn't know much about Christianity. I did know some of the ten commandments
if that counts for something. hehe

It's only been over the last two to three years I'm learning and comprehending what the Bible means. Also salvation, regeneration.

I bought my first Bible about two years ago, which is a New Standard revised version.

 

[faroukfarouk]

For some reason, I never thought it such a gift, but I can understand the kjv, by the grace of God.

We need the grace of God to understand whatever version of the Bible, of course.

 

[Nord Christian]

We need the grace of God to understand whatever version of the Bible, of course.

I think what threw me off was the olde English it was written in.
Like "ye olde apple shoppe".

 

[yesyoushould]

We need the grace of God to understand whatever version of the Bible, of course.

All is possible with God, even the KJV.

 

[bushinoki]

cardoctor, I'm not actually saying to learn 1600s English before Greek or Hebrew. I'm saying to learn 1600s English to use the KJV. I use the ESV now.

The NKJV is a good version for those whom want the traditional English Bible based on the Authorized Version, but the language is Modern English. There is no reason the KJV onlyists couldn't switch to NKJV.

 

[Jack Koons]

cardoctor, I'm not actually saying to learn 1600s English before Greek or Hebrew. I'm saying to learn 1600s English to use the KJV. I use the ESV now.

The NKJV is a good version for those whom want the traditional English Bible based on the Authorized Version, but the language is Modern English. There is no reason the KJV onlyists couldn't switch to NKJV.

You obviously haven't examined the NKJV In any detail.

Please read posts 85, 86, and 90 from the following link:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7826211-9/

This is but a taste of the facts.

Jack

 

[Avid]

You obviously haven't examined the NKJV In any detail...

This is true. It started as though that was the intent, but what we ended up with was not simply taking out the more precise language of that English, and replacing it with the lazy version we use.

As a side note, the next version of English may be named, "NewSpeak."

 

[kiwimac]

The KJV is a dated version of the Bible, translated from younger MSS and from Latin. It was OK in 1611 but now.... No!

 

[cardoctor]

At the end of the day what I see:

KJV(granting that it is more inspired/accurate/ect): requires a working knowledge of old English which is readily available but time consuming

NKJV and the like: No special study needed but dubious accuracy and lack of cultural clues

Original Language: Requires a working knowledge of the original language which is readily available but time consuming. However this process will absolutely reveal the contemporary cultural clues, rhetorical cues, and are the translations from which the rest spawn.

For my time and investment I would rather develop a working knowledge of the language that was actually spoken, it seems like a relatively small sacrifice to hear what the God who saved me actually said.

In Peace,
cardoctor

 

[PrincetonGuy]

What I have seen for years:

The KJV was a good translation when evaluated by the translation standards of the early 1600’s, but when evaluated by today’s translation standards, it falls short of being accurate enough for Bible study.

The NKJV is translated from essentially the same badly corrupted manuscripts as was the KJV, and consequently it is severely flawed. The quality of the translation is far from the best, and the English is far from satisfactory.

The NRSV is translated from the best and most accurate original language texts available today and it therefore reflects that scholarship. The quality of the translation is the very best available today, having been performed by specialists with decades of knowledge rather than with a mere “working knowledge” of the original languages that all too often proves to be a hindrance to accurate understanding rather any kind of a benefit. Furthermore, the English used in the NRSV is a model of perfection, making it easy for the reader to accurately understand the English—a huge asset in understanding the message of the original.

 

[tall73]

Nevertheless, the question is; Is there reference from other parts of Scripture, (such as the Pauline Epistles), that gives credibility to the Genesis account, for a HISTORICAL record? The answer of course is yes. Hence, the entire ideology of textual criticism is void.
Jack

Textual criticism is not first and foremost about theology, but about the manuscripts and their characteristics. Whatever the bias of Wescott and Hort in areas theological. many scholars who do not hold to their same theology still see some weight in their arguments regarding textual criticism.

Wescott and Hort did not largely come up with their system but were using principles from other areas of literary criticism, as to copyists and their trends, within the context of the history of the NT text.

Those principles of textual criticism are certainly up for debate, as is the whole question of the role of textual criticism when applied to the Scriptures. However, the theology of Wescott and Hort will not settle the textual issues, as many people agree with their interpretation the transmission of the text, without agreeing with their theological views.

Challenging each of their presuppositions regarding how texts are transmitted would be a more convincing argument than pointing out flaws in their theology. Their theology could be dead wrong and their understanding of text transmission could still be correct.

To put it another way, no one here that I have seen is endorsing them as teachers or theologians or spiritual authorities. They are however looking at whether the textual scholarship may still be valid.

 

[tall73]

I am obligated to ask, why do these state the following?

The following excerpt was taken from:

2 Timothy 2:15 <a href="http://www.godrules.net/store/Study-Guides.htm">Study</a> to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

"King James Bible - 2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

World English Bible
Give diligence to present yourself approved by God, a workman who doesn't need to be ashamed, properly handling the Word of Truth.

Douay-Rheims - 2 Timothy 2:15
Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Webster's Bible Translation
Study to show thyself approved to God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Greek Textus Receptus

&#963;&#960;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#945;&#963;&#959;&#957; 4704 5657 &#963;&#949;&#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#957; 4572 &#948;&#959;&#954;&#953;&#956;&#959;&#957; 1384&#960;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#953; 3936 5658 &#964;&#969; 3588 &#952;&#949;&#969; 2316 &#949;&#961;&#947;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#957; 2040&#945;&#957;&#949;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#963;&#967;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#957; 422 &#959;&#961;&#952;&#959;&#964;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#945; 3718 5723 &#964;&#959;&#957; 3588&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#957; 3056 &#964;&#951;&#962; 3588 &#945;&#955;&#951;&#952;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962; 225

Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge
VERSE (15) - Heb 4:11 2Pe 1:10,15; 3:14 *Gr:

SEV Biblia, Chapter 2:15
Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado, como obrero que no tiene de qu avergonzarse, que traza bien la palabra de la verdad.

Clarke's Bible Commentary - 2 Timothy 2:15
Verse 15. Study to show thyself approved unto God] Endeavour so to cultivate and improve thy heart and mind, that thou mayest not be a reproach to him from whom thou professest to receive thy commission.
Rightly dividing the word of truth.] It is generally supposed that the apostle alludes here to the care taken to divide the sacrifices under the law; the priests studied, in dividing the victim down the spine, to do it so scrupulously that one half of the spinal marrow should be found on each side the backbone. Probably nothing was much farther from the apostle's thoughts than this view, which is now commonly taken of the subject.
Indeed this scrupulously dividing does not appear to have been any original ordinanceamong the Jews; much stress was laid upon it in later times, but from the beginning it was not so. The word orqotomein signifies, 1. Simply to cut straight, or to rectify. 2. To walkin the right way; it is thus used by Gregory Nazianzen, who, in Orat. Apol. fugae, opposes orqotomein to kakwv odeuein, walking in a right way to walking in a bad way. Thus, kainotomein signifies to walk in a new way, and kateuqunein to walk in a straight way. See Kypke. Therefore, by rightly dividing the word of truth, we are to understand his continuing in the true doctrine, and teaching that to every person; and, according to our Lord's simile, giving each his portion of meat in due season-milk to babes, strong meat to the full grown, comfort to the disconsolate, reproof to the irregular and careless; in a word, finding out the necessities of his hearers, and preachingso as to meet those necessities.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 15. Study to show thyself approved unto God , etc.] The Alexandrian copy reads, to Christ; (see Romans 16:10). Not unto men, as pleasing them; for such who study to please men, are not the servants of Christ; and sometimes those that are approved to and by men, are disapproved of by God and Christ: but unto God, showing all fidelity and uprightness; speaking out the Gospel openly, and freely, with all sincerity, as in the sight of God; commending themselves to him, and to every man's conscience, by manifestation of the truth; and such will hear, Well done, good and faithful servant another day. A workman that needeth not to be ashamed ; the ministry of the word is a work, and it is a good work; and those that perform it aright are worthy of honour and esteem; and it requires industry, diligence, and application, and for which no man is sufficient without the grace of God; and those who are employed in it are workmen, workers together with God, and labourers in his vineyard: and such who are faithful and diligent ones, need not to be ashamed; such do not cause shame, neither in themselves nor in others, as false teachersdo, who foam out their own shame, and as negligent ministers of the word, and such whose lives are not agreeable to the doctrinesthey preach; nor have they any reason to be ashamed, neither of the Gospel, which they preach, nor of their sufferings, which they endure for the sake of it, nor of their uprightministrations of the word; and as they are not afraid to suffer shame for the sake of Christnow, they will not be ashamed before him at his coming. rightly dividing , or cutting the word of truth ; that is, the Scriptures of truth, ( Daniel 10:21) which come from the God of truth, are concerning Christ, who is the truth, and are dictated and led into by the spirit of truth, and contain in them nothing but truth: to divide the word, is not merely to divide the text into its proper parts, though care should be taken that this be done aright; and some think that the allusion is to the verses of the Hebrew Bible, which are called yqwsp , divisions, sections, or cuttings, from the word qsp , to cut or divide, being cutor divided one from another; hence those that were employed in the law, and were conversant with the sacred writings, and exercised therein, were called trwtb yqswp , cutters, or dividers of the law f5 ; and so qwsp l[b is one that is well versed in the Bible, and knows every part of it, and readily uses it, in speaking or writing; and such an one was Timothy, ( 2 Timothy 3:15) though I rather think the apostle refers to a wrong way of dividing the Scriptures by the Jews, to which he opposes the right dividing of them. They had used not only to take away a letter out of one word, and add it to another, and so expound the text, but to remove words in it, and make that which went before to go behind, and that which was behind to go before; and this they call a sharp knife, which bwtkh qyspmw twj , cuts and divides the Scriptures f6 : but this way, which his countrymen used, the apostle would not have Timothy, and other Gospel ministers, make use of; for this is not rightly to divide, but to mangle and tear in pieces the word of truth. Moreover, to divide the word of truth, or to cutit, is to cut it open, and dissect its several parts, and search and look into the inside and bottom of it, for to find out every truthcontained in it, and lay them open to others; and may be, as some have thought, an allusion to the cutting open the sacrifices, and laying the parts of them aright, and in a decent manner: to which may be added, that since ministers of the Gospel are stewards, and who, when wise and faithful, give to everyone of the household their portion of meat in due season; the metaphor may be taken from such, and from masters and governors of families, who cut up the food, and distribute it to each, according to their age and appetite; and so the ministers of the Gospel are to distribute the spiritual food of the word to babes in Christ, and to grown Christians, according to their capacities, and suitable to their cases and circumstances, dividing to everyone what is proper for him: in short, one that divides the word of truth rightly, is, as the Vulgate Latinversion renders it, one that rightly handles; or, as the Syriac version, that rightly preaches the word of truth; who gives the true sense of Scripture, does not pervert and wrest it, and take from it, or add to it; who points out the truth in it, and shows unto men the way of salvation, and plainly and faithfully preaches the Gospel contained in it, without keeping back anything that is profitable, but declares the whole counsel of God. This same Greek word is used by the Septuagint in ( Proverbs 3:6 11:5) where it answers to the Hebrew word ry , which signifies to direct the way, and make it plain; and may here design a plain and open interpretation of the word of God: and to answer these several characters in the text should be the studious concern of every Gospel minister; and study is necessary thereunto; it requires great care that a man take heed to himself, and to his doctrine; and great industry, diligence, and application, and much reading, meditation, and prayer."

I see the KJV translators were not alone ...


Jack

Even one of the sources you referenced translates it as give diligence. This is a closer parallel to the other uses of the same word, even in the KJV. As to why some of the others use the similar term "study", it is likely due to the influence of earlier English Bibles, as they too wanted to keep as close a parallel to what folks were familiar with while still improving.


Tyndale rendered it Study. His Bible influenced several others, the DR through Myles Coverdale's Bible, the Bishop Bible, which then influenced the KJV, etc. They retained the familiar rendering, though be diligent would have been a better one.



Once again it goes back to archaic word origins, as the earlier poster noted:

And, the whole argument about "study" vs. "zealous" is why I'm not KJV only. For those not as familiar with more archaic forms of English, "studious", with "study" being the root, is actually fairly synonymous with "zealous". Paul's exhortation would mean the same thing to an English speaker of the 17th century. Stay with the TR if you want, but it's seriously time to consider updated English.

To fulther demonstrate this:
Dictionary.com

1250-1300; (noun) Middle English studie < Old French estudie < Latin studium, equivalent to stud (&#275;re) to be busy with, devote oneself to, concentrate on + -ium -ium; (v.) Middle English studien < Old French estudier < Medieval Latin studi&#257;re, derivative of studium

 

[tall73]

The following links provide needed reference material.

Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L., Sometime Bishop of Durham:Amazon:Books


http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1117099172/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?pc_redir=T1

You linked to pages which sold each book for over 30 dollars, and each only had one in stock.

They are both available free online at archive.org in multiple formats.

https://archive.org/details/brookefosswestco00westuoft

https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen02hortuoft

or here:

Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - Bookshelf

 

[tall73]

Why not study every deletion or change in the New Testament,then decide if you are pleased with what you learn?

That is what the textual apparatus in Greek testaments is for. You can see quickly what manuscripts support a given reading. You can also get the accompanying commentary to see the thought process of those who selected the variant, and their thoughts on the alternatives if you use a textual commentary, or review translation committee commentary.

However, you have to study the manuscript evidence, and try to understand what happened in the transmission of the text, not just what words are there or are not there.

Since the question is which was original, it doesn't suffice to say that one has something and the other does not.

And motivations can go either way.

As trinitarian formulas became more commonplace, and were the subject of church councils there is more likely hood that folks could slant the text that direction as well.

I am not sure yet which text "stream" I think is most accurate. And I am not sure about the use of an eclectic text either. However, there are variant readings, and everyone has to look at the issue for what it is. It is not just that some guy a couple centuries ago didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. It is that some manuscripts a long time ago had different readings.

 

[tall73]

So for the KJV only folks, what would you think of the following options:


a. such efforts as the UKJV which replaces archaic terms with newer ones but tries to keep as much as possible of the KJV ?

b. A new translation, by a trusted committee, of the majority text (of whichever flavor you favor).

 

[tall73]

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim. 2:15)

God has the power and the ability to do as He wishes, after all, He is sovereign. The real question is, Has our language so 'evolved' that one cannot, with a little effort, understand the 1769 King James? The answer is an emphatic No!

Certainly the Scripture you are quoting, study to shew theyself approved, in the original context did not refer to the need for Timothy to break out his Attic Dictionary to properly read archaic Greek terms so that he could show he was dedicated enough to minister for Christ.

Nor is the text saying we should all be willing to learn old English terms so we can read outdated language to show we are sufficiently dedicated to Christ.

This verse is not speaking of a rite of passage of learning a secret code/dead language that Timothy needed to be a minister. Nor do we have that need today.

Timothy was supposed to be diligent in rightly dividing the word of truth. There is no argument for the KJV in this verse.

Now you still avoided the actual question that was posed to you. If God could preserve His word in the KJV, what would prevent Him from having the same power with today's English?

 

[Jack Koons]

Certainly the Scripture you are quoting, study to shew theyself approved, in the original context did not refer to the need for Timothy to break out his Attic Dictionary to properly read archaic Greek terms so that he could show he was dedicated enough to minister for Christ.

Nor is the text saying we should all be willing to learn old English terms so we can read outdated language to show we are sufficiently dedicated to Christ.

I find this "old English terms", and "outdated language" argument to be modern scholarship's grasp at a straw to have a reason to give us yet another "English Bible". The language of the KJV is different, but it is very specific in it's usage of words; something that is necessary for sound doctrine, and is not nearly the cumbersome language modern scholarship describes it as being.

In both secondary and undergraduate levels of education, Shakespeare is still studied and much understood. The amazing thing of this, is that Shakespeare is more difficult to read, than is the KJV. Students are told to 'study' Shakespeare because of it is excellent literature; yet when the Bible says "study" to show thyself approved unto God, we thing that is an unreasonable command.

This verse is not speaking of a rite of passage of learning a secret code/dead language that Timothy needed to be a minister. Nor do we have that need today.

Timothy was supposed to be diligent in rightly dividing the word of truth. There is no argument for the KJV in this verse.

Now you still avoided the actual question that was posed to you. If God could preserve His word in the KJV, what would prevent Him from having the same power with today's English?

As per your assertion that I am avoiding your question: I argue not that God has the the power to do as He wishes; even in giving us His Word perfectly in the KJV for English speaking peoples, or having it translated perfectly into any other language He chooses; after all He is God, and He both speaks and understands all languages perfectly! There is however no need to give the Bible in English again, just study what we have been given.

Jack

 

[tall73]

I find this "old English terms", and "outdated language" argument to be modern scholarship's grasp at a straw to have a reason to give us yet another "English Bible". The language of the KJV is different, but it is very specific in it's usage of words; something that is necessary for sound doctrine, and is not nearly the cumbersome language modern scholarship describes it as being.

It is not just scholars who say that as an excuse. The individual readers often find this to be true.

Having a whole list of archaic terms to learn when it is not necessary is cumbersome.

It may be more specific in number, but often that is obvious from the context, and it is not a good trade-off for most readers to have less overall understanding, while being more specific in number.

In both secondary and undergraduate levels of education, Shakespeare is still studied and much understood. The amazing thing of this, is that Shakespeare is more difficult to read, than is the KJV. Students are told to 'study' Shakespeare because of it is excellent literature; yet when the Bible says "study" to show thyself approved unto God, we thing that is an unreasonable command.

It is not a command to spend extra time learning archaic English terms to read the KJV. If you really want us to think your understanding of Scripture through the KJV is more precise you should stop insisting that the command to study to show yourself approved involves using KJV archaic language. That is a completely foreign interpretation that you are substituting for what the text is talking about. It is a command to Timothy, in the singular, and it is saying he should be diligent to show himself approved, and should rightly divide the word of truth. Obviously Timothy's being diligent as a minister had nothing to do with learning KVJ English.

As per your assertion that I am avoiding your question: I argue not that God has the the power to do as He wishes; even in giving us His Word perfectly in the KJV for English speaking peoples, or having it translated perfectly into any other language He chooses; after all He is God, and He both speaks and understands all languages perfectly!

Thank you for clarifying.

There is however no need to give the Bible in English again, just study what we have been given.

Jack

You work on an assumption that the KJV is what God has put His seal of approval on, then reason there is no need for another. It is precisely that point that is at issue. The Scriptures give no prophecy of the KJV being the English Bible God ordained. And there have clearly been other English Bibles, and are other English Bibles.

People were using the Geneva, the Tyndale (the part that was finished), the Bishops Bible, the Douay Rheims, The Great Bible, etc. before the King James. And people have obviously used a number of translations after the King James.


By the way, do you favor the TR over the MT? The differences are obviously less than between either of those and the Alexandrian, yet there are still some differences.


What I would actually like to see is a translation that takes the opposite approach of the critical texts. They tend to leave the shortest readings in most cases, and then include the longer ones in a footnote. To my thinking it would be better to just use the TR readings, but put in italics those readings which do not appear in a number of manuscripts, or for which there are significant variants. Then those shorter readings could be noted in the footnotes. This way folks would not have an issue with removed verses, and yet the textual scholars would still get more folks aware of the various readings, so they can decide for themselves. If done well it could be something that both camps would find value in.

The easiest way to do this would just be to update archaic terms from the KJV, while keeping most things the same, then putting the italics and footnotes.

One of the biggest problems with all the modern versions is that it is hard to memorize, use things for church etc. when people use a different translation. However, that cat is out of the bag. Putting it back in would be difficult. It seems if folks could settle on something that would serve both camps going forward perhaps a new standard could be found. Rather pie in the sky for now though.