KJV Removed

[His_disciple3]

Of course, if the pastor believes as I (and many Christians) do that the KJV is unnecessarily difficult to read and is far from the most accurate English translation, then the pastor is not being a poor steward by wasting money on new Bibles. Rather, he is spending money on Bibles for the purpose of helping his congregation to better understand the Word of God. That is hardly a waste of money.

I recognize, however, that you view all non-KJV translations as "perversions" so you would not agree with this reasoning. However, your problem with it is still ultimately that the KJV has been replaced with what you view as an inferior translation, not that the pastor is spending money without good reason.

James 1:5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
KJV

It says if ye seek wisdom to ask God not change His Holy Word. they already have perfectly good Bibles the Op said there was nothing wrong with them I was basing what I said, on the facts of the op not my belief in which translation they should use. you have good Bibles you take all them up and buy new ones, and you would try to justify this with out knowing any of the facts of the situation. and I am the one that am wrong???? if it ain't broke don't fix it, so they pulled all Bibles and replaced them. this is not good stewardship, no matter which translation is best

 

[miamited]

Hi Seal,

yea, I'd ask the same question as AdX did. The older NIV is preferred in my use also. Many, many of the really recent translations are going over to the PC side. I've used the '84 NIV for most all of my study and reading. Find it very easy to understand, but I also like many other translations. NKJV and NASB are very good also. I must agree with many here that I tend to shy away from the KJV because of it's archaic language and particularly pronoun translations.

However, like you, I don't find anything wrong with others who enjoy it for what ever reason they may feel it meets their needs, but I absolutely renounce any idea that it is somehow the only 'true' or 'correct' translation of the original manuscripts.

For the record, I'd enjoy being back in a fellowship that even has copies of the Scriptures available in the seats. So many of the more modern fellowships have chosen to take them out altogether. Fine for those who are born again and already have a relationship with the Lord, but I'm concerned for those who visit and in my previous fellowship in Miami I'd just reach down and grab up one of the pew bibles and just give it away to anyone who told me that they didn't have a copy of God's word. Another fellowship that I visited in Miami the last time I was down there gives paperback versions away as a part of their visitor 'package'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[His_disciple3]

Wow! It's a sad state of affairs when a particular version of the Bible is seen as being as essential to the faith of Baptists as a steering wheel and seats is to a car.

it is the same Bible, yesterday and today and will be the Authorized English Translation tomorrow. is it not essential of any denomination to have the True Word of God? :

Romans 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
KJV

 

[miamited]

Hi His Disciple,

I disagree with you. If, let's just play out the scenario, if the NIV is more easily understood by those who are lost to God, then, yes, the leadership of the fellowship in question is serving God's will better to put what ever translation of the original manuscripts is more easily understood by most people.

I doubt that God is so poor that He begrudges any fellowship paying whatever it costs for those Scriptures if there be any chance that more people might be brought into the kingdom. From God's perspective I'm pretty sure He'd freely authorize the expenditure of $10,000.00 for Scriptures placed in a fellowship if just one more person in the next 10 years were to be able to read and understand His great plan of salvation for them. After all, He's already paid the much higher price of allowing us to murder His Son for the forgiveness of our sin, surely any amount of money would never be an issue with Him.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi His Disciple,

You speak of having faith in a great God, yet you don't. Your God apparently wasn't even able to get His truth out until 1611.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JCFantasy23]

In church today I noticed that the pew bibles, that were KJV and perfectly fine and been there for 30 years or more, have been replaced by NIV. Now I am not hung up on the KJV but I am not sure that the NIV was a better replacement. Maybe I missed it but I don't remember hearing anyone talking about these changing. Now I wonder what the long term effects of this will be and what happened to all those other bibles that didn't have any problems anyway. Maybe this isn't an issue, then again maybe it is.

Do any of you know of this sort of thing happening elsewhere and what has changed since then if anything?

Sealacamp

Im surprised this was done with discussion with the members of the congregation, or at least a heads-up in advance. Must be a shock for some of them.

I'm not a KJV person myself, but I'm also not an NV person (prefer the ESV) Not point debating why in this thread though, it would be a bit off-topic

Can understand your confusion about the change so swiftly though. I guess its too costly to have both? What happened to the KJV bibles that are no longer there?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I wasn't raised with the KJV or any Bible and I can read it just fine... I can't imagine what kind of weird sad lives people have to have lived to not be able to understand it, because I am certain it would involve sitting in a room staring at a wall for half the day.ut just educated in having a good vocabulary, which is needed in a lot of areas to succeed in life,

Intellectual elitism.

the international version is great because you can use it to explain essential truth to a 6 year old, someone with the vocabulary of a 6 year old (ie our ever expanding immigrant population), AND it has the depth necessary to live a holy life unto God.

Basically, saying NIV is < KJV is saying there are people (ie children of Mexican immigrants) too stupid/ignorant of the structures of English for God to want to talk to directly.

THE HOLY BIBLE HAS LOST IT"S MEANING

Yes, good observation. It has, entirely if you are trying to share the KJV with someone with a 6th grade education. It might as well be in Greek, which despite having the most clear meaning of all (to those enlightened ones that speak the language) has absolutely no meaning to that guy you are trying to share the good news with.

next question.

You know I didn't even open it. I usually take mine with me and don't even use the pew bible

Guess who does use the pew bible? The guy who doesn't speak biblese.

if people quit buying [what] their preacher tells them

For religious people with no relationship with God this is highly improbable.

perfectly good Bibles

Perfectly good gibberish, sr.

those who think it is an outdated relic the better disposed of.

KJV is horible for many reasons; but it's great at being beautiful, for that I give it an A+ and would not want to give up reading my own.

Removing the KJV from a Baptist church is like taking the steering wheel and seats out of your car.

and replacing them with something that allows for better handling and accommodates more people... which is a very good idea.

Now you have an unbelieving magisterium

as opposed to the Anglican unbelieving ignoratium that put together the KJV in the common language of the local people.

I would say the congregation I belong to is lower working class folk.

who grew up speaking bible and english; let's try loving our fellow man even if his last name happens to be Sanchez.

His Holy Word

are you serial? His HOLY WORD was written in greek and hebrew. You seem to have confused Jesus, The holy spirit, and a group of ignorant Anglicans writing a book in the British common for the 1600's.

What happened to the KJV bibles that are no longer there?

I say we burn them for warmth in the winter, that way they do something useful.

 

[sealacamp]

So many of the more modern fellowships have chosen to take them out altogether.

Wow I didn't know that! I am with you on that one in that there need to be copies of the word in a church for visitors and even people that don't carry their bibles with them, not everyone does carry a bible with them.

What happened to the KJV bibles that are no longer there?

Well that what I am wondering too. I just hope the donated them to the Gideons or something like that.

Basically, saying NIV is < KJV is saying there are people (ie children of Mexican immigrants) too stupid/ignorant of the structures of English for God to want to talk to directly.

You might have a point, isn't that what the catholic church did when it refused to have the bible translated from Latin?

Guess who does use the pew bible? The guy who doesn't speak biblese.

No need to be crass just to get your point across. I have the NLT not the KJV anyway. I quit reading the KJV regularly years ago.

Perfectly good gibberish, sr.

So you say, however, there really was/is nothing wrong with them, no matter what you many think about it.

who grew up speaking bible and english; let's try loving our fellow man even if his last name happens to be Sanchez.

Well if that really is the issue then there is always this:

Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

That should be easier to read than trying to force this poor uneducated Latino to read English in the first place.

Sealacamp

 

[MrJim]

The SBC I attend has both NIV & NKJV. Previous preacher used NIV & new one uses NKJV.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Wow I didn't know that! I am with you on that one in that there need to be copies of the word in a church for visitors and even people that don't carry their bibles with them, not everyone does carry a bible with them.



Well that what I am wondering too. I just hope the donated them to the Gideons or something like that.



You might have a point, isn't that what the catholic church did when it refused to have the bible translated from Latin?



No need to be crass just to get your point across. I have the NLT not the KJV anyway. I quit reading the KJV regularly years ago.



So you say, however, there really was/is nothing wrong with them, no matter what you many think about it.



Well if that really is the issue then there is always this:

Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

That should be easier to read than trying to force this poor uneducated Latino to read English in the first place.

Sealacamp

Now who's being crass? I didn't say they speak Spanish, I said that they need an international version because they didn't grow up in an english-speaking home. The same goes for myriad people who simply lack the english language proficiency to comprehend the KJV.

Church's tend to look more and more inward over time; this sort of self-centered myopia isn't what the baptist church was founded on, but it is what any church will become if we don't actively abandon tradition in favor of better loving our fellow man.

 

[sealacamp]

Now who's being crass? I didn't say they speak Spanish, I said that they need an international version because they didn't grow up in an english-speaking home. The same goes for myriad people who simply lack the english language proficiency to comprehend the KJV.

Church's tend to look more and more inward over time; this sort of self-centered myopia isn't what the baptist church was founded on, but it is what any church will become if we don't actively abandon tradition in favor of better loving our fellow man.

I agree myopic viewing of the church is not what any of us have been called to see. Now is this confusing or am I just reading this wrong?

"I said that they need an international version because they didn't grow up in an english-speaking home."

To me you are saying that they can't speak English right? The international version is printed in English so if they weren't raised in an English speaking home then they would need a translation of the language they were raised to speak, like Spanish. So if they can't read English then how could they NIV help them at all unless it was in Spanish?

Sealacamp

 

[dies-l]

Now who's being crass? I didn't say they speak Spanish, I said that they need an international version because they didn't grow up in an english-speaking home. The same goes for myriad people who simply lack the english language proficiency to comprehend the KJV.

Church's tend to look more and more inward over time; this sort of self-centered myopia isn't what the baptist church was founded on, but it is what any church will become if we don't actively abandon tradition in favor of better loving our fellow man.

I have read out of multiple translations for many years now, and I have yet to find a single passage or doctrine that is materially different between any of the major translations that are commonly used within orthodox Christian denominations (ie., RCC, Protestant, EO, and CofE). So, I would say that the best translation of Scripture is one that is readable, accessible, and engaging to the individual using it. The NIV tends to be one of the easier to read translations, and it also tends to more closely match the language of more literal translations, but with simpler vocabulary and sentence structures. That is why I think that it is a particularly good translation for corporate use.

Our question should not necessarily be, what is the congregation most comfortable with. Rather, it should be what does the congregation believe is going to be most likely to help visitors and new believers to engage in a meaningful way with Scripture. If that happens to be a different translation that a given members preference, then that member is always free to bring a Bible of his own to church with him in the translation of his choosing. I do that all the time; I almost never read Scripture from the same version that our pastor is quoting from. By doing so, I am able to see the same passage of Scripture from two perspectives at the same time, which itself often helps me to see things I otherwise might have missed.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

To me you are saying that they can't speak English right?

NO!

Dude! Do you have any idea how many people, US citizens that speak english (kind of) as their primary language, grow up in a house that speaks no/broken english?!

I assure you that many 2nd or 3rd generation Americans have this problem. I assure you that many that grow up in ignorant urban centers have this problem. I assure you that many of the rural poor have this problem. If they an't talk no good then how they gon'a be understandn what tha good book id telln'm? It's Greek to them!

Our question should not necessarily be, what is the congregation most comfortable with. Rather, it should be what does the congregation believe is going to be most likely to help visitors and new believers to engage in a meaningful way with Scripture.

-QFT

 

[sealacamp]

I assure you that many 2nd or 3rd generation Americans have this problem. I assure you that many that grow up in ignorant urban centers have this problem. I assure you that many of the rural poor have this problem. If they an't talk no good then how they gon'a be understandn what tha good book id telln'm? It's Greek to them!

Ok well if dey talk no good the how will the NIV, NLT, NKJV or any other updated translation help them when they probably can't read in the first place. I know people like this and they need for things to be read to them because they can't do it themselves. Better to have a recorded translation and let them listen instead of even trying to read. So now your point is lost on me, sorry.

Sealacamp

 

[MagusAlbertus]

There is a vast difference between someone being entirely illiterate and not being able to translate out the archaic poorly sourced gibberish that is the KJV.

Let's go over the bell curve:

OK, reading ability, like anything else, is going to distribute in a similar way. You can see here that 2% have an IQ (read reading ability) under 70; this is your population that is most likely illiterate. then there's 50% of people at 100 or higher, this is your average intelligence or better person that can muddle through the KJV and get what it's getting at, even if they don't speak churchese.

Now the other 48% of below average intelligence but still literate people must deal with your desire for tradition instead of being able to fully access the word of God (any more than they can access the tome if it where in Greek).

Of this 48% i'm sure some people do speak church; but for those that are seekers, particularly those 14% in the 70-85 range, the bibles provided to satisfy your love for tradition will leave them without a bible in the pew.

Also: If the sub 70 can't read what makes you think that the flowery language of the KJV will mean anything more to him than the beauty of Greek or Hebrew as read to him? You'll still have to interpret the mess for him.


Just answer this: Is having KJV in the pew something that's motivated by tradition or love of your fellow man?

 

[Hammster]

Don't you know that if the KJV was good enough for Paul it should be good enough for us?

 

[sealacamp]

Just answer this: Is having KJV in the pew something that's motivated by tradition or love of your fellow man?

I guess I didn't make myself clear to you. I don't care what is in the pew, I have my own book and read that one no matter what is there. What surprised me was that they changed them with no discourse, that I am aware of, and that the bibles they removed had nothing wrong with them.

Now as for your bell curve I was responding to your statement.

I said that they need an international version because they didn't grow up in an english-speaking home.

Now just stick with that and qualify it in relation to this discussion because frankly it doesn't make sense and your attempts to elaborate on this have not clarified anything to me, I thought that I did make that clear. And now you are teaching us about the IQ bell curve. Well I for one am very familiar with that thing and it doesn't have anything to do with your inference that those that want to keep the KJV don't love their fellow man, even one with the name of Sanchez. Really don't you think you are getting a bit wound up about this? Let each group decide and if you don't like what they did let them know and then leave them alone.

Sealacamp

 

[wpage]

Many prefer the KJV or New KJV.

It is traditional and accepted by older and those familiar with it.

 

[the particular baptist]

The reason i like the KJV and NKJ is because over 90% of the NT is Wyclife's translation and he died for it, and no copyright on the KJV.

 

[HantsUK]

The reason i like the KJV and NKJ is because over 90% of the NT is Wyclife's translation and he died for it, and no copyright on the KJV.

The Authorised Version (KJV) is covered by Crown Copyright which pre-dates modern copyright law. Outside the UK (and Commonwealth?), The AV is old enough to be out of copyright.

I think Wycliffe is being confused with Tyndale.

Wycliffe made the first complete English translation, working from the Latin Vulgate. The Established Church was unhappy (Wycliffe was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation and preached biblically centred reform), and banned Wycliffe's translation in 1409.

Tyndale came a century later. He was a very gifted linguist, who knew Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French, German, Italian etc (he would have been off the right hand side of MagusAlbertus' IQ graph!). He didn't need an English translation. However, he produced a new translation into English so that ordinary people could read and understand God's Word. He came at the right time to make use of the newly invented printing press and take advantage of the latest research into Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Tyndale's version was also banned in England, and he was executed in 1536 in Antwerp at the bidding of Henry VIII.

Later (1604), James I commissioned a new translation for political reasons - he wanted to displace the Geneva Bible which was popular with the Puritans and Separatist's, and also choose wording to support the episcopal structure of the Church of England. However, the Authorised Version did make extensive use to previous English translations, particularly Tyndale's.

The whole purpose of a translation is to enable someone to who doesn't know the original languages to have a version that they can understand. Obvious! However, if after 500 years, the destination language has changed so that people now find the translation difficult to follow, then it no longer meets that purpose. The AV/KJV is no longer suitable for ordinary people. If thou speakest not in 'thees and thous' in they own tongue, then thou shouldest not be using the AV/KJV (or at least, not requirest of others).