Neither of those men would have been KJVO.
So many KJV Arguments
- Thread starter Ajay
- Start date
- Status
Not sure if this is the best thread to post this, but here's an interesting book that's scheduled for release next week.
Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible
A short review of it can be found here.
Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible
A short review of it can be found here.
Very interesting that the conclusion would be based upon the truth that the King James English has been so far removed from our modern English over time that we literally just cannot know the real intended meaning of the scriptures, due to us knowing what the words are, but not what it meant to those who translated it over 400 years ago.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Sounds interesting, Brian – I think I'll get a copy, and it helps that it's only 168 pages, not a long read (I'm pretty busy). Still, I see no adequate alternative to the King James Bible. I'm aware of what he's talking of, having read it for a month or so short of 50 years.
Language is my primary academic / literary focus (being a classical writer and poet) along with all that pertains to the Christian faith. So melding the KJV language with street vernacular understanding ought to be the goal of pastors who use this version.
I do suggest to those I speak with (in my church, mostly) to get a decent modern version or two to read along with the AV. For better or worse, there is no other version with the accuracy or fidelity to the original Reformation texts underlying the AV. I'll be interested to see what Dr. Ward has to say. Thanks for the heads-up.
Language is my primary academic / literary focus (being a classical writer and poet) along with all that pertains to the Christian faith. So melding the KJV language with street vernacular understanding ought to be the goal of pastors who use this version.
I do suggest to those I speak with (in my church, mostly) to get a decent modern version or two to read along with the AV. For better or worse, there is no other version with the accuracy or fidelity to the original Reformation texts underlying the AV. I'll be interested to see what Dr. Ward has to say. Thanks for the heads-up.
From the review:
“ He isn’t telling you what translation to choose. He leaves that up to you and your own research.”
Typical. On the one hand he claims that laypeople shouldn’t be burdened with trying to use the KJV as their primary Bible, but on the other they should be burdened with doing their own research on scores of modern translations.
Slamming the KJV is low hanging fruit. I would like to see just as much effort going into proving which modern translation should be our primary Bible.
I do not think that he is slamming the KJV, just saying that based upon how large a change has happened in English vocabulary, that it might not be the best translation to use for all churches and people.
Just seems that anything said about the KJV that might be negative at all is seen by some as one being gainst that version.
Right. What word would be better? Knocking, criticizing, panning, attacking, disparaging, casting aspersion? The point is that those who don't want English speaking Christians to preach, teach, and memorize the KJV are not willing to take a stand for an alternative.
"Do your own research" is not helpful when there are scores of modern translations to choose from. I think pastors and theologians forget that the average lay-person doesn't have the luxury of studying theology four hours a day.
By what authority do you make this assertion? Are you an expert in the field or is this something you have heard from others?
Here's a YouTube trailer to the new book I highlighted. You know...the one Ken couldn't wait to get his hands on and pre-ordered (j/k).
Lexham Press | Introducing "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible" by Mark Ward
Lexham Press | Introducing "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible" by Mark Ward
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I agree wholeheartedly with the multiple translation philosophy and have been practicing that for years. I love the KJV, but I can say the same of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. Dabbling with the ESV as well.
Check out this other video by Mark Ward which adds to his argument ;
Last edited:
The translator teams that were behind the modern versions such as the Nas/NKJV/Esv were all recognized textual critics and scholars in the original languages, and all of them ascribed to the full inerrancy/infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, so one can be confident on their finished products.
Just as the Lord worked with and used the Oxford translators on the KJV, same fashion worked in having these translations done.
Using various translations is a good practice to be doing, as I like to use versions such as the NLT/Niv for quick reading/skimming through the book, and then after reading it through , switch to more formal version like the Nas/Esv to do serious studies on that book.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Regarding the video, and the preference for a 'reader's edition'. Mark Bertrand of Bible Design Blog is also an advocate of the paragraphed Bible sans verse numbers and chapter headings. I have the 1939 George Macy Limited Editions Club paragraphed Bible in 5 volumes. The complete OT/NT in the KJV with chapter numbers, but no verse numbers, margin or footnotes.
So last night I read Colossians and 1 John in that format. I don't like it as well as the double column reference format I'm used to. Whether that is something that I would begin to favor if I became accustomed to it I don't know.
Mark Ward's assertion that you will read more because the text flows may be accurate, but I wonder if you'll miss more because of the flow ? If I remember correctly, in the video he claims the opposite, but it seems to me that reading in a format as a standard book would take away rather than add. Perhaps I'll give it more time and see which way it works for me.
So last night I read Colossians and 1 John in that format. I don't like it as well as the double column reference format I'm used to. Whether that is something that I would begin to favor if I became accustomed to it I don't know.
Mark Ward's assertion that you will read more because the text flows may be accurate, but I wonder if you'll miss more because of the flow ? If I remember correctly, in the video he claims the opposite, but it seems to me that reading in a format as a standard book would take away rather than add. Perhaps I'll give it more time and see which way it works for me.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jimmy, you may be right on this. It may also be just a matter of personal preference. For myself, I don't want to be reading my Bible as I would any other book. When I want to read it in a sweeping fashion—whole chapters at a time—I can adjust my mind and my eyes to do that; though usually I read it slowly, pondering, often prayerfully. It's not an ordinary book.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
In the 2nd video posted above—on typography—I lost my confidence in pastor Ward's take. His view of Prov 24:16 showed a lack of understanding (per the commentaries of Geo. Lawson and Chas. Bridges), and proves to be driven not by actual typography but by interpretation. The same with his take on "typography" in Psalm 12:6, 7—it is guided by commentators' spins and not by faulty paragraphing of the text (that section is a highly disputed couple of verses re providential preservation). Having seen this much, I think I'll pass on getting his book.
It is an interesting topic, though—how layout affects comprehension. And I suppose it may, yet I find it has not deterred me from comprehending adequately.
As to the issue of using other (more modern) versions to help with understanding more clearly differing shades of meaning those translations may afford, I agree wholeheartedly. I have at least 7 I use right by my reading chair and desk, as well as Greek and Hebrew helps.
It is an interesting topic, though—how layout affects comprehension. And I suppose it may, yet I find it has not deterred me from comprehending adequately.
As to the issue of using other (more modern) versions to help with understanding more clearly differing shades of meaning those translations may afford, I agree wholeheartedly. I have at least 7 I use right by my reading chair and desk, as well as Greek and Hebrew helps.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Steve,
Forgive me if this was answered later in the post; I'm not able to read all the responses. Can you give any examples of how Rome may have perverted any texts in their acceptance of the CT? IE, are there examples in the CT that favor Catholic doctrine over against the RT?
The simple answer would be no.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello Jon,
In my post #10 I display some of Rome’s involvement. I referred not to examples of the text being perverted to favor Catholic doctrine, but rather the UBS constructing an edition of the NT using Rome’s Critical Text prime exemplar, Cod. Vaticanus, and under the Vatican’s supervision, for the purpose of furthering “interconfessional relationships”, or in the words of UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau, to “serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation” – which would be their ecumenical thrust.
This entire endeavor flies against the Reformation’s bedrock doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which Scripture the WCF at 1.8 speaks of, referring to their Textus Receptus, the word of God contra the teachings of Rome. It is of this I spoke. It may be edifying to you to read further in the thread as I flesh it out here and there, especially my view that Rome won the contest our Reformation forebears labored so valiantly to defend, the proof of which is the disarray most of Christendom – and particularly the P & R sector – finds itself in with regard to the true Biblical text, i.e., a sure, intact, preserved-in-the-minutiae Bible such as said forebears had.
In my post #10 I display some of Rome’s involvement. I referred not to examples of the text being perverted to favor Catholic doctrine, but rather the UBS constructing an edition of the NT using Rome’s Critical Text prime exemplar, Cod. Vaticanus, and under the Vatican’s supervision, for the purpose of furthering “interconfessional relationships”, or in the words of UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau, to “serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation” – which would be their ecumenical thrust.
This entire endeavor flies against the Reformation’s bedrock doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which Scripture the WCF at 1.8 speaks of, referring to their Textus Receptus, the word of God contra the teachings of Rome. It is of this I spoke. It may be edifying to you to read further in the thread as I flesh it out here and there, especially my view that Rome won the contest our Reformation forebears labored so valiantly to defend, the proof of which is the disarray most of Christendom – and particularly the P & R sector – finds itself in with regard to the true Biblical text, i.e., a sure, intact, preserved-in-the-minutiae Bible such as said forebears had.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Go back and read post 10, David.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Okay, thanks Steve. This is an area I haven't studied extensively in the past and need to at some point. Appreciate your thoughts.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
The "heat" isn't simply coming from the people who prefer the KJV. I'd say the heat comes equally from both sides of the fence.
The problem with this whole discussion is both sides almost always talk past each other. Critical Text proponents are making a fundamentally critical argument whereas TR advocates are making a fundamentally dogmatic one.
Their concerns are different and therefore so are their answers.
This however is rarely recognized by those discussing this subject.
The problem with this whole discussion is both sides almost always talk past each other. Critical Text proponents are making a fundamentally critical argument whereas TR advocates are making a fundamentally dogmatic one.
Their concerns are different and therefore so are their answers.
This however is rarely recognized by those discussing this subject.
Ironically, I actually read from a KJV two nights ago while staying in a hotel. It was one of those that was placed by the Gideons group. I'm an ESV guy.
My daily chapter reading that night was Isaiah 57. The wording was distracting. Out of curiousity, I flipped around and looked at some verses in John; the verses from Jesus just seemed so 'translated'.
The KJV is a treasure and served Christendom for hundreds of years. We don't talk like that anymore though. We have the ESV now which came from that stream and additional scrolls.
My daily chapter reading that night was Isaiah 57. The wording was distracting. Out of curiousity, I flipped around and looked at some verses in John; the verses from Jesus just seemed so 'translated'.
The KJV is a treasure and served Christendom for hundreds of years. We don't talk like that anymore though. We have the ESV now which came from that stream and additional scrolls.
The question to answer would be , did the Critical Greek text get as close, if not even closer to what the Originals recorded down to us though?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
as a beginning student in Greek, I am beginning to appreciate the KJV even more. Any CT advocates NOT appreciate what the KJV does in greek renderings?
I'm not a seminary student, alas I'm just a lowly layman. Having said that, I like the ESV. I appreciate the KJV but not anymore than I appreciate the Tyndale or Geneva. The KJV stood strong for literal translations for 400 years, how could one not appreciate that? It's unreadable now though. There are verses that are literally unreadable.
Also, let's not imagine as if the Roman Catholic priest Erasmus was standing next to the apostle Paul when he was translating the new testament.
I'd appreciate the KJV more if its advocates wernt so overboard. It makes me look at it more criticly than I normally would.
Also, let's not imagine as if the Roman Catholic priest Erasmus was standing next to the apostle Paul when he was translating the new testament.
I'd appreciate the KJV more if its advocates wernt so overboard. It makes me look at it more criticly than I normally would.
Last edited:
- Status
