Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Davy]

Are those who vigorously defend the out-of-date King James Version of the Bible the Pharisees of the present time? In my opinion they clearly are!

(Please read my "signature" below)

If the 1611 KJV Bible is so "out-of-date" as you say, then WHY do scholars often go further back in history to study the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?

Why would Wescott and Hort work 11 years to create their new Greek text presented in 1881 to replace the Textus Receptus?

 

[Pearl]

Of course it would sound like it to one who wouldn't be very serious about God's Holy Writ.

Holy writ? Do you mean the bible? I am very serious about that. I have been reading mu various translations for many years. And don't appreciate any mere man telling me that I am not serious about it.

 

[Davy]

I have not been 'bearing false witness. I thought this discussion was about bible preferences. I seem to have misunderstood your previous posts. You perhaps need to be clearer, and not call people liars.

Denying that I clearly showed how I used those door-to-door and carpetbagger terms is an act of you bearing false witness, because you well understood but are trying to hide it.

 

[Davy]

Holy writ? Do you mean the bible? I am very serious about that. I have been reading mu various translations for many years. And don't appreciate any mere man telling me that I am not serious about it.

If you see no problem with TWO men like Wescott and Hort creating their OWN new Greek text, and presenting that to the 1881 committee that created the later Bible versions out it, then it shows YOU DON'T ACTUALLY CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT GOD'S HOLY WRIT.

 

[Pearl]

If the 1611 KJV Bible is so "out-of-date" as you say, then WHY do scholars often go further back in history to study the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?

Why would Wescott and Hort work 11 years to create their new Greek text presented in 1881 to replace the Textus Receptus?

But we are not all clever, clever scholars like you and your mates and we choose to read something that conveys God's eternal message in a way we can appreciate and understand.

 

[Pearl]

Denying that I clearly showed how I used those door-to-door and carpetbagger terms is an act of you bearing false witness, because you well understood but are trying to hide it.

Okay Davy, keep saying that I'm a liar. I don't the admins will take too kindly to that.

 

[Davy]

But we are not all clever, clever scholars like you and your mates and we choose to read something that conveys God's eternal message in a way we can appreciate and understand.

Still ATTACKING the good ole' 1611 KJV Bible, I see. If it doesn't matter so much what Bible version one uses, then WHY DO YOU KEEP ATTACKING THE KJV by your snide remarks against it?

Your snide remarks against the KJV shows you KNOW EXACTLY THE MATTER I'M TALKING ABOUT, but are trying to hide behind a wall. That just ain't gonna' work. Everyone can see your rhetoric against the KJV Bible.

 

[Pearl]

If you see no problem with TWO men like Wescott and Hort creating their OWN new Greek text, and presenting that to the 1881 committee that created the later Bible versions out it, then it shows YOU DON'T ACTUALLY CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT GOD'S HOLY WRIT.

I have no idea who Wescott and Hort are supposed to be, I never heard of them, perhaps because I am a simple Christian woman who has never moved in scholastic circles. So it is pointless of you to keep quoting them and throwing out insults won't help.

 

[Davy]

Okay Davy, keep saying that I'm a liar. I don't the admins will take too kindly to that.

Do you FEEL like you are a liar? Is that why you feel guilty?

 

[Pearl]

Still ATTACKING the good ole' 1611 KJV Bible, I see. If it doesn't matter so much what Bible version one uses, then WHY DO YOU KEEP ATTACKING THE KJV by your snide remarks against it?

Your snide remarks against the KJV shows you KNOW EXACTLY THE MATTER I'M TALKING ABOUT, but are trying to hide behind a wall. That just ain't gonna' work. Everyone can see your rhetoric against the KJV Bible.

No, no and no. I am not attacking the KJV. My argument is with those, like you who insist that those of us who don't use it or its updates are lacking in understanding. It is a very legalistic stance. God cares that I immerse myself in his word not about the translation I choose.

I'm rather enjoying this as it is giving me strength and sharpening me.

 

[Pearl]

Do you FEEL like you are a liar? Is that why you feel guilty?

Davy my dear friend, I do not feel guilty and I absolutely deny that I have lied in this thread, but if you want to waste your time by keep pursing the issue be my guest.

 

[Davy]

I have no idea who Wescott and Hort are supposed to be, I never heard of them, perhaps because I am a simple Christian woman who has never moved in scholastic circles. So it is pointless of you to keep quoting them and throwing out insults won't help.

The Bible student does not... have to be a scholar to understand this, just as when you say you do not "appreciate" nor "understand" the KJV Bible. That statement reveals your rhetoric, simply because most of the later Bible versions use much of the SAME sentence structures and wording that the KJV uses, the main difference being the OMISSION of existing Scripture in the later versions, and certain 'changed' wordings in places.

I even showed this relationship contrasting the Old English 1611 KJV and a later KJV English version in my post #109.

 

[Davy]

Davy my dear friend, I do not feel guilty and I absolutely deny that I have lied in this thread, but if you want to waste your time by keep pursing the issue be my guest.

You were the one who said that "we" could not "appreciate" nor "understand" the KJV Bible.

Your Post #346:
"But we are not all clever, clever scholars like you and your mates and we choose to read something that conveys God's eternal message in a way we can appreciate and understand."
------------------------------------

To be clear brethren, since some here are hard of hearing, Pearl is contrasting the KJV Bible with later modern Bible versions in the above quote.

I do NOT claim to be a Bible scholar, so HOW could I come to realize the false working of charlatans Wescott and Hort, et al, and even the Roman Catholic Church attempt ("Oxford Movement"), to overthrow the KJV Bible, and bring the Church of England back under Rome's control? How could I know about the Protestant Reformation of Christian history?
How could I know about those things? Because I am... a student of history, including Christian history, but just a student, not a scholar.

And ALL... of that comes under the heading of being a Christian 'defender of the Faith'. That is EVERY Christian's DUTY.

 

[Pearl]

The Bible student does not... have to be a scholar to understand this, just as when you say you do not "appreciate" nor "understand" the KJV Bible. That statement reveals your rhetoric, simply because most of the later Bible versions use much of the SAME sentence structures and wording that the KJV uses, the main difference being the OMISSION of existing Scripture in the later versions, and certain 'changed' wordings in places.

I even showed this relationship contrasting the Old English 1611 KJV and a later KJV English version in my post #109.

It does not matter to me one jot what you think of me. I know I can better understand my NIV or NLT than I can my NKJV. But I do not try to tell people that these are the versions they should choose. I think it is more important - vital even - to know Jesus in an intimate way, through prayer and the bible than it is to have scholarly knowledge of Greek or Latin or Hebrew translations.
If you are a Christian brother then please give over attacking me.

 

[Pearl]

You were the one who said that "we" could not "appreciate" nor "understand" the KJV Bible.

Your Post #346:
"But we are not all clever, clever scholars like you and your mates and we choose to read something that conveys God's eternal message in a way we can appreciate and understand."

So?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

339

Are those who vigorously defend the out-of-date King James Version of the Bible the Pharisees of the present time? In my opinion they clearly are!

(Please read my "signature" below)

Not at all.

I’m not telling you to read a Bible I myself don’t use or read.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:2-3)

If I exalted the KJV while never using it, THAT would make me a Pharisee.

But I say and do!

 

[Jim B]

There is no doubt in my mind that the KJV fanatics insist that their preferred translation is the only valid one is based on the false feeling of religious holiness, that God must communicate in some sort of exalted-sounding language. The problem with this is obvious: when Jesus, who is God personified, spoke, His language was Aramaic. It is a Semitic language and was the lingua franca of the region for over three thousand years. When Jesus spoke to crowds of mostly-illiterate people, He did not speak in some sort of pious language but in the plain language of the people that they clearly understood. He did not speak in some sort of "highbrow" language that was the equivalent of the language in which the King James version is written.

It is my contention that KJV advocates are using false arguments such as the claim that modern translations are using invalid sources in their work to justify their pseudo-holiness feeling that they equate with the tone and meaning of early 17th Century Englyshe.

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" may sound more "holy" to their ears instead of "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" but there is no basis for claiming that the author of 1 Peter wrote in such flowery prose as the above. (Verse selected at random, but you get the idea.)

It is a distortion of the truth to project this kind of pseudo-holiness onto the "books" of the Bible. The Bible was written to be understood without muddling God's message with words and phrases that obfuscate the meaning and lead to all kinds of misinterpretations, deliberate or otherwise.

KJVOs need not respond!

 

[Davy]

It does not matter to me one jot what you think of me. I know I can better understand my NIV or NLT than I can my NKJV. But I do not try to tell people that these are the versions they should choose. I think it is more important - vital even - to know Jesus in an intimate way, through prayer and the bible than it is to have scholarly knowledge of Greek or Latin or Hebrew translations.
If you are a Christian brother then please give over attacking me.

Like I said, I really DO NOT CARE which Bible version you choose to use.

But I DO CARE about FALSE WORKINGS AGAINST GOD'S HOLY WRIT, such things as Wescott and Hort did against God's Holy Writ.

People like you STILL refuse to understand that the TWO GREEK manuscripts that Wescott and Hort used for their NEW Greek NT text are CORRUPT manuscripts, and NEVER PROVEN to be accurate, or even having an HISTORICAL BASIS.

The Vaticanus manuscript was FOUND in 1475 in the Vatican, and its ACTUAL DATE AND ORIGIN NEVER DETERMINED.

Likewise with the Alexandrinus manuscript, claimed to be of the 5th century, its historical ORIGIN has NEVER been proven either!

Yet Wescott and Hort FALSELY CLAIMED those manuscripts were the BEST and OLDEST of ALL existing Greek manuscripts of The Bible. They offered NO HISTORICAL PROOF. Most scholars on the committee of 1881 just accepted what they said without looking into it. But there were some on that committee, like Dean Burgon, who doubted them and was suspicious, and he had good reason.

 

[Jim B]

339



Not at all.

I’m not telling you to read a Bible I myself don’t use or read.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:2-3)

If I exalted the KJV while never using it, THAT would make me a Pharisee.

But I say and do!

Choosing a single verse from Matthew, spoken to the Jews prior to the giving of the Holy Spirit, doesn't count for much. Pharisees were legalists who insisted that their knowledge of Torah and the other writings were the only valid interpretations were wrong. As are those who claim that the KJV and their understanding of it is the only truth.

I'm glad that you do what the Lord Jesus told us to do!

 

[Jim B]

Like I said, I really DO NOT CARE which Bible version you choose to use.

But I DO CARE about FALSE WORKINGS AGAINST GOD'S HOLY WRIT, such things as Wescott and Hort did against God's Holy Writ.

People like you STILL refuse to understand that the TWO GREEK manuscripts that Wescott and Hort used for their NEW Greek NT text are CORRUPT manuscripts, and NEVER PROVEN to be accurate, or even having an HISTORICAL BASIS.

The Vaticanus manuscript was FOUND in 1475 in the Vatican, and its ACTUAL DATE AND ORIGIN NEVER DETERMINED.

Likewise with the Alexandrinus manuscript, claimed to be of the 5th century, its historical ORIGIN has NEVER been proven either!

Yet Wescott and Hort FALSELY CLAIMED those manuscripts were the BEST and OLDEST of ALL existing Greek manuscripts of The Bible. They offered NO HISTORICAL PROOF. Most scholars on the committee of 1881 just accepted what they said without looking into it. But there were some on that committee, like Dean Burgon, who doubted them and was suspicious, and he had good reason.

Pearl, clearly Davy does care which Bible version you choose to use. If you read his post it's obvious.