Happy 400th B-Day, KJV!

[seeker_two]

This is why the Bible I use (Parallel Bible) has four translations.....KJV, NIV, NASB, and NLT.....this way, if someone says, "you should be reading this translation," I can say "OK"......

[MechAg94]

This is why the Bible I use (Parallel Bible) has four translations.....KJV, NIV, NASB, and NLT.....this way, if someone says, "you should be reading this translation," I can say "OK"......

That isn't a bad way to go.  I've come across someone confusing verses and checked them in other Bibles before. 

[MechAg94]

Hence the problem. Reverence for the Word of God would mean a desire to get closer to what was written by Moses, Paul, inter alia; even if some poetry or "readability" is sacrificed. You will notice that the idea MechAg spoke of was "reverence for a particular translation," and not "reverence for the Word of God." Confusing the two is unfortunately common among KJV adherents.

Exactly.  The pastor I grew up with used the KJV for his English version often, but not exclusively, and nearly always compared it to the greek when dealing with critical verses.  He was always very adamant that translating anything into English is very difficult and still maintain all the depth of meaning from other languages.  Because of that, I don't think it ever occurred to me that any translation would be 100% right until I heard some people thought that.  IMO, it is divine intervention that all these translations manage to maintain the core of God's Word despite errors. 

[roo_ster]

Hence the problem. Reverence for the Word of God would mean a desire to get closer to what was written by Moses, Paul, inter alia; even if some poetry or "readability" is sacrificed. You will notice that the idea MechAg spoke of was "reverence for a particular translation," and not "reverence for the Word of God." Confusing the two is unfortunately common among KJV adherents.

A reverence for the KJV is a reverence for the word of God (if one is a Christian and not just someone who appreciates literature). Same could be said for most other translations that are not obvious corruptions.

As for those translations that are (relatively) uncontroversially adjudged to more accurate than the KJV, most are not so much more accurate as to have much significance.  I read several translations in parallel for Bible study prep and it is not common for the same passage to convey different meaning.  Most times there is a delta, it is through the use of synonyms or varied grammar that ends up meaning the same thing, once you have given it some thought.  Also, pastors who use NIV, ESV, etc. still run back to the original languages on occasion at a rate I can not distinguish from those pastors who use KJV.

Using your standard for reverence, one is remiss and not truly revering the word of God if they do not learn Greek & Hebrew, and anything not written in the original Greek & Hebrew is not the word of God.  After all, ALL translations fall short, in some way, of conveying the precise meaning of the original language. 

For anyone who has not mastered Greek & Hebrew, it makes next to no difference which of the decent translations they use for most of their Bible reading.  I keep a shelf full of translations for when I run a Bible Study, but I am under no illusion that any one of them is perfect.  I still submit my study outlines to the pastor a week or more in advance, so my pastor can flag anything hinky I may have misunderstood before I sling it out to others.  He has the Greek & Hebrew training I lack.  Part of the reason he is the pastor in our church organization(1).




(1) Organized religion!?

[MechAg94]

You are still referring to a different sort of reverence than I was thinking of.  Perhaps that is the wrong word here.  What I have heard is that some people see the KJV as divinely inspired itself and that it is true and correct above other translations, even to the point of ignoring or dismissing disagreeing original language examples.  I referred to that as reverence, but maybe that is more extreme.

[roo_ster]

You are still referring to a different sort of reverence than I was thinking of.  Perhaps that is the wrong word here.  What I have heard is that some people see the KJV as divinely inspired itself and that it is true and correct above other translations, even to the point of ignoring or dismissing disagreeing original language examples.  I referred to that as reverence, but maybe that is more extreme.

Nah, I don't give the KJV that sort of reverence and I disagree with those who do.  I was kidding when I wrote:

What?  An illustration of Christ ascending to Heaven whilst handing down the KJV to James his own self ought to do the trick.

I suspect we are in vehement agreement on the fundamentals, once the semantics are sorted out.

[Perd Hapley]

Nah, I don't give the KJV that sort of reverence and I disagree with those who do. I suspect we are in vehement agreement on the fundamentals, once the semantics are sorted out.

Probably.

MechAg and I are talking about those who see the KJV as the only valid English translation, or the one God chose and divinely inspired as a translation, or the most extreme KJVphiles, who see the KJV as more reliable than the manuscripts. Because there are some of those.

I would agree that, except for obvious corruptions (like the JW translation), or typos (like some of the early KJVs), a person's choice of Bible translation shouldn't affect any central doctrines.

[Perd Hapley]

For over 300 years, the vast majority of English-speaking Christians spoke a common Biblical language. We now have a multitude of inconsistent translations,

This is one of my pastor's main defenses for the KJV. He thinks it would best if all English-speaking Christians memorized passages from the same translation, though I'm not sure why. The ironic part is that he habitually paraphrases the KJV when reading to the congregation. 

[roo_ster]

This is one of my pastor's main defenses for the KJV. He thinks it would best if all English-speaking Christians memorized passages from the same translation, though I'm not sure why. The ironic part is that he habitually paraphrases the KJV when reading to the congregation. 

Buy him a copy of the Message Bible and watch his head asplode, "Here you go, instead of paraphrasing the KJV, you can read your paraphrase from this..." 

As far as the other bit, some folks would like to buy the world a Coke...

MechAg and I are talking about those who see the KJV as the only valid English translation, or the one God chose and divinely inspired as a translation, or the most extreme KJVphiles, who see the KJV as more reliable than the manuscripts. Because there are some of those.

I have met some of the weirder-side Christians over time, but I have yet to encounter one of those sorts you describe.  The "you're making me uncomfortable with your goofiness" Christians I have spent time with were almost exclusively NIV readers for some reason.  Not sure why.

[MechAg94]

This is one of my pastor's main defenses for the KJV. He thinks it would best if all English-speaking Christians memorized passages from the same translation, though I'm not sure why. The ironic part is that he habitually paraphrases the KJV when reading to the congregation.  

IMO, the differences should underscore the fact that the English versions are translations, not the original writings, which is important to know.  

I don't think I have ever met a KJV-believer either.  Just heard of them.

[MechAg94]

For anyone who has not mastered Greek & Hebrew, it makes next to no difference which of the decent translations they use for most of their Bible reading.  I keep a shelf full of translations for when I run a Bible Study, but I am under no illusion that any one of them is perfect.  I still submit my study outlines to the pastor a week or more in advance, so my pastor can flag anything hinky I may have misunderstood before I sling it out to others.  He has the Greek & Hebrew training I lack.  Part of the reason he is the pastor in our church organization(1).

Back to this comment, that is similar to the Church I grew up with.  The pastor was very good with Greek and Hebrew and included translation background in his sermons, but there was no thought to everyone learning.  He did think that ALL pastors should learn it. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

couple things that surprised me when i worked at the queendom of god (VTS in alexandria) was the amount of discussion/dissension/ over the bible. In my ignorance i thought most things woulda been hashed out already.   and the other odd thing was the campus hebrew expert was chinese,  who'd have thunk it

[MicroBalrog]

You would think there's an obvious place in the world to get experts in Biblical Hebrew.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

yea me too

[seeker_two]

You would think there's an obvious place in the world to get experts in Biblical Hebrew.

Do you know of such a place?.....

[lee n. field]

You would think there's an obvious place in the world to get experts in Biblical Hebrew.

Depends.  How great is the correspondence between biblical and modern Hebrew? 

[Perd Hapley]

I have met some of the weirder-side Christians over time, but I have yet to encounter one of those sorts you describe.  The "you're making me uncomfortable with your goofiness" Christians I have spent time with were almost exclusively NIV readers for some reason.  Not sure why.

OK, let me try to remember some of the Weirder-Side Christians I've met. This should be a fun trip down memory lane.

The church we attended when I was a pre-teen/teen was a Charismaniac church. Some members were weirder than others, but I don't remember any particular translation being preferred. Probably NIV was most common, but I'm not really sure.

Some of the people at my current church are distrustful of newer translations, but not necessarily weird. One of our members has a brother that bills himself as an evangelist. When he spoke at our church for a week of revival meetings, every sermon was a detailed road-map through the last days. If I remember correctly, newer perversions of the Bible were on his very long list of tools that were being used to bring us Evangelicals "back" into the Catholic Church of anti-Christ. We probably won't be scheduling him to "evangelize" at our church again.

The day after our wedding we looked for a Sunday morning service to attend, and wound up at a small Baptist church, where the marquee sign read simply "King James Bible." The people seemed nice, and fairly normal, but I do think it is a little weird, just advertising your choice of translation in big letters on your church sign.

I've met enough weird Christians (heck, I am one), but I don't usually ask their opinion on translations. I'm sure it runs the gamut. However, I am quite sure that my chosen translation, the NASB, does not attract any weirdos. None at all. 

[Balog]

Fisty: just out of curiosity, did your pastor stop the "evangelist" or contradict him in later sermons? I'm imagining a guest speaker trying to pull that crap at our church and laughing...

[MicroBalrog]

Depends.  How great is the correspondence between biblical and modern Hebrew? 

Similar enough that a high school graduate in Israel is expected to have [but of course often does not] a reasonable knowledge of biblical hebrew and pass a mandatory test in his knowledge of the Tanakh [Old Testament]. There are of course also both secular [taught at universities] and religious [taught in yeshivas] programs where people study it in a more extensive manner.

[Perd Hapley]

Fisty: just out of curiosity, did your pastor stop the "evangelist" or contradict him in later sermons? I'm imagining a guest speaker trying to pull that crap at our church and laughing...

I'm imagining a pastor stopping an "evangelist" in mid-sermon and wincing.    He didn't stop him or correct him. As far as contradicting him later, no, not directly. The guy didn't say anything heretical or blasphemous. He was just kinda silly.

[lee n. field]

OK, let me try to remember some of the Weirder-Side Christians I've met. This should be a fun trip down memory lane.

As long as we're careful.  That could be a thread derailer.

Some of the people at my current church are distrustful of newer translations, but not necessarily weird. One of our members has a brother that bills himself as an evangelist. When he spoke at our church for a week of revival meetings, every sermon was a detailed road-map through the last days. If I remember correctly, newer perversions of the Bible were on his very long list of tools that were being used to bring us Evangelicals "back" into the Catholic Church of anti-Christ. We probably won't be scheduling him to "evangelize" at our church again.

Dispensational, or Adventist?  What is it about eschatology, that brings the nuts out of the woodwork?  I don't feel any inner compulsion to expound on, say, Vos' two age model.  Though, if anything, I think eschatology is a more encompassing concept than most do.

The day after our wedding we looked for a Sunday morning service to attend, and wound up at a small Baptist church, where the marquee sign read simply "King James Bible." The people seemed nice, and fairly normal, but I do think it is a little weird, just advertising your choice of translation in big letters on your church sign.

I've met enough weird Christians (heck, I am one), but I don't usually ask their opinion on translations. I'm sure it runs the gamut. However, I am quite sure that my chosen translation, the NASB, does not attract any weirdos. None at all. 

Nope, none at all.  "ESV Preferred", myself.

I have never encountered a KJV only person in real life.  Just on the InterWebz, where you can run into all kinds of craziness unrestrained.  Maybe I just don't get out enough.

[Perd Hapley]

Dispensational, or Adventist? 

I don't know. Probably Dispensationalist. I assume you mean 7th-Day Adventist, and I doubt he was one of those.

That was just a few years after we bought land, and put up a building for our church, and we had just gotten a decorative cornerstone we were planning to install. It was leaning against the wall, in the entryway. The stone had been donated by a church member that makes headstones for a living, and the granite was originally for a Catholic headstone they had messed up on. We speculated upon what might transpire if our guest discovered the Virgin Mary lurking on the back side of our cornerstone. 

[roo_ster]

I don't know. Probably Dispensationalist. I assume you mean 7th-Day Adventist, and I doubt he was one of those.

That was just a few years after we bought land, and put up a building for our church, and we had just gotten a decorative cornerstone we were planning to install. It was leaning against the wall, in the entryway. The stone had been donated by a church member that makes headstones for a living, and the granite was originally for a Catholic headstone they had messed up on. We speculated upon what might transpire if our guest discovered the Virgin Mary lurking on the back side of our cornerstone. 

Fun fact:  Mary veneration was not reserved solely to the RC church.  Most protestant confessions were also ga-ga about Mary for many, many years.

[Perd Hapley]

Shhh! Our church is hiding our Mary worship on the back of the cornerstone. Don't go blabbing about it!

[Tallpine]

My wife talked to a woman who boasted that she only read the KJV because "if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." 

We once attended a church where the elders announced that in all prayers God was to be addressed as "thou" because it was more respectful.  Never mind that "thou" is the familiar form of "you" that has otherwise dropped out of English (but not most other European languages).