He‚Äôs 500 years old today, but he‚Äôs still hot. Especially for a brand of youthful US-based evangelicals. The 16th-century reformer John Calvin, perhaps unjustly famed for dourness and an elitist doctrine of pre-destination, is enjoying a huge revival in the Protestant world.
Time magazine put The New Calvinism at No 3, in its 2009 list of the Top Ten ideas Changing the World, calling it ‚Äú Evangelicalism's latest success story‚ÄĚ.
Time points out that "the Calvinist-flavoured ESV Bible" sold out at first printing, and exalting the reformed blog Between Two Worlds as among "cyber-Christendom's hottest links."...
"Certain parties reproachfully call members of the true Reformed Church 'Calvinists' after Calvin, minister in Geneva, who was one of the first to oppose Roman Catholic error. We say, "among the first," for neither he nor Luther, but Zwingli, was the first. We acknowledge Calvin as a member of the true Church. He has done much to promote the truth, but he is neither the head of the Church nor the one who prescribed the rule for life and doctrine. We neither magnify nor lean upon man. We do not follow human inventions nor call ourselves after men. If someone desires to name us after man, he does so at his own peril. If in doing so he wishes to distinguish us as the true Church from the false Church, the matter is itself good, but not the manner."
Reader, I will say that your comment was without rancor, This essay lacks rancor also, Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?. This same site pointed out that one of the principles of Westcott & Hort isn't used anymore on deciding Biblical texts. The translators of the KJV were not more blessed or chosen by God than those of ERV/ASV. On SermonAudio, except where otherwise noted I use the ASV which is part of the official revision of the AV, and last one. People later either saw that it was hopeless to try to fix the AV and as the translators of the KJV pointed out themselves,
1Corintians 14:11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. ---NASB
The owner of the above website has some criticism of all versions even some that he recommends such as, New King James Version.
Reader I do thank God, that he made the AV such unpleasant reading that when I was ready to become a Christian, I had the copy of the RSV as my first Bible to use, and of course better ones now.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I don't hate the AV, it's great literature, but a poor Bible, One that the translators fully expected to be replaced by later, better versions
Poor translators must be bitterly disappointed - or happy that God used them to record the true Word of God.
Later versions are clearly spoiled by heretical texts like Westcott and Hort devised and eclectic texts.
The KJV has a proven track record as the sword of the Spirit, building churches and nations for four centuries.
ESV(RSV), NIV, NASB et al are levelled at human reception without the Holy Spirit involved. These modern versions have been brought out at a time of doctrinal decline and confusion, which is revealed in the history of their production.
Here again, I'm answering something that has been already settled by vast majority of Fundamentalist Christians. I don't hate the AV, it's great literature, but a poor Bible, One that the translators fully expected to be replaced by later, better versions, The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only position and Erasmus and the Textus Receptus by William W. Combs. Errors in the King James Version?, yes and many of them. The only reason that we (and I mean people who use a good Bible translation like the NASB or ESV) as cultist, Jehovah Witnesses, because the AV doesn't mess with theology. So, use this poor version, if you wish, but please don't try to say that Christ spoke English and all His words were recorded accurately in English. It never happened.
By the way, you don't start out with Election or Evolution or whatever when talking to a non-believer, you start out with something like the Treading the Roman Road. If the non-believer wants to talk about the cult of KJVonlyism ignore that too.
Roger, when we preach God's salvation for mankind (the Gospel), we are in fact preaching Election through Glorification! God has made a way for sinful man. This is the good news! Without a desire for God to save, there would be no good news, no gospel!
I believe in the doctrine of election because the Bible very clearly teaches it. Even a child who can read will read that this doctrine is clearly in Scripture. How does one explain to a nonbeliever, nonchurchgoer, just what election is all about? Any feedback?
Must God's people be reminded that salvation is from God and God alone; it would be great if all Christians would view the Gospel according to Jesus Christ from start to finish. It is not derived from Calvin, but from the Triun God. Read Ephesians, Romans; election through Glorification cannot be denied. Martin Jones stated that the Doctrine of Elections was one of the most Glorious doctines in the bible. If we do not creed in our hearts God's Elective Redemptive Salvation, then we have not even begun to deal with our sin nature. Solo Deo Gloria!
The point is, Jim, that the AV is NOT incomprehensible by any stretch of the imagination. It's still easily understandable by anyone who makes an effort to read it. There are places in some of the newer translations where a verse might require less thought and consideration but with ALL of the modern translations you lose so much more than you gain. If Gil Rugh is telling you otherwise, he is wrong.
The most sound preachers on SermonAudio use the AV exclusively. Loads of believers all over the world still use it exclusively-even many who don't consider English to be their primary language.
The AV is still by far the best, most accurate and trustworthy translation of God's Word in the English language. I doubt if it will ever be improved on because the monstrosity of new 'translations' has led to such mass ignorance of the Scriptures and heresy amongst the church that I cannot imagine who you could trust to do it.
Elizabethnot wrote: What an insult to all brethren on sermonaudio who were converted under a ministry using the KJV-probably including its' founder. I'll drop mine in the waste bin on the way out of church...maybe the refuse collector will find it and be converted My Reformed denomination uses the KJV...two souls converted in the last month God blesses the version which the modern critics hate
Amen and Amen! The old sword which has GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH will always be the power of God unto salvation, no matter what the critics say. Maybe the critics are the devil's advocates in disguise, eh?
Great to hear your news of converts!
I too was converted through listening to preaching from the AV, and despite being an unchurched man, I had no difficulty with the language WHATSOEVER. It is only by revelation of Jesus Christ anyway, and his loving CALL.
Jim Lincoln wrote: but it is just really fit for Elizabethan actors now.
What an insult to all brethren on sermonaudio who were converted under a ministry using the KJV-probably including its' founder. I'll drop mine in the waste bin on the way out of church...maybe the refuse collector will find it and be converted
My Reformed denomination uses the KJV...two souls converted in the last month
God blesses the version which the modern critics hate
Kenny, it became incomprehensible, the AV, because it's over 400 years old. The translators wanted to put a Bible in the common language of the day, but it is just really fit for Elizabethan actors now. Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today. Or to put it more succintly in my own words, its antiquated, inaccurate (also uses too much dynamic equivalence), vulgar in parts, and a state sponsored Bible, and it isn't an American translation (But yes, I would tolerate the ESV )
Yes, I think over Gil's sermons, even as he preaches them. However, I would ask anyone, you know, like Catholics too, why would stay in Church that you didn't have a high agreement on in theology? Not only I wouldn't, but in the past I didn't.