If thou hast a Bible in the house right now and readeth it at least once a month, chances are strong it’s the majestic King James Version of the Bible in Elizabethan English, a new survey out today finds.
Of the 89% of U.S. adults who own at least one Bible, 67% own a King James, which marks its 400th anniversary this year, according to LifeWay Research, a Nashville-based Christian research agency.
Although there are two dozen English-language Bibles in many contemporary translations, the King James Version reigns even more supreme among those who actually read their Bibles: 82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide....
Jim Lincoln wrote: people have noticed the defects in the AV for centuries, as another of your favorites pointed out, Dr. Wallace
Jim We keep advising you to get some honest and intelligent theologians for you edification.
"Daniel B. Wallace has written an essay he titled "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today." Dr. Wallace is the senior editor of the NET Bible, an also-ran modern English Bible version, so it's interesting to see how he defines his dismissal of the KJV. Interesting, because his essay brings forth quite a few false charges against the underlying text of the King James Bible, the Textus Receptus. The same old allegations are trotted out as if they haven't already been answered before."Why you shouldn't care what Wallace thinks about KJV
"Wallace pulls out the old "six verses in Revelation" standby: "In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript." Wallace is lying anyway. The text and variants in question are not only found in various Greek manuscripts today, they were available in Erasmus' time. It is Wallace's assumption that Erasmus did not have access to these texts."
Jim Lincoln wrote: John, U.K., people have noticed the defects in the AV for centuries...
On the contrary, people (the VAST majority) have NOT found defects in the KJV, but rather have endorsed the fact that it IS the very word of God, inspired, preserved and inerrant, suitable for Christians in every generation to decide matters of doctrine and practise, especially in giving the light of the gospel, assisted so very obviously over the centuries by the Holy Ghost, which authored the work, and who applies the word to God's elect as and when HE chooses.
Put that with your ecumenical baccy and chew on it.
As has been pointed out, the AV has sloppy grammar, As was pointed out in the musical, "My Fair Lady," H. Higgins, said,"The French don't care what they say, as long as they pronounce it properly." The AV was meant for Anglican churchmen who have the same philosophy.
The NKJV correct many of the errors of language and grammar of the AV.
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: In fact, the NKJV followed the Greek text of the Textus Receptus throughout the New Testament and "anywhere the NKJV appears to differ from the Greek text used by the KJV translators, it is because it has corrected the KJV departures from the Textus Receptus. Consequently, the NKJV adheres more closely to the Textus Receptus than does its predecessor the KJV".
SBrowne wrote: --- The question is where are we going from here? Will language be corrupted to such an extent that literature becomes defunct? The problem also is in communication and how future generations will deal with this growing current trend?
Me ain't got no idea, er, I mean I ain't got no idea.
You've probably noticed how often words get their proper meanings changed, right here on good old SA, by intelligent people no less. The rules of language are sometimes modified for whatever cause requires it. Maybe it's all part of the same corruption you refer to.
Mike wrote: Mr Kutilek's use of "degrading and debasing" ignores historical use, while your "historically correct" ignores the fact that though language does change, it does not necessarily denote deterioration.
I'm not completely convinced of that Mike. I have three children and noticed whilst they went through school there was a decrease in the teaching of grammar and an increase in the use of modern technical "jargonese" such as abbreviated words used in text etc. Also what does the word "gay" convey to our generation then the generations coming up behind? I hear the atheists are trying to do the same thing with the word "bright" to make them more acceptable.
The modern versions are grammatically wrong thats a fact and when you add the dimension of dynamic equivalence then you are "taking from" the Word of God. Curiously enough the NASB does actually use "itself" in connection with a spiritual being so they are being hypocrical when calling the KJV names.
The question is where are we going from here? Will language be corrupted to such an extent that literature becomes defunct? The problem also is in communication and how future generations will deal with this growing current trend?
Does this chap really imagine that all on a sudden, modern 21st century man has discovered a "blasphemy" in the King James Bible which, ooo la la, no-one ever noticed before!!
Not even noticed by the great men translating the Bible?
You know what I call it, that is, men like Mr Kutilek? Proud, arrogant, patronising, haughty, and any other words useful for describing someone who talks a lot of woffle yet imagines it is high scholarship.
p.s. Did you ever answer my question about why no-one has produced a perfect modern version yet, seeing as these heretics and ecumenists make a whole load about supposed errors in the KJV, yet seem unable to produce a Bible without errors?
It's far easier to buy an inerrant, inspired Bible like the KJV, and you'll never need another Bible as long as you live.
SBrowne wrote: --- In Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of 1756 alongside the word "It" he writes, ""It is used absolutely for the state of a person or affair." And "It is sometimes used of the first or second person, sometimes of more." So I'm afraid your Mr Kutilek is either a liar or ignorant of historic english grammar. This will mean that the KJV is correct in it's usage of "it/itself" as indeed it is historically correct in all of it's grammar. It is in recent times that the english language has deteriorated into such an abysmal application of grammar, even today in its literature.
Mr Kutilek's use of "degrading and debasing" ignores historical use, while your "historically correct" ignores the fact that though language does change, it does not necessarily denote deterioration.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Strange when it comes to persons the AV refers to "Holy Spirit" as "it" which of course a blasphemy. from, Doug Kutilek wrote: ...the KJV shares this distinction only with the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and to a lesser extent with the RSV and NRSV translations of the apostate National Council of Churches.... To call any person, but especially to call one of the Persons of the Trinity by the English pronoun "it" is degrading and debasing, and is inexcusable. The correct pronoun--the ONLY correct pronoun--in such a case is "He."
Jim You need to get better theological advisors than Mr Kutilek obviously is.
In Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of 1756 alongside the word "It" he writes, ""It is used absolutely for the state of a person or affair." And "It is sometimes used of the first or second person, sometimes of more."
So I'm afraid your Mr Kutilek is either a liar or ignorant of historic english grammar.
This will mean that the KJV is correct in it's usage of "it/itself" as indeed it is historically correct in all of it's grammar. It is in recent times that the english language has deteriorated into such an abysmal application of grammar, even today in its literature.
wa wrote: Mike Grammar used by KJV translators was perfect. Thou, Thee are definitely singular. You is definitely plural. BTW "you" is used by Jesus in that chapter for example at v8 and 9. The Greek word for "you" is "humin" [5213] = Irreg. Dative case/ fm Irreg Plural. V35 "Thee" Greek word "soy" [4671]. Dative case. Fm "su" Pers. Pronoun, 2nd pers Singular. Which as the Scots might say, "Maks it a wee bit mair coplucatit."
Most everything you never wanted to know about "thee," "thou," "ye"
Preface of the NIV wrote: As for the traditional pronouns "thou," "thee" and "thine" in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with the old verb forms such as "doest," "wouldest" and "hadst") would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.
from, The KJV's Archaic Language Pros and Cons Actually this commentary does point out some pros. In other words, KJVO types should find parts of the article interesting.
Mike wrote: wrong again, as you say, he's addressing all. Apparently "thee" is not always thee, pronoun, objective, singular, after all. Sometimes it means you, especially if a crowd is being addressed. But maybe it's because it's a single crowd. That works.
Mike Grammar used by KJV translators was perfect. Thou, Thee are definitely singular. You is definitely plural.
BTW "you" is used by Jesus in that chapter for example at v8 and 9. The Greek word for "you" is "humin" [5213] = Irreg. Dative case/ fm Irreg Plural.
V35 "Thee" Greek word "soy" [4671]. Dative case. Fm "su" Pers. Pronoun, 2nd pers Singular.
Which as the Scots might say, "Maks it a wee bit mair coplucatit."
John UK wrote: I think you will find, Mike, that a preacher will address an individual because he is seeking to convince an individual, even though there be a crowd. Each one in the crowd is an individual, and each one needs to hearken to the message individually. I think that makes more sense than your "single crowd" idea. Maybe a minister or others would like to comment on that.
That makes more sense than what I've heard so far, John. Sorta. Thee is one, or thee is one of many ones, or thee is many ones. Seems like there's no need for "you" at all. Guess it doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway.
Mike wrote: wrong again, as you say, he's addressing all. Apparently "thee" is not always thee, pronoun, objective, singular, after all. Sometimes it means you, especially if a crowd is being addressed. But maybe it's because it's a single crowd. That works.
I think you will find, Mike, that a preacher will address an individual because he is seeking to convince an individual, even though there be a crowd. Each one in the crowd is an individual, and each one needs to hearken to the message individually. I think that makes more sense than your "single crowd" idea.
Maybe a minister or others would like to comment on that.
Mike wrote: wrong again, as you say, he's addressing all. Apparently "thee" is not always thee, pronoun, objective, singular, after all. Sometimes it means you, especially if a crowd is being addressed. But maybe it's because it's a single crowd. That works.
Your interpretation cannot supercede the Greek language Mike. If it does, you are forced into changing your interpretation. TRY AGAIN!
wrong again wrote: --- Mike V33 Jesus begins "No man" V34-36 Jesus is using the individual as an example to teach all.
wrong again, as you say, he's addressing all. Apparently "thee" is not always thee, pronoun, objective, singular, after all. Sometimes it means you, especially if a crowd is being addressed. But maybe it's because it's a single crowd. That works.
Only King James Bible Using 1 wrote: Amen, "wrong again", For You Are RIGHT AGAIN ! IF THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE REALLY READ THE KING JAMES BIBLE; HE OR SHE WOULD'VE STARTED THE ARTICLE BY WRITING: "If THOU HAST A Bible In THINE House Right Now And READEST It..." And Not The "Corny": "If THOU HAST A Bible In The House And READETH It..." !
wrong again wrote: Blasphemy is more your hobby Jim. "Mr. Kutilek¹s objections to the use of "it" or "itself" in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use "itself" in either the very same verses or in the same manner. And ignorant because apparently Mr. Kutilek does not know the proper use of his own English language." Will Kinney Jim Your NASB says; "Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than **ITSELF,** and they go"
Most excellent article showing the folly of Mr Kutilek's objection to the King James Bible. I agree certainly with Will Kinney about this, and others would too if they were to read the verses over and over until memorised, and then to meditate upon each one in turn. The Holy Ghost will show the truth and increase faith, no doubting it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Strange when it comes to persons the AV refers to "Holy Spirit" as "it" which of course a blasphemy. "The Spirit Itself," Or, The Greatest Defect In The King James Version (Doug Kutilek)
Blasphemy is more your hobby Jim.
"Mr. Kutilek¹s objections to the use of "it" or "itself" in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use "itself" in either the very same verses or in the same manner. And ignorant because apparently Mr. Kutilek does not know the proper use of his own English language." Will Kinney
Jim Your NASB says; "Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than **ITSELF,** and they go" _____________
Mike
V33 Jesus begins "No man" V34-36 Jesus is using the individual as an example to teach all.
xzq wrote: Thou pronoun, singular, nominative thou; possessive thy or thine; objective thee; plural, nominative you or ye; possessive your or yours; objective you or ye; Dictionary.com
Luke 11:34-36 "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light."
To whom is Jesus speaking?
35
There are a total of 54 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Brian Edwards | 7/17/2008
Dr. Alan Cairns | 3/16/2009
COMMENTS | 
