SITE NOTICE | MORE..$1 Signup Sale! For a limited time, your church can begin broadcasting on SermonAudio today for only $1 in setup charges (normally, $150). Get on the map + mobile and join the largest, conservative sermon movement on the web!
The Bible lives forever, even if the KJV is copyrighted
Most people presume that since the King James Version has been around so long, it's now in the public domain.
Vaughan Williams, the renowned English composer, often set passages from the Authorized Version to music. He allegedly did this out of his great love and respect for the King James Version. But in an interview, years after his death, his widow, Ursula, was asked why Williams, who professed to be an agnostic, used the Bible so often in his compositions. With a twinkle in her eye, she replied: "Because it's out of copyright! No royalties!"
It turns out that's not true. In honor of the KJV's 400th anniversary, London's newly reconstituted Globe Theaterâ€”Shakespeare's old home stageâ€”scheduled a series of actors to recite the entire King James Bible from the stage between Palm Sunday and Easter of 2011. But a few days before the presentation, the director received a bill for payment of a...
Christopher Pope wrote: Translations Not Recommended
Advances in understanding the text of the New Testament, as well as changes in the English language, have made the Geneva Bible (GEN), King James Version (KJV), and Young's Literal Translation far obsolete. Their rating is lower for the fact that, while the most formally literal, none of them pay enough attention to the nuances of grammar and syntax. The KJV would have done better if it had kept to Tyndale's simple style instead of the elevated language that soon became outdated. The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) might have outdone the NKJV if it had been more consistent in updating the KJV's archaisms and correcting more obvious errors such as Easter in Acts 12:4....
Neil wrote: Perhaps too much credit is given to the Anglican translators (for good or ill), and not enough to Tyndale, whose original the KJV people often borrowed from. "Although the Authorised King James Version is ostensibly the production of a learned committee of churchmen, it is mostly cribbed from Tyndale with some reworking of his translation."
Dr. Robert Joyner wrote: I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists. A.T. Robertson was the greatest Greek scholar America ever produced. He was a conservative Baptist and approved of the American Standard Version. This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own....
Jim Lincoln wrote: since America is the leading Christian English speaking nation and has replaced the corrupted England
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh Jim I just love your American sense of humour. BTW I don't come from England.
Now try not to forget Jim, that GOD Himself has been using the KING JAMES VERSION for all the centuries since HE inspired its translation into English.
The modern versions such as the LIBERAL NIV with its bad DE translation, bad grammar, ommissions and doctrinal declensions. - And your nasbiness, have used Liberal Anglicanism and heretics to replace that which GOD Himself used for centuries to build and teach His Church. You just have to live with these facts Jim!!! OR Use the Bible GOD Himself uses and has used since 1611 - The "Authorised Version."
Remember Jim "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16.13
So don't worry about the few words which are in correct grammatical form, - Even you should be able to understand them.
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: The KJV Only people argue that the KJV is the only inspired Bible against which every other translation is to be tested. This claim is not only demonstrably false, it ignores the entire issue of biblical origin, transmission and translation.
Letâ€™s examine this claim: The original preface of the KJV translators clearly stated their aims. The translators made no claim their translation was either inspired or perfect. Proof of this can be seen where they set variant readings and marginal notes in the text.
I can make a very similar argument that you two have, since America is the leading Christian English speaking nation and has replaced the corrupted England, it's corrupt Church and it's corrupt Bible, Canada says "NO!" to KJV only, only the true English version, the New American Standard Bible should be used.
pole wrote: The Bible which GOD ordained the translation of - AND the version which HE was to use as the English version for four centuries, to teach and build His Church - is the KING JAMES VERSION. Other version were either incomplete or simply not used by God, for this purpose.
Ahem.... Hebrews 4:12-16 Geneva 12 For the worde of God is liuely, and mightie in operation, & sharper then any two edged sword, and entreth through, euen vnto the diuiding asunder of the soule and the spirit, and of the ioints, and the marow, and is a discerner of the thoughtes, and the intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature, which is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and open vnto his eyes, with whome we haue to doe. 14 Seeing then that wee haue a great hie Priest, which is entred into heauen, euen Iesus the Sonne of God, let vs holde fast our profession. 15 For we haue not an hie Priest, which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all things tempted in like sort, yet without sinne. 16 Let vs therefore goe boldly vnto ye throne of grace, that we may receiue mercy, and finde grace to helpe in time of neede.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Of course the AV is unfit for expository preaching since a pastor would be spending too much time translating it into English
Jim I've been wondering whether to call this just a plain stupid remark or whether to look deeper and perceive that you are simply ignorant of the truth?
The "fitness" of the KJV for expository preaching is, as real Christians know, in the hands of God, specifically in the work of the Holy Spirit.
And God has been successfully using the KJV for that precise purpose for four hundred years, since translation of Scripture into english.
Jim. You keep cutting God out of the work of preaching, exegesis and exposition. So I am worried about your religious beliefs. Perhaps the Lord demonstrates to us here, that modern reliance upon the works of heretics such as your pals the liberal Anglicans W & H, is deviation from the true path.
After all Matt 7:21-23 teaches that zeal for the Lord's work - is not necessarily the work of Christ. "22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Jesus informs us that these zealous folks were "workers of iniquity."
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: In fact, if one uses the same logic as the KJVO proponents, and cites selected passages which seem to teach salvation by works, one could even argue that it is the KJV itself which distorts the doctrine of salvation. Remember that the KJV has been the favorite Bible of new religions and cults, like Mormonism, that promote salvation by works. Why? Because in many places the KJV verses are less clear than the reliable modern versions.
I heard an excellent expository sermon from the book of Ruth this morning and the pastor utilized the AV (he uses it exclusively). In fact, I've heard hundreds if not thousands of expository sermons thru the years where the speaker utilized the AV and often an explanatory comment as to why word A from the KJV was over word B from a modern version sheds light on the exposition.
Once again, the blasphemous Jim Lincoln is either daft, deceitful or doesn't know what he's talking about (or linking about). I suspect all three.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Of course the AV is unfit for expository preaching since a pastor would be spending too much time translating it into English and explaining its errors.
Then explain how several hundred preachers on SA have no problem with exposition from the KJV neither do any hearers or the churches wouldn't be here listed in the first place?
Even Dr James Whites was brought up with the KJV and says he still quotes it from memory as it is hidden in his heart from a child. I would like to ask him how his parents were converted as they presumably brought him up using the very bible they were used to hearing in their local church
So unless James White is 400 years old and his parents older, even he has to admit in his own life time that the KJV was understood and hidden in his own heart. Methinks unless English is your second language you will have little problem with the KJV.
You make it up as you go along Jim?
Go and have a look at the Metropolitan tabernacle...Spurgeons old church. A few hundred gathered to hear AV expository preaching and 300 at sunday school. Tell me Peter Masters is wasting his time, eh?
Dr. Thomas wrote: It is time to answer the question of what type of translation is the best basis for expository preaching. For some the communicative effectiveness of a free translation or paraphrase is very important. This advantage should not be underestimated. Yet if the ultimate goal of the expositor is to teach the meaning of his passage as the foundation for applications to his congregation's practical experience, he is seriously hindered if he uses a version with excessive interpretive elements. It is a cop-out to use a free translation or paraphrase under the pretext that all translations are interpretive. The fact must be faced that some versions are more interpretive than others, and a choice must be made in this light.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Dynamic Equivalence: a Method of Translation or a System of Hermeneutics?
Jim Here is the answer to that question - Dynamic Equivalence = A system of "interpretation" based somewhat on the heretics Westcott and Hort, and a few modern scholars who cannot be trusted as much as the Bible which God used for four hundred years since translation into english.
Thus God AUTHORISED the AV. The King James Version of the Word of God.
And thus No REAL Christian should use the NIV, or modern versions.
"Was it formal equivalence translators who made Eph 1:3-14 'ONE' complex sentence or was it written by Paul under the guidance of the Spirit of God? - It was Paul. And ultimately it was the Spirit of God.
Thus by preserving complex grammatical structures the formal equivalence translator is not disregarding the need for clarity, he is simply being faithful to what God has given by inspiration." (Accuracy of Translation. By Robert Martin)
Needless to say the "dynamic equivalence" translators were NOT faithful to that which God inspired.
Use the Bible which God has used for four centuries to teach His doctrines - the King James Version.
Modern versions used a different Greek text and used the work of heretics.
The NIV of 1984 or earlier will be a much better Bible to use, it is a dynamic equivalent of much better sources of text, than Erasmus and the Textus Receptus .... This is the weakness of the NKJV which has corrected many of the errors of the KJV, but still relies on the TR, which even the KJV translators didn't copy very well.
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".
Polus wrote: Thank you, a classic example of double speak, sophistry and inconsistency. Your Mr Waite has redefined "quite literal" to meet his nonsensical whim. "God forbid" was always a 17th century colloquial equivalent, and never a literal word for word formally equivalent translation. He documents the fact that the word "God" is not there, and then excuses himself from his own standards! Truly breathtaking audacity. Simple honesty and integrity would require him (and you!) to apply the same "used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior technique of dynamic equivalence" to the AV as well as to the modern versions. Instead we see a double standard, now he speaks in terms of "only fourteen times". "Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! "
Thank you, a classic example of double speak, sophistry and inconsistency.
Aaahh verbiage such a useful hobby for the uninitiated.