My Plea For the Old Sword

My Plea For The Old Sword book online ^ | 1997 | Ian Paisley

[fortheDeclaration]

Introduction

Let me state quite simply and plainly the position for which I contend.

I believe the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of the living God and because the Authorised Version is a faithful English translation of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the original Greek of the New Testament, it is the very Word of God in my mother tongue. Being a translation does not alter one iota of its integrity, inerrancy and infallibility as God's Word.

I believe the Authorised Version preserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors.

In the unfolding of its history I trace the providential wonder of the God who both gave His own inerrant Word and transmitted it through many epochs of crucial centuries for the Christian Church

As far as the English Authorized Version is concerned I believe:

Its foundation is unsurpassably pre-eminent in the underlying texts upon which it rests.

Its ancestry is unsurpassably pre-eminent in the various English translations which gave it birth and of which it is the sum and substance, the pith and marrow, the essence and cream and perfection.

Its translators are unsurpassably pre-eminent in their saintliness and scholarship, the way they were providentially brought together, and the dedication with which they undertook and completed their momentous task.

Its translation is unsurpassably pre-eminent in the techniques it employed.

Its English is unsurpassably pre-eminent.

Its language is unsurpassably pre-eminent in its charity, chastity and eternity.

Its doctrine is unsurpassably pre-eminent, being couched in sound words, in keeping to the text with unwavering integrity.

Its reverence is unsurpassably pre-eminent, casting the hem of its holy garment carefully over every sentence, word and syllable.

Its history is unsurpassably pre-eminent, having preserved for centuries the Word of God for the English speaking peoples of the whole world and those evangelised by them.

Its fruits are unsurpassably pre-eminent, so mighty and so manifold that there is not room enough to receive them. I believe this English Authorized Version is unsurpassably pre-eminent over and above all other English translations, because like the blessed Joseph there rests upon it the blessing of the heavens above and of the deep that lieth under (Genesis 49:25).

I cry out "There is none like that, give it me," and in so doing I nail the Satanic lie that the Authorized Version is outdated, outmoded, mistranslated, a relic of the past and only defended by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists.

As its deriders and revilers pass on to the judgment of the thrice holy God whose revelation they despise, the Old Book,

"Incomparable in its faithfulness, majestic in its language, and inexhaustible in its spiritual fruitfulness, continues to reveal to millions the matchless grace of Him whose name is THE WORD OF GOD, and who is crowned with glory and honour."

I believe this Book will always be the unsurpassable pre-eminent English version of the Holy Bible and no other can ever take its place.

To seek to dislodge this Book from its rightful pre-eminent place is the act of the enemy, and what is attempted to put in its place is an intruder - an imposter - a pretender - a usurper.

Having made my position crystal clear, I will now move to substantiate and defend it.

[fortheDeclaration]

Bump for read.

[AppyPappy]

a relic of the past and only defended by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists.

Verily, thou darest to sayeth that man is stupid because he darest to disagree with thee?

[fortheDeclaration]

I cry out "There is none like that, give it me," and in so doing I nail the Satanic lie that the Authorized Version is outdated, outmoded, mistranslated, a relic of the past and only defended by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists.

That is what the entire statement said.

Paisley is saying that those who defend the King James are often accused as being 'stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists', not that those who oppose us are.

[AppyPappy]

I was speaking to the article and not necessarily to you.

[Just mythoughts]

"I believe the Authorised Version perserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors".


I guess he did not get a copy of that letter that was placed in the front of the 1611, a warning to the readers that there was discourse - argument regarding what words to use in the translation.

Reason that when one uses the King James version one needs (Strongs) to look up the words from the original languages to see that man choose what words to use in their translation.

Reason why we are told what would happen to those who would add or take away from the Written Word.

[MinuteGal]

Some context for why this essay (written 1997?) is posted today would be helpful. Is Paisley referring to the King James version of the bible?

Without getting into the argument over inerrancy, ease of reading, etc., I know I prefer the KJV because of the beauty, rhythm and familiar comfort of the "old" text over the revised, modern wording.

Shakespeare's plays modernized would leave me just as cold.

Leni

[fortheDeclaration]

I was speaking to the article and not necessarily to you.

And that is how I took it.

Am I missing your point?

[fortheDeclaration]

Some context for why this essay (written 1997?) is posted today would be helpful. Is Paisley referring to the King James version of the bible?

Yes, he is.

It is an online book defending the King James.

Without getting into the argument over inerrancy, ease of reading, etc., I know I prefer the KJV because of the beauty, rhythm and familiar comfort of the "old" text over the revised, modern wording. Shakespeare's plays modernized would leave me just as cold.

Amen!

He has a chapter on the language of the King James you might enjoy.

Follow the link and you will find the book listed as 'My Plea For The Old Sword'.

[fortheDeclaration]

"I believe the Authorised Version perserves the Word of God for me in the English tongue and that it contains no errors". I guess he did not get a copy of that letter that was placed in the front of the 1611, a warning to the readers that there was discourse - argument regarding what words to use in the translation.

The King James translators themselves did not know that their translation would be the last English one that God would use.

Reason that when one uses the King James version one needs (Strongs) to look up the words from the original languages to see that man choose what words to use in their translation.

Strongs is not giving all the definitions of the Greek/Hebrew words used.

One has to understand the context and subtle nuances of a language before one can make language decisions.

That is why Tyndale coined english words such as 'passover' and 'shewbread'.

Going to Strongs to decide on what the Greek is, is like a foreign speaking individual going to Websters to 'correct' Shakespeare.

Reason why we are told what would happen to those who would add or take away from the Written Word.

The King James gives you the exact words that God wants you to have.

[Gorjus]

To seek to dislodge this Book from its rightful pre-eminent place is the act of the enemy,

You're entitled to your opinion of course. Here's mine:

To split hairs over differences in honest, God-fearing attempts at translation gives ammunition to the enemy and does his work - since the honest translations ALL contain the essential truth and to cast doubts on one with the same message casts doubts on the message in all.

To strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel contradicts the very Scripture you claim to reverence and so gives the enemy ammunition that Christians are rule-bound, holier-than-thou hypocrites instead of honest students of God's word.

If there were no King James Version and all you had was another honest attempt at faithful translation (pick one of several, RSV, NIV, NKJV), do you honestly think God would not accept you if you followed the doctrine in those translations? Do you think that 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' is wrong and that 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' is valid?

When I study, I read the KJV, the NIV, usually at least one other attempt at a literal translation, a paraphrase that does not attempt to be the most literal possible translation (most of the time nowadays, that's 'The Message') and look at the original Greek/Hebrew on key words. From this, I believe I find understanding, and hope I learn what God wants me to know.

I do not 'worship' any one version/translation, nor do I trust absolutely anyone's interpretation of what it's 'supposed' to mean - including my own . . . .

Except that I trust absolutely in the Bible as the Word of God at the fundamental level of - "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." And I trust the Bible as the absolute arbiter of doctrinal issues - accepting as infallible the direction that is clear (after studying in several translations and the original Greek/Hebrew), and accepting as 'disputable matters' anything not explicit.

Until you can show me that the original Greek says that the 'King James Version' is so much better than any other version that enlightenment can come only from that source, I'll continue to consider the relative validity of ANY particular translation a 'diputable matter' to be resolved by study for understanding from every honest, God-loving source of insight I can get my hands on.

But that's just my opinion - well, and that of a few other people here and there. (Just as there are plenty who worship at the feet of the King James Version.)

[Teacher317]

The King James gives you the exact words that God wants you to have.

You're declaring which words the Almighty wants me to hear. Uh-huh. Brushing aside the incredibly imperious, "holier-than-thou", condescending, sanctimonious and imposing aspects of that notion, I'll just note that not everyone, even in this country, speaks English... and that He probably couldn't care less which language you hear His message in just as long as you hear it... and that there's a thing or two about PRIDE in that Version, and being so prideful as to speak as an authority for Him and His linguistic preferences seems like it would apply.

[CalvaryJohn]

Tell that to the readers of La Biblia.

[Teacher317]

You said it far better than I ever could, LOL. I wish I had read it before I posted my version.

[KriegerGeist]

I read 4 translations: The New American Standard (NASB)and The King James (KJV) for "word for word" translation. Then I read The Amplified Bible to get all the various definitions to passage. Last, I read the New International Version (NIV) for the writer's thought...that is what the thought trying to be conveyed in writer's day to what it would translate to us today. What a writer saw, heard or experienced 2 thousand years ago would be described differently by us today.

LINK TO BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[Just mythoughts]

You really believe that Christ wants us to be told that "EASTER" should be there instead of "PASSOVER".

The old Strongs does in fact aide one in the Hebrew - Greek. The latest and greatest I agree are more of a hinderance.

Christians need know who does their translating. Names mean things and without an understanding of what names used and their meanings leaves out a part of the picture. Especially when our Heavenly Father himself named some.

[arjay]

I really hate to get involved in this, but I am going to make just one post.

The KJV is a good version if one likes it. However, it is not the only version that one can use. The ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NIV are all good translations of the Bible.

The major problem with the KVJ is that folks who did not grow up with it find it almost impossible to understand. In addition, new manuscript discoveries and translation methods are superior to those of the KJV.

If you want to use the KVJ, fine, that is your privilege. However, do not condemn those who use other translations. In fact, one should use several different translations together in order to see some of the nuances of the passages. Even better, learn Greek and Hebrew and study in the original languages.

All translations eventually become old and outdated due to changes in the language of the people. It is incumbent upon translators to constantly work to keep the Bible translations in the current language. Do not change the truth or the meaning, but keep it in modern language.

I agree that many passages in the KJV are more beautiful than one can find in any other translation. However, I am far more concerned that people who read the Bible can understand what the original writers intended rather than just the beauty of the wording.

I will not impugn the intelligence of those who use the KVJ. I will, however, argue that those who do so have no right to question the motives or spirituality of those who use other translations.

I could give many examples of areas where the KVJ has some mistakes in translation and where some words have changed their meaning so much since the KVJ that they are almost unintelligible to present day speakers of English. In addition, the present KVJ is different than the original KVJ. If you ever have an opportunity to read an original KVJ you will see the differences.

I have no intention or desire to fight over this. I simply believe someone should defend the use of newer translations. I have two master's degrees in Bible and Ministry, so I approach this with some expertise. I have studied under some great Greek and Hebrew scholars who are very conservative about the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word of God. I love the Lord with all my heart, so please do not question my motives.

[AppyPappy]

The King James gives you the exact words that God wants you to have.

Only if you think King James was God.

[Rain-maker]

Learn Hebrew and get off the ethnocentric b.s.

You surely are reading it wrong placing pride and ego above spirit....eghad.

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you, interesting post.

I know that in the front of the Original 1611 there was a letter place that speaks to disagreements of the translators.

I have a KJV Cambridge, Printed in Great Britain, no date when, I have had it close to 30 years.

It is not the one I presently use, however, in the front of this Bible is letter regarding the translation.

Letter starts off with the following:

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHT PRINCE
JAMES
BY THE GRACE OF GOD,

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &.

The Translators of the Bible with Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.

What follows is a letter to King James regarding the work of the translators. I will not type the letter as it is six paragraphs long. What the translators of the King James say, regards speed and limited ability to translate from the ORIGINAL SCARED TONGUES.

Further "together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require."

These translators, who did the best they could, in giving the English Tongue an exact Translation themselves, knew that questions would arise from their work.

I hold nothing against their work as it is a blessing to me. They were honest in describing their work and their mission.

However, they being aware of critics made it know that they were translating from the ORIGINAL SACRAED TONGUE thus in doing their duty let the reader beware that accusation could and would be made.

This is a huge flag to me that OK why if it is EXACT TRANSLATION why would a letter of concern be place in the front of the TRANSLATION.

So for myself I have found English words used in many places limits what the actual original Hebrew word means.

The Massorah, locks the scripture in and does not change words. Most Christians don't even know about the Massorah its purpose and why it is necessary for the original Hebrew Old Testment, which the New Testment being written by Hebrews wrote in Greek language but with Hebrew thoughts.