My Plea For the Old Sword

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

[fortheDeclaration]

The fruits of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible are unsurpassably pre-eminent, being so mighty and so manifold that there is not room enough to receive them

---

My Plea for the Old Sword
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley

The fruits of the Authorised Version are inexhaustible in their spiritual fruitfulness. That fruitfulness can never be chronicled. There is not room enough to receive it, let alone record it.

In his thrilling book, The Bible Stands Up To Life, Thomas Tiplady in his preface has this to say:

"Many years ago a traveller found a Kaffir boy playing at marbles with a stone which looked very ordinary, until he took it in his hand and carefully examined it. After examination he declared the stone to be a diamond, and under the ground where the Kaffir boy played there are now the famous Kimberley mines. For centuries men had walked over Kimberley's dusty surface without suspecting their nearness to mines of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. In like manner Europe, for ages, had in its midst a book of truth and beauty unequalled in literature, but to the mass of men it was a closed mine. Its discovery and reopening caused an infinitely greater sensation than the opening of the Kimberley mines, and has enriched all nations."

It has been well said, "There are some things too mysterious for man to define and too profound for him to measure and that is this Bible - the Book of the Only Wise God."

The Bible is the Book of God's power. It made Luther a new man and the monk who shook the world. Like a bolt of heavenly thunder, with the Torch of Scripture he set the whole world on fire.

What a conflagration it kindled! God's Word is FIRE! The power of the Word of God breathes resurrection into the valley of dry bones. Decaying eras suddenly became epochs of Life, Life, Abundant Life.

What a change it made to England. John Richard Green in his history classic, The History of the English Speaking People states:

"No greater moral change ever passed over a nation than passed over England during the years which parted the middle of the reign of Elizabeth from the meeting of the Long Parliament. England became the people of a book, and that book was the Bible. It was as yet the one English book which was familiar to every Englishman: it was read at churches and read at home, and everywhere its words, as they fell on ears which custom had not deadened to their force and beauty, kindled a startling enthusiasm.

But far greater than its effect on literature or social phrase was the effect of the Bible on the character of the people at large. Elizabeth might silence or tune the pulpits; but it was impossible for her to silence or tune the great preachers of justice and mercy, and truth, who spoke from the book which she had again opened for her people. The whole moral effect which is produced nowadays by the religious newspaper, the tract, the essay, the lecture, the missionary report, the sermon, was then produced by the Bible alone. And its effect in this way, however dispassionately we examine it, was simply amazing. The whole temper of the nation was changed."

But what was accomplished in Elizabeth's day in England, has been accomplished throughout the whole world wherever the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible has been carried, circulated and proclaimed by the English speaking peoples.

Time would fail to tell of the triumphs of the Holy Word as it burned its way around the whole world, delivering souls with its light and destroying sin with its flame.

What a great matter this little fire has kindled!

The vision of the little book in Christ's hand in Revelation chapter 10 tells the story in grand apocalyptic language.

"And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his bead, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire. And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up: and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in they mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."

Abraham Lincoln said a year before his martyrdom:

"I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all this Book upon reason that you can and the balance upon faith and you will live and die a better man."

That Bible of Abraham Lincoln's was the Authorised Version (KJV).

John Wesley meditated:

"I have thought, I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air I am a spirit come from God and returning to God: just hovering over the great gulf; till, a few moments hence, I am no more seen; I drop into an unchanging eternity! I want to know one thing - the way to heaven: how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end He came from heaven. He hath written it down in a Book. O give me that Book! At any price, give me the Book of God!"

That book of John Wesley's was the Authorised Version (KJV).

YES, THE FRUITS OF THE ENGHSH AUTHORISED VERSION (KJV) OF THE HOLY BIBLE ARE UNSURPASSABLY PRE-EMINENT, BEING SO MIGHTY AND SO MANIFOLD THAT THERE IS NOT ROOM ENOUGH TO RECEIVE THEM.

"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

- James 1:21-25

[Woahhs]

The evidence that it hasn't blessed those who used it for almost 400 years. The evidence that it is still not the most widely used and revered translation.

While I appreciate your reverence for the KJV and the many blessings that have come to mankind through it, your answer is disingenuous.

You've predicated you acceptance of contrary evidence on historical elements that already favour your original position. That's circular reasoning. It doesn't make your opinion of the KJV wrong, but it does make discussing the subject with you a waste of time.

If, even in theory, there existed some piece of evidence that disproved the pre-eminence of the KJV, you would not accept it by your own admission, so why bother.

Let us be clear on one thing; you are not here to debate, discuss and defend; you are here to campaign.

[HiTech RedNeck]

When two readings disagree there isn't a right one?

When the gist is the same but the stilted old English is cleared up so that the comprehension rate is 99% rather than less than 50%, this is always worse? By your book of course it would have to be. It seems patently obvious in such a situation that the old English is a kind of play Latin to its partisans, in which they take joy in knowing the obscure language JUST because it is obscure.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Happy Easter. Yes, Easter. (Also known as Resurrection Sunday.)

[HiTech RedNeck]

When two readings disagree there isn't a right one?

P.S. if you are not happy with my answer, define your terms. Define "disagree."

[HiTech RedNeck]

To strain at a gnat

This, by the way, is a KJVism which was too beloved in tradition to be corrected in the edits that took place since the original manuscript. The Greek (the Textus Receptus) said, and always did say, "strain OUT a gnat." This is very, very clear. The Pharisees REMOVED the gnats, not by straining to pick them out of the liquid, but as by pouring the liquid through a sieve. Unfortunately they did not also thus remove the camels. The Amplified Bible hits this particular ball clear out of the park: "GULPING down a camel." Which is exactly what ftD is doing: gulping down camels.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In like manner Europe, for ages, had in its midst a book of truth and beauty unequalled in literature, but to the mass of men it was a closed mine. Its discovery and reopening caused an infinitely greater sensation than the opening of the Kimberley mines, and has enriched all nations."

This was because for a long time there was no bible at ALL in the vernacular. The KJV was hardly the first one to breach this barrier in English; 90% of it is previously extant English material. With the evolution of the English language, the old English is no longer clearly comprehended, some passages are simply badly rendered in the first place, and newer translations have appeared to address this problem. New doors have been opened into the diamond mine, and you seem to want them shut and everyone to be forced to use the debris filled old entrance.

[Woahhs]

The Greek (the Textus Receptus) said, and always did say, "strain OUT a gnat." This is very, very clear. The Pharisees REMOVED the gnats, not by straining to pick them out of the liquid, but as by pouring the liquid through a sieve.

Cool! I never knew that. I always figured "straining at" was the old english equivalent of "gagging down" something...as in "you gag on a little bug, but swallow something big and nasty whole."

Thanks! And a Happy Easter to you also. Mine sure has been :)

[Woahhs]

P.S. if you are not happy with my answer, define your terms. Define "disagree."

GMTA!

[Gorjus]

The Greek (the Textus Receptus) said, and always did say, "strain OUT a gnat."

Well, you've given me something else to look into - a familiar condition for me.

There are so many culturally significant issues that we don't understand out of context, even in the most perfect translation.

There is another example that shows how critical this can be. (Forgive me for quoting from memory rather than looking it up, but I hope you can accept the point I want to make.)

I had always learned the 'turn the other cheek' passage as just that - a direction to non-violence that seemed passive and submissive. Yet, the true quotation is, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also."

The difference between the two is not clear in our culture, but was very important in the culture of the time. The key distinction is the sequence. It's not just 'turn the other cheek' in a random way, but specifically a transition from right cheek to left.

In that culture everything was done with the right hand (except for body functions - which is what made the left hand unclean and unusable for anything else). As a result, if someone has struck you on the right cheek, they must have done it with the back of their hand - as they would treat an inferior. By requiring them to strike you on the left cheek, they had to use the front of their hand as they would in striking an equal.

That distinction, which would be almost meaningless to us, was in fact the opposite of submission. It was a demand to be treated as an equal - done with courage but without violence. Gee, doesn't that sound like Jesus, and more than that, like something He would want us to know? Yet it would be lost even in a perfect translation of the words alone, if the cultural context is missing.

So, thanks for the heads up, and I'll look into it.

[The Red Zone]

Even under traditional interpretation, there are only two cheeks... after that, the answer is *SOCKO* :-)

[drlevy88]

Silly :-)

Jesus meant by this and related metaphors, that a Christian should be conciliatory whenever possible.

[The Red Zone]

Yeah, I was being silly. Forgive me

[editor-surveyor]

"Only if you think King James was God."

Perhaps it should be pointed out that King James' only involvement in the Bible that carries his name was to consent to allow funds from the royal coffers to be used to pay the translators.

[Woahhs]

Reminds me of something my best friend once told me. He said "If they go through the first two cheeks, they're gonna get the other two!" (Here in the South, the phrase "showing your a**" means becoming spitefully disagreeable.

[fortheDeclaration]

"Only if you think King James was God." Perhaps it should be pointed out that King James' only involvement in the Bible that carries his name was to consent to allow funds from the royal coffers to be used to pay the translators.

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

In like manner Europe, for ages, had in its midst a book of truth and beauty unequalled in literature, but to the mass of men it was a closed mine. Its discovery and reopening caused an infinitely greater sensation than the opening of the Kimberley mines, and has enriched all nations." This was because for a long time there was no bible at ALL in the vernacular. The KJV was hardly the first one to breach this barrier in English; 90% of it is previously extant English material.

Agreed.

With the evolution of the English language, the old English is no longer clearly comprehended, some passages are simply badly rendered in the first place, and newer translations have appeared to address this problem.

They do?

Some 200 new translations, most from the wrong text, in the last 100 years, and none yet have surpassed the King James in accuracy or beauty.

New doors have been opened into the diamond mine, and you seem to want them shut and everyone to be forced to use the debris filled old entrance.

No new doors have been opened, only a return to old, dusty Alexandrian texts, that were rejected by the King James translators, as they were by the Church in general, knowing them to be gnostic.

Show me a better Bible then the King James.

[fortheDeclaration]

When two readings disagree there isn't a right one? P.S. if you are not happy with my answer, define your terms. Define "disagree."

Go against one another. See Col.2:18 where the King James has 'hath not seen' but all the other versions have 'hath seen'(with the exception of the NKJ which footnotes the reading).

Now, is that enough of a 'disagreement' for you?

[fortheDeclaration]

When the gist is the same but the stilted old English is cleared up so that the comprehension rate is 99% rather than less than 50%, this is always worse? By your book of course it would have to be. It seems patently obvious in such a situation that the old English is a kind of play Latin to its partisans, in which they take joy in knowing the obscure language JUST because it is obscure.

Save the whining about the 'old' language.

The King James is very readable with a little effort.

That it is the most accurate makes the effort worthwhile.

We have guys talking about going to Greek and Hebrew and then crying about 'old' English!

[Woahhs]

Now, is that enough of a 'disagreement' for you?

No.

Quote the entire verse, and show the substantive disagreement.