[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?

[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

[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.)

[Rain-maker]

Learn Hebrew and get off the ethnocentric b.s.

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

[maestro]

Thank You For The 'KJV'='KJB' site!!

My Plea For the Old Sword

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

Maranatha!

(Romans 10:17)

[Senator Pardek]

Is this the same lowlife who refers to the Catholic Church as "the mother of harlots and the abomination of the earth"?

I'll answer that question for you - YES. And anyone who has any respect for this perverted child abductor is lower than the beast Paisley.

[esopman]

OK. I scanned this thread and should probably stay upwind of all this, however...

I will weigh in as a professional translator (25 years) though...and Bible believer, sinner saved by grace, follower of Y'shua ha Mashiakh.

Look: The KJV is a gift of God, but to insist that any version other than the KJV is an artifice of the enemy is ludicrous. I weary of those who will not respond gently to the Holy Spirit in love and recognize that our human minds are limited...and when we come down in such absolutist terms about a matter which is oh-so-secondary to the salvation and love of our messiah, we err.

There's this guy, Harold Camping, who holds this view, denies the gifts of the Spirit and is now actively encouraging shortwave listeners everywhere to leave the church. The 'church age is over' etc....More lunacy. (Yes, some churches need leaving, but there are some blessed spirit-filled congregations about).

Anyway, as far as the authorized version goes, I love it but do not look to it exclusively. A Greek interlinear is very helpful. Also, Bible readers would be well-served to get in touch with the Center for Judaeo-Christian Studies in Dayton, OH to better understand much of the Hebrew subtext of the NT.

It is only natural to want to cling to something physical as an absolute...but the KJV is not that and the natural impulse is wrong. Jesus is not important because the Bible says so; quite the other way around - the Bible is important because it reveals Jesus!

I would encourage all to build their lives on a tripod of (1) Serving Jesus, (2) Trusting the scriptures (NIV, NASB, KJV...not a politically correct or 'gender neutral' translation) and (3) Listening for the voice of, and obeying the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Please, please, please pray for a mind responsive to the Spirit of Christ! End of poorly written Saturday night rant. Blessings on Freepers Everywhere.

[Woahhs]

I have to ask the falsefiability question as I haven't seen it yet.

If in fact you were in error, and God gave no particular blessing to the KJV, how could it be proven to you? What evidence would you accept?

[farmfriend]

pinging

[Prolixus]

Lament For The Old Sword

[FrankOwens]

Did you know that all of the translated versions of the Bible except the King James original are copyrighted?

NIV, NKJV, and all the others are copyrighted and the copyrighters get a piece of the pie for every Bible sold. I'm not against making money, but to change the Bible, then copyright it so you get a kick back just seems wrong. I'd like to think that the original King James Version is copyrighted by God himself.

Just my humble opinion!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

How about the mistranslated, "Thou shall not kill"?

[tomkat]

... and i think you're a loony, but then, that's just my $0.02

[winodog]

God is not the god of confusion.Confusion is what all the other bibles are about.In many churches the pastor is reading from one version and the rest of the people read from different versions.
It is ok to read another version and it will contain most of the truths. But they omit key parts.
But it will not contain all the truth. If you want to study in depth you need a KJ and a 1884 websters (easily obtained)and a strongs if you wish to learn more about the words

[B Knotts]

Wow. From the chief of kookery in the Anglosphere himself.

[Luis Gonzalez]

WOW!

All that AND a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus of Nazareth I bet.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In debating this with you I admire your dedication to your Christian faith and your fondness for the most classic bible translation of modern times. It is like the Septuagint of the modern day. The ultimate problem I have with this status, is that, as has been pointed out in this thread, there's no scriptural reason to expect there to BE a translation that occupies the not just elevated but perfect place you've accorded the KJV. We would all love to have a literally perfect copy of the inerrant original text of scripture, but that's neither possible nor necessary. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all are testimonies to that.

[sheltonmac]

From the original preface of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible:

Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

[Churchjack]

Let me state at the gate, for the record, I'm a Missionary Baptist--in a few ways, somewhere to the right of Southern Baptists. But I have never, ever, been convicted of the doctrine of "inerrancy" of scripture, although I trust that, as the Apostle Paul said,

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

and sho' nuff carries the Gospel in it's pages, and is literal truth.

It was obvious long ago that fundamentalist doctrine was just a way for evil men to gratify themselves with power, and for the needy to have an idol in their home, something for the immature and superstitious to cling to. And now there's some weak-@ss "theology" forming around the idea that the King James is the "only" God-inspired English translation.

Not only is the King James demonstrably challenged in the fallibility dept., the whole contention of any translation being "inerrant, infallible" is of human manufacture, not Divine. It's the one I usually read, though, I like the grand language. But I also like a good, modern plain-spoken version for clarity, as well.

Ain't but One "inerrant, infallible" Word, His name is Jesus. He lives and stands at the glorious right hand of our Father--until His return to claim the redeemed. Believe in Him!