If thou doth want to show how practical the King James Bible is in high school, thou shalt practice its language. Thou shalt hand in reports to thy teachers as a witness to its beauty. When thou doth give reports in front of the class, thou shalt let your peers see your love of the King James Bible by thy words.

[Diligent]

The King James Bible is Biblical English, not conversational English. Even when the King James Bible was published in 1611, some people even then criticized it for using "archaic" English. (See Vance's book King James, His Bible, and its Translators.)

I would no more speak with KJB English in typical conversation than I would speak the "Computer Tech English" in a conversation unrelated to computer tech stuff. And when I am speaking of Biblical matters, I will use Biblical words, like justification, sanctification, and other words from the Bible that do not have true "modern" equivalents.

Your mocking question is backwards anyway. The question you need to answer is why the Bible should be written like a paperback novel rather than a holy book.

Originally Posted by gruvEdude

If thou doth want to show how practical the King James Bible is in high school, thou shalt practice its language. Thou shalt hand in reports to thy teachers as a witness to its beauty. When thou doth give reports in front of the class, thou shalt let your peers see your love of the King James Bible by thy words.

Despite your apparent intention to mock the Word of God, gruvEdude, I agree with you to a certain degree.

If all Christians, not just those at school, made a small effort to study their own language, they would soon come to an understanding of how God used this particular "archaic" style of English to most perfectly and purely impart the meaning of his Word to us.

Then, pretty soon, no one would want to read any of the over 200 different per-versions, instead agreeing with each other as to the meaning of Gods Word.....Phi 2:2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Isnt it amazing that I have more in common with the other Bible believers on this site, none of whom I have ever met, than I do with members of my own family?

Originally Posted by fundy

Isnt it amazing that I have more in common with the other Bible believers on this site, none of whom I have ever met, than I do with members of my own family?

I have noticed that I tend to be more like minded with Christians that prefer the KJB then other Christians that feel it isn't even an important topic to discuss. I have been told several times on other sites that it is just "silly" to discuss the version debate. They say read which ever version you are comfortable with. Which is true, I'm not going to argue with them that they should choose the KJV. I guess we just have different priorities. Their priority is to have a "Bible" in the modern language. My priority is sound manuscript evidence.

It's very strange, (in a good way) to come to this site and see others discussing the topics I also feel are important and to see that I agree with most of what is said after spending much time on other sites and being ridiculed for my positions. Thank you Brandon for starting this discussion forum. I pray it grows.

I tend to see like-mindedness with others that read the KJB in the fundamentals of Salvation and Christian living. Not only that but like-mindedness in topics that are highly fight provoking, such as Biblical separation, Eschatology, Charismatic topics, Calvinism, (refuting....at least I hope that's the case on this site), I'm sure I'm missing other topics and also acknowledge there will be some most likely minimal disagreement on some issues.

This makes sense when you compare the KJB to the modern versions and can see the gnostic influence of the modern versions. a kind of anything goes, or WHATEVER, mentality.

Diligent: The King James Bible is Biblical English, not conversational English. Even when the King James Bible was published in 1611, some people even then criticized it for using "archaic" English. (See Vance's book King James, His Bible, and its Translators.)

I would no more speak with KJB English in typical conversation than I would speak the "Computer Tech English" in a conversation unrelated to computer tech stuff. And when I am speaking of Biblical matters, I will use Biblical words, like justification, sanctification, and other words from the Bible that do not have true "modern" equivalents.

Your mocking question is backwards anyway. The question you need to answer is why the Bible should be written like a paperback novel rather than a holy book.

It seems to me that I read that the New Testament Greek that God chose was the koine Greek which I've seen referred to as "the language of the common people". Is this correct or in error?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by gruvEdude

It seems to me that I read that the New Testament Greek that God chose was the koine Greek which I've seen referred to as "the language of the common people". Is this correct or in error?

It is correct that Greek was a "common language," but to assume the New Testament was written in "easy" Greek is 1. irrelevant and 2. speculation. Just ask Peter if the New Testament in Greek was easy to understand:

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Maybe Peter needed a new version?

Besides, what does this have to do with modern versions? We have a new one every six to twelve months, each one supposedly easier to understand and closer to the original. Does our language become obsolete every year?

Also tell me how changing "God" to "he who" (1Ti 3:16) or removing the Trinity from the Bible (1Jo 5:7) makes things "easier" to understand. If you think this issue is just about updating language, you clearly haven't seen Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge. Does deleting the equivalent of 1st and 2nd Peter from the Bible just make it "easier" to understand in modern English?

Originally Posted by Diligent

Just ask Peter if the New Testament in Greek was easy to understand:

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Maybe Peter needed a new version?

Besides, what does this have to do with modern versions? We have a new one every six to twelve months, each one supposedly easier to understand and closer to the original. Does our language become obsolete every year?

It was Paul that wrote things hard for some to understand: (pointed in a study Bible which I have) from Romans: Election, 9:10-13; Justification, 4:25, 5:18; Propitiation, 3:25; Redemption, 3:24, 8:23; Sanctification, 5:2, 15:16; Glorification, 8:18, 19, 30; these were : Crucial Concepts in Romans. In Ephesians, I recently studied about God's choosing the elect.

Update Bibles every year? It's not been just a year since children have called their father Thou (nor hath they spoken like unto this.)

Well, when I was in high school we did speak that way. Everyday during English class studying Billy Shakespeare and his very boring plays.
The English language in the 17th century was at it's peak of greatness and has fell steadily from that pinnacle to this day.
That's why God made the translation happen in the early 1600's.
Yet another reason to hold high the KJB.

I do agree with Brandon. If the new translations were just changing a word here and there to suit our modern day language, then why omit a verse that is vital to salvation?
I refer to the book of Acts 8:37 where Philip says to the Ethiopian eunuch , after the eunuch says " What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Then Philip says " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. " What a shame that the modern translations promoting about better reading and understanding of their bibles would omit such a verse. Of course there are many more that could be pointed out, but it is getting late and my bed is calling. So good night and God Bless. Thank you Brandon that you have set up this forum.

Originally Posted by Bible thumper

Well, when I was in high school we did speak that way. Everyday during English class studying Billy Shakespeare and his very boring plays.
The English language in the 17th century was at it's peak of greatness and has fell steadily from that pinnacle to this day.
That's why God made the translation happen in the early 1600's.
Yet another reason to hold high the KJB.

Imagine the short-shelf-life for a "modern edition" of Billy Shakespeare (assuming you could get it published) ????

That's one thing bible believers are doing when we turn our noses up at the
modern versions. I read that Shakespeare was consulted on occasion with questions of english style during the 1611 work of translation. Imagine that's true. Wouldn't be fun to find out those passages were never tampered with because the great Shakespeare had consulted on them. Wouldn't it be fun to point out some of those passages to the modern bible corrector and then let them know (horror of horrors!) modern man has dared to correct the great
Shakespeare!!??