tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post6968359050206225921..comments2024-03-28T16:35:26.665+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Why don't British evangelicals use the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible? Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-63615910274987458172023-01-01T16:06:28.139+00:002023-01-01T16:06:28.139+00:00@reader. I agree - especially Romans; and also the...@reader. I agree - especially Romans; and also the Book of Revelation. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-17548978274894487232023-01-01T15:42:43.011+00:002023-01-01T15:42:43.011+00:00I find that the most difficult parts of the KJB to...I find that the most difficult parts of the KJB to understand are the Pauline epistles.Reader of the KJBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-86941538465341050912012-12-03T06:02:26.124+00:002012-12-03T06:02:26.124+00:00@SJ - I think if you reflect on what you are sayin...@SJ - I think if you reflect on what you are saying, you will recognize the problem of this attitude. You personally may find it impossible to use the AV - but the *reasons* you are giving here are such as lead to all kinds of other problems. Maybe you should simply say this is a deficit in yourself, about which you are sorry - but do not defend it? Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-27039989978033137912012-12-03T02:50:36.387+00:002012-12-03T02:50:36.387+00:00Well, I can't stand the KJV and never use it, ...Well, I can't stand the KJV and never use it, unless to quote a particularly well-phrased passage for some reason. It just ain't English - not the English we use today, anyway (obviously it is a *form* of English, a pre-modern form). <br /><br />I get what the writer is trying to say - that if we find the language hard to understand we should raise ourselves up instead of dragging the text down - but I just don't see the point, in 2012, of putting the effort into learning a dead dialect.<br /><br />If I'm going to use something besides the NIV, I actually prefer the CEV (which is more or less on the opposite end of the linguistic spectrum from the KJV), because it feels like the text is truly speaking to me; the words feel *real* in a way that the archaic KJV cannot be. I say this to say that while some people feel the majestic language of the KJV makes it feel more awe-inspiring, I find the opposite: I don't feel like God is really speaking to me if I can't even understand what He is saying.Samson J.http://samsonsjawbone.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30498219594856585112012-12-02T19:32:29.540+00:002012-12-02T19:32:29.540+00:00Why would anyone want to read a bible written in l...Why would anyone want to read a bible written in local government English? Does God deal in by-laws?deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-77176594198477520462012-12-02T14:03:27.510+00:002012-12-02T14:03:27.510+00:00I've always felt the King James version was si...I've always felt the King James version was simply leagues beyond the other translations, in inspiration, majesty and beauty. Other translations feel like -- translations -- and not particularly good ones.Matthew C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-57518103385369516202012-12-02T13:57:05.688+00:002012-12-02T13:57:05.688+00:00The problem with democratization is that it's ...The problem with democratization is that it's a form of digestion. You bring the language down to the lowest common denominator level, which allows them to mistake simplistic concepts for the real deal, and then they reduce those simplistic concepts and claim that there was never anything to them. This allows them to adopt the democratized form as a type of flavor, and use it to conceal the agenda that the lowest common denominator <i>always</i> have, which is rampant individualism resulting in parasitic collectivism.<br /><br />Great post!Brett Stevenshttp://www.amerika.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-46089147692598939952012-12-02T12:34:36.225+00:002012-12-02T12:34:36.225+00:00I have 12 different Bibles in my bookcase, all con...I have 12 different Bibles in my bookcase, all conservative, relatively literal translations. The AV is no more difficult to understand than any of the others. I also note that even conservative modern translations tend to choose words that diminish God's presence. The best example is replacing the "Spirit of God" in the opening lines of Genesis with "a great wind."<br /><br />In the America, Protestant. Catholic and Orthodox Churches all accept the Revised Standard Version (not the NRSV), so that translation has merit, too.<br /><br />The best argument for the AV is the one given: the seriousness of purpose and belief of the 54 translators. Most modern translators are likely to be nonbelievers despite their protestations otherwise.sykes.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10954672321945289871noreply@blogger.com