If People can't read the Accurate Translation (KJV?)

I do not propose to "ignore' the issue of readability. I only suggest that it is Truth which should be the priority. Once this is addressed, I am now coming back to deal with the issue of readability.

It can seem to be a challenge for people to get to know the King James Version. But I would submit that there is a larger issue which we might be ignoring. Would it be an accurate statement to say that many of the people who have trouble with the language of the King James, also have trouble understanding the NIV ? No, I do not mean the superficial understanding.

I am referring to the fact that it seems that there is much spiritual depth which we sometimes fail to grasp, because we either do not know how, or because we do not take the time to do Word Studies, find out the original intent or message of the Author, do a bit of reading on the historical context, or use a concordance.

It seems that those who are used to developing these skills are not any less enthusiastic when it comes to studying the KJV, than those people were - when they were using the NIV (prior to their switching to the KJV). On the contrary, those who would deeply study the Bible are going to be just as interested in understanding the Bible in as much depth as they can.

With people who develop these skills,transferring these skills to the KJV (or developing those skills at that point)
is not a difficult task. It can be a hassle sometimes to buy another concordance or Bible commentary, but the Bible student who wants to know the Bible will eventually come to this position in anycase, especially when he/she learns how much additional useful help and good information can be gathered from a deeper study of the Bible.

---------

What about the Kids, though ? Would they really be ready
for a deeper study ?

The important point is that as they learn the Word of God, they will also learn the meanings of the word. When they don't know those words, it is a good opportunity for discussion, and a good opportunity for their parents to go and pick up a dictionary and explain some of those older words.

Some may say that the new dictionaries do not contain the old words. In many cases, that is true. But older dictionaries are still very available.

I refer - for example - to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary. This thick volume does a great job of defining the old words. It is available at most head libraries in most major
cities.

We are not used to having to pay any price for studying the Bible. We want everything too often handed to us. But what better way to encourage a child (or anyone else) than by taking the time to show an active interest in what they are learning ? For those who switch to the KJV, this is not a
discouraging aspect to the children. On the contrary, they are happy to have parents and leaders and coaches who reallly care about them, to make sure that they know the words and the right meaning of those words.

(Webster's 1828 Dictionary has also been reprinted and can be obtained at Amazon.com). Coaches and teachers can also simply define a word, make a poster of it, and then place the poster in the rooms where the Kids have a chance to see them.

Posted by S V

Hi J T

Thanks for the info. Our organization is an example of how the switch from the NIV to the King James in bible quizzing can effect the kids. Our kids made the transition with flying colors. We help them with the hard words present in the KJB. I have been trying to tell the people on this board who are following this debate, that there are also some hard words in the NIV when the KJB renders a much more easier word in the same place. Thanks for posting...Sal

Posted by TTT

These arguments were raised when they first translated the scriptures to english. Many claimed that if you wanted to study the scriptures you should have to learn the Latin. I cannot accept that God would want his scriptures to be restricted to those who have a certain level of knowledge

Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by J T

The Title Elizabethan English is well established in historical and litterary studies, which are both thriving these days.

[Elizabethan English is the kind of English used in the days of Queen Elizabeth I - around 400 years ago. The term
"Shakespearian English" is just as valid for those who object to using the term "Elizabethan"]

We are taught so much to focus on Today, Right Now, This Moment - that we should stop and consider what our children are learning. If we want them to be proud of their heritage, maybe we should give them a Heritage to be proud of. I may be passively content about the U.S. these days, with its lazy culture, and the ways that it turns life upside down, and devalues people in many ways.

However, introducing others to a time when the Protestant Heritage (which Evangelicals are part of) was something great, when people were thinking for themselves, when they could read far Better than most people can today, and when the material that they were reading was of a deep, encouraging and spiritual nature, - those things I can get a bit more excited about.

Maybe we should return to reading Pilgrim's Progress, or Fox's Book of Martyrs, or the plays of Shakespear. Most women love poetry in anycase. Proposing to help children increase their vocabulary and their character by getting them to read books from the Shakesperian Era - is something that most parents would welcome. It would also give their kids an edge in English and Lit. Classes - for the rest of their life.

It seems to me that the KJV is the version which does this best.

Re: Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by SV

Hi J T

Once again, well put! John, have you done any study concerning the post 1881 bible versions? What is your take on them? I am interested in your response. Thanks Sal

Re: Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by TTT

Look, I am not discrediting the advantages of understanding elder versions of our language, but the fact remains that as culture and language changes, meanings are lost and misunderstood. A few years ago an updated version of the taming of the shrew came out in movie form. Many people who simply did not have any understanding of the older version were able to relate to it.
our mandate is to get the gospel out. The message is important, the language it's written in is not

Re: Should Children - English

Posted by J T

"Look, I am not discrediting the advantages of understanding elder versions of our language, but the fact remains that as culture and language changes, meanings are lost and misunderstood. A few years ago an updated version of the taming of the shrew came out in movie form. Many people who simply did not have any understanding of the older version were able to relate to it.
our mandate is to get the gospel out. The message is important, the language it's written in is not"

responding:

Others have taught often that meanings are lost and misunderstood. This is a largely a myth. When we study older English or Ancient Languages, very few meanings are truly lost.

There has been more progress made in the last 15 years in languages/linguistics than in the 200 years which came before. It simply took us awhile to put the pieces together.

Thankfully, because of technology (and scholars sharing their findings), we learn more about Ancient Languages every month. It is not really therefore that the meanings are lost. It is rather that meanings fall into dis-use by the general public.

But my point is that older meanings can be recovered and understood without too much effort.
I suppose the issue is whether or not Modern translations convey the sense of the Greek better than the Older English Translations.

Setting aside the issues of which manuscripts were used by which translators, I find that the
NIV tends to alter the textual accuracy of what they claim they are conveying.

If the differences were insignificant, It would be no big deal. But the more I study the issue, the more significant all of those changes seem to be.

I do think that it is hard to really get a good grasp of all of this NIV/KJV material without being able to look at a verse-by-verse comparison of both versions, and find out what has been included or omitted.

Thankfully, somebody already did the work, and has saved us time.

I refer to the book If the Foundations Be Destroyed [What does the NIV have against Jesus? ]Author: Chick Salliby $5.95 [Amazon.com]

At least it helped me to see that the differences were not small and they were not insignificant (though I do see how it can appear that way).

John

Re: Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by S V

Hi TT,

I agree with you that language changes and words evolve. Adjust language to the bible which never changes, do not adjust the bible to a language change. Updating a word is one thing, changing text, spirit and making God's word say something else, is another thing. This is why we are debating what has been done.

Re: Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by S V

Hi TT,

Our responsibility is also to defend the faith and speak the truth. The post 1881 versions are anti Preservation and deny what they have done. The masses are fooled and victimized because they are locked into their denomination and do not think for themselves with the Holy Spirit's help on this issue.

Re: Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by No they're not.

Nope, you're wrong. Quite saying the same thing over and over again. Just because you say it enough times doesn't make it true.

Re: Should Children Learn Elizabethan English ?

Posted by S V

Hi No they are not,

Some of the same questions are coming up over again. My answers have been consistent. You may disagree, but I have said the same thing over because some people coming into the debate have not read earlier post. Some people express their disagreement but do not ever answer my questions. Ricemom13 tried to answer why Jesus Fall in the NIV, but her conclusion was a scholarly rationalization and she gave me nothing concrete in the bibles rendition of the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12. Do you believe that it was the King of Babylon who fell and not Satan? One of the Best in the West, believes as an NIV proponent, that it was Satan who fell and not the King of Babylon. I agree with One of the Best in the West concerning this.