How to get your church to abandon the KJV

JrChurch said:
You non-KJV-onlyists are too legalistic for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... accepting expository preaching is difficult for this generation.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
FSSL said:
Preach expositiory sermons.
Click to expand...

I just learned something. Espository preaching didn't exist from 1611 till about 1900. For you haters out there,  I'm not too old to learn. 


 
If you have done expository preaching from the KJV to the 2012 English-speaking congregation, you will find them unfamiliar with and confused by various readings.

There are only so many times an expository preacher can say,

"The KJV is unclear..."
"This is what the KJV meant in 1611 but this is what it means now..."
"The KJV does not accurately represent the Greek here..."
"Archaeology has given us more information about what this object is..."

So, for today, move to a modern version so you do not have to keep saying the above and giving the impression that the KJV is unreliable.
 
FSSL said:
If you have done expository preaching from the KJV to the 2012 English-speaking congregation, you will find them unfamiliar with and confused by various readings.

There are only so many times an expository preacher can say,

"The KJV is unclear..."
"This is what the KJV meant in 1611 but this is what it means now..."
"The KJV does not accurately represent the Greek here..."
"Archaeology has given us more information about what this object is..."

So, for today, move to a modern version so you do not have to keep saying the above and giving the impression that the KJV is unreliable.
Click to expand...


As far as your first two points I think you're making it a bigger deal then what it is. As far as your third point, again, all the newer versions {except for the NKJV} use a different greek text. As I said before folk are split on which text is better or preferable.


 
From the viewpoint of having translated and preached expositorially, I am not overblowing it. An expositor who cares about communicating the original meaning is faced with many difficulties with the KJV. The NKJV is a fine direction for churches in 2012.
 
FSSL said:
From the viewpoint of having translated and preached expositorially, I am not overblowing it. An expositor who cares about communicating the original meaning is faced with many difficulties with the KJV. The NKJV is a fine direction for churches in 2012.
Click to expand...


I don't think the archaic language issue is as much as a problem as made out to be, but I'm a old guy. But again, what do I know? BTW, I tend to favor the 1901 ASV. But I'm one of the few.





 
Bob H said:
BTW, I tend to favor the 1901 ASV. But I'm one of the few.
Click to expand...

Well, that's two of us. I also favor the ASV1901, and just had my main copy rebound by Leonard's. I've regarded it as probably the most overall-accurate English translation since about 1973. Wish I'd not given away my nice Holman goatskin edition back then, since a print version is no longer available except in the semi-defective edition offered by Star Bible.

It's not perfect (no version or translation is), but it's definitely considerably more accurate than the KJV, and often also excels the more modern NASB95 and ESV (and OTOH is sometimes not quite up to par with them, when more modern scholarship supercedes the texts & other information available to Philip Schaff et al).

Shame about 2 Tim. 3:16, but otherwise it's my "close study" English Bible choice.
 
FSSL said:

So, for today, move to a modern version so you do not have to keep saying the above and giving the impression that the KJV is unreliable.

The senior pastor of the church I attended when I was in university was a King James man, more or less.  He was an expository preacher.  After a while, I noticed that whenever he explained the wording of the KJV, he almost invariably used the same wording as the NASB.  I asked him about it once, and it turned out to be a coincidence: he didn't use an NASB in his preparation.

Since then, I've always carried an NASB to church. ff the preacher's inevitably going to get there anyway, then eliminate the middleman, I say.
 
Bob H said:
FSSL said:
From the viewpoint of having translated and preached expositorially, I am not overblowing it. An expositor who cares about communicating the original meaning is faced with many difficulties with the KJV. The NKJV is a fine direction for churches in 2012.
Click to expand...


I don't think the archaic language issue is as much as a problem as made out to be, but I'm a old guy. But again, what do I know? BTW, I tend to favor the 1901 ASV. But I'm one of the few.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the "archaic" language is the real issue at all. It is the sharpness -- the preciseness of the wording which of course hugely impacts the spiritual impact of the Bible: its presentation of teachings, admonitions, exhortations, etc. contained therein.

Such  is very "old fashioned" in this modern, post Christian English-speaking world.

 
Bob H said:
again, all the newer versions {except for the NKJV} use a different greek text.
Click to expand...

There are other newer versions besides just the NKJV that have the same underlying original language texts as the KJV.  Examples would include the Modern KJV, the 1994 KJ21, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, and Green's Literal Translation.
 
Lisa Ruby said:
I don't believe the "archaic" language is the real issue at all. It is the sharpness -- the preciseness of the wording which of course hugely impacts the spiritual impact of the Bible: its presentation of teachings, admonitions, exhortations, etc. contained therein.

Such  is very "old fashioned" in this modern, post Christian English-speaking world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, the sharpness -- the preciseness of the wording --- except when it's not, of course!

What about Matthew 27:44 "cast the same in his teeth"? What about Rev. 22:19 "book of life" where ALL Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?

That's only two examples out of hundreds where the KJV gives English words which are not represented in the GNT text (or HOT text), or provides the WRONG translation.

The KJV is a fine old English Bible translation, like the Geneva, but 
it ain't perfect and it ain't magical, so pipe down about your paranoid superstition over it.
 
Lisa Ruby said:
Richer in intensity of words. This is so true! The real Bible in English is not watered down to appeal to an apostate generation.
Click to expand...

These words from a KJVO who refuses to worship in a church because they are run by witches and freemasons. How is that exclusive KJV superstition working for you?
 
FSSL said:
Lisa Ruby said:
Richer in intensity of words. This is so true! The real Bible in English is not watered down to appeal to an apostate generation.
Click to expand...

These words from a KJVO who refuses to worship in a church because they are run by witches and freemasons. How is that exclusive KJV superstition working for you?
Click to expand...

I can honestly say I have known my Pastors pretty well, and if there are two things they were not, it would be witches and freemasons.  Where does that kind of thinking come from?
 
FSSL said:
These words from a KJVO who refuses to worship in a church because they are run by witches and freemasons. How is that exclusive KJV superstition working for you?
Click to expand...

You'll have doubtless noticed that most of Lisa Ruby's posts and almost everything on her website are penned  from a paranoid and often delusional perspective.
 
Isn't Lisa the one who believes that witches put curses on Halloween candy?
 
wheatpenny said:
Isn't Lisa the one who believes that witches put curses on Halloween candy?
Click to expand...

Yup...she is also the one who has no problem disobeying her own KJV by not assembling with others in the church 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top