Bringing the King James to a high school.
 

Hail Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I attend a private Christian high school where almost the entire student body believes that several translations can all be God's Word together, somehow, even though they contradict each other. I intend to start a movement for the King James Bible that several people I have talked to are excited about, which i will be leading. The only thing that would disrupt my task is that we have some "scholarly" people who disagree with me. Besides prayer, I request that you could help me answer their questions when they confront me.
Questions such as "The new translations are easier to read, otherwise I would read the King James Bible" and "Well, they tries to translate the meaning of the verse here, so we could understand it today".

I am also asking that you would organize here, in this thread, the answers to the most common anti-King James arguments you here in your own experiences. Please give me a lot of Scripture, as Scripture memorization is very easy for me. I will have to speak to the "scholarly" class as well as laymen, please keep that in mind.

Thank you very much, Godspeed and may God bless you all.

It's admirable that you wish to plant seeds of faith in God's word around you.

There are already quite a few "frequently asked questions" handled here:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq.html

If you need help answering specific questions, you should certainly post them here. It's helpful to have something specific to answer though, rather than generalities.

Yes, I have read through the faq and am very grateful for all of the information there. Two questions that I did not see answered there, however, were the ones I originally posted.

1."The new translations are easier to read, otherwise I would read the King James Bible"

2. "Well, they tried to translate the meaning of the verse here, so it could apply to our understanding today."

The second half of the question is telling. It's essentially and admission that the KJB is more authoritative even to them. And it tells you that they've decided that "easier is better" and trumps purity.

There is no way to convince someone that the KJV isn't "harder" to understand. The entire complaint is nothing more than an excuse not to read it. Technically, the KJV is well below college level writing, so anyone in your college ought not to have a hard time with it. A really good book on this subject is Archaic Words and the Authorized Version.

I wonder if any of the literature professors in your college would approve of a modern "update" of Shakespeare's writings to make the "meaning" more understandable. If you look in the bookstores, there are plenty of commentaries on Shakespeare, but hardly anyone has dared to "update" his writings because they know so much is lost, and only a little reading is needed in order to understand them. And yet we have shelves upon shelves of Bible versions purporting to replace the KJV and be easier to understand. Odd that literature professors have more respect for Shakespeare than Bible professors have for the God's words.

I can tell you how this was turned around for me. I used the NIV and was happy to regurgitate the claim that it was easier to read than the KJV. Nobody got me to read the KJV by convincing me it wasn't hard to understand. I started reading the KJV because I discovered that the NIV deleted entire verses and changed God's word into lies and didn't want to base my faith on a book I couldn't trust. Then, and only then, was I able to push aside the notion that the KJV was hard to read. Once I accepted it as my final authority, the Holy Spirit opened up an entirely new world totally unknown to me before I started reading the KJV. Suddenly verses I though were difficult to understand had plain meanings.

So I found out the KJV is actually easier to understand.

It's non-colloquial language also has the benefit of being instantly venerated in the mind of a believer. The different language is easily identified as holy.

Our faith was once delivered unto the saints. You can't change it for the benefit of a "new generation" -- you must study and allow it to change you.

Again though this is an argument that can't be reasoned with unless the person to whom you are talking can accept that God's very words are pure, not merely the "concepts" behind them.

I would ask someone who claims that his translators translated the "meanings" of the words, rather than the words themselves, if they really trust those translators to understand exactly every single concept and "meaning" contained in Holy writ. If he trusts that his new version contains the "meanings" translated, then he trusts that the translators knew everything there is to know about every single thing in the Bible. Otherwise, something is lost.

I'll stick with a Bible that has God's words and let the Holy Spirit tell me what they mean.

Hello Paladin54. Godspeed you in your efforts for His word.
First let me urge you to keep reading and praying over God's word while you read. Praying for guidance and understanding.

Second, Read "The King James Bible Defended" by the late great textual scholar Edward F. Hills. But spend much more time in God's word. Take the KJV defense materials as a kind of a "hobby". Just something you do secondary to God's word and time with the Lord in prayer.

When you need it most, the Lord's words will come through you to those who have ears to hear. No other ears can respond until the Holy Spirit has dealt with them.

Third. What do you think of these for answers. Just starting points for your further development:

(1) The KJV is hard to read and understand just where the original Hebrew/Greek versions that the Lord first gave were hard to read and understand. Any faithful translation of a hard to read and understand passage, should itself be hard to read and understand. If its not, then the translator has stepped over from doing his job of translating to doing the preachers job of expounding it.
Recall that Peter said there were some hard things in Paul's letters that were hard to understand (2Pe 3:14, 15). So if you never read anything hard to understand that requires someone to explain it to you (Acts 8:30,31), you're not reading God's word as Peter had it.

(2) Again, that's the job of the preacher to expound to us. . . not the translator. Often in the newer versions they get updated every 4 years or so. You see total reversals in some passages from where the translator had changed his mind!!!! e.g. 1Thess 4:4 says "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour". The 1978 version of the NIV "tries to tell you what God meant" and makes the vessel the man's own wife. The 1984 NIV changes their previous position and makes the vessel the man himself. They put this 1978 possibility into the footnotes of the 1984.

Besides what we have in the bible are the very words of God. Look to it and do a search for words. You will see time and again "thy words", "words whereby we must be saved" "every word of God is pure" "Thou wilt keep them forever". . . .

What are some other questions you want to deal with?

REMEMBER: First take care to keep your self on blessing ground by putting God's word (The Lord talking to you) and prayer (you talking to the Lord) first and foremost. t

Then these various defenses as a definite secondary position. That's the path to blessing brother!



(1)

This is such an excellent point that I am tempted to delete my own reply because this one is so much better!

The point being that the language of the KJV is not what is hard to understand -- it's the very substance of Scripture that is difficult. What ok.book.guy says is very true. Even Peter acknowledged that Scripture was "hard to be understood." Peter didn't ask for a translator to update Paul's words for him. :)

My mistake, should say "high school."

Wow. Very strong arguments. Brandon, please keep your original post there, don't erase it.

On a slightly different topic, I, myself use the 1611, but members here say that there are several copyist errors and that using one for one's own study is counterproductive.
Can you explain this to me?

The 1611 edition contained various typesetting errors that have been purified out over the years in subsequent editions. We refer to the AV of 1611 because that was when it was first published, but it is very rare that anyone uses a 1611 edition today. Since 1611 English has had its spelling and grammar standardized so our current KJV Bibles are much better suited for use.


If you have a 1611 edition, the first two verses of your Bible would read like this:

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

Hi Paladin54
 

Good for you, taking a stand for the Word Of God at school. It will be a very daunting thing to be in an environment where peer and "scholarly" pressure is going to be applied in order for you to conform with THEM.

My Daughter is taking the same stand at her school...here is what I told her;

2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

A quick response to give for those asking the first of the questions you presented;
"The new translations are easier to read, otherwise I would read the King James Bible"

Response: The KJV is written in English, it is not a foreign language. If teachers and students put only a fraction of the effort into brushing up on THEIR OWN LANGUAGE as they do in teaching or learning Spanish, French or Japanese while at school, they would very quickly be able to read the Bible comfortably.

An example to give as to why this is important is as follows.... The new version use of "you" when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus in john 3:7 leaves readers thinking that Jesus was talking only to Nicodemus, and reduces the meaning to an irrelevant 2000 year old comment, wheras the KJV recording of Gods Word with its use of "thee", jesus referring to Nicodemus personally, and "ye", Jesus using a plural and thereby referring to everyone, including you and me 2000 years after the conversation.

Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Getting people to study the English language as used in the KJV makes the second objection irrelevant.

2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


Hope this helps.

Brother Brandon, thank you very much.

Paladin54, Fundy makes a good point. Are you taking Spanish? If so, recall the personal pronouns: 2nd person sigular is "Te". In english, 2nd person singular is "Thee". Removing "Thee" from the english bible is like removing "Te" everywhere it appears in the Spanish bible. No one uses "THee" today. But its still there grammatically and carries meaning with it that is lost by simply saying "You". Same with Ye. As Fundy points out: "Ye" is 2nd person plural pronoun. Again, if you remove "Ye" and "Thee" and replace both of them with "You", the scriptural distinctions between singular and plural is lost.

I hear ya! It is amazing how many 'Christians' are so uniformed of the new preversions of the Bible. KJV has a fifth grade reading level and so many say its too hard to understand.
They rather be spoon fed by paraphrases.

Not only uninformed, but unwilling to see that there are omissions. "Oh look it's in there see, riht between the brackets." or "It's in the footnotes, right next to the phrase not included in some manuscripts." And what's so hard to understand? That some things are wrong? Like stealing? That all liars shall have their part in the Lake of Fire? That man shouldn't be lying with mankind as with womankind? That Jesus is the only way to God, not through man or religion?

What?

Paladin54

You are to be commended for taking a stance as you have. God's blessing to you and I will keep you in my prayers.

Just a side note. My daughters are in private Baptist school. My oldest was reading a passage recently in Science class. Her teacher asked her if she enjoyed reading the KJV, she said she did. His reply was that he believed churches ahould not use the King James. That really floored me.

Needless to say, it is a Baptist school, but not IFB, unfortunetly.

Being a Baptist used to mean you had and read the KJV. Now unless you go to a IFB church everyone even the pastor has their own opinion and fav version other than KJV. Its as if you are a rare bird and slow if you use a KJV!
1Timothy 4:1

Right! And today they take the stand that there are only translations and these are the work of man and as such none of them (including KJV/AV) are infallible. That's the way it was with my last church. So I left there (years ago) and threw in with an IFB church! Have been very happy since.

Even "IFB" is no guarantee. Since churches are ecclesiastically independent, the only way to find out is to ask or visit. I've visited churches that were independent, Baptist, and "fundamental" with preaching that still didn't treat the Bible as the final word. (If the Bible version issue wasn't such a problem in fundamental baptist churches, Bro. Sorenson wouldn't have had to write his book Touch Not The Unclean Thing.) And there is also the problem of pastoral abuse that is more prevalent in IFB churches than many others -- exchanging one false authority for another doesn't help much. Little pains me more than believers who believe the KJV is God's word only because their pastor says so -- and when a new pastor comes in a teaching something different, suddenly they don't believe it any more (seen this happen, too).

One church we had to leave even stated in its statement of faith that the "pastor is the head of the church." Those words exactly. Using the KJV ain't the same as believing it! (Eph 1:22; 5:23; Col 1:18)

Yes to all who noted this. It is a sad fact that even churches that call themselves IFB are far from what they should be.

And BTW. I did not really mean the school directly being IFB, but the associated church that the school belongs to.

And, I probably should quantify my thinking of IFB, since I will be on this board and may use the term again. I consider myself to be IFB, Independent Fundanmental Baptist. I believe my church to be an IFB church, because:

We are:

KJV Bible BELIEVERS
KJV BIble TEACHERS
KJV Bible PREACHERS
Local, autonomous
The Bible is our FINAL AUTHORITY in all things
The head of our church is Jesus Christ Himself
Believers that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in the english language.
Baptism by immersion and The Lord's Supper are the only two ordinances observed by our church

Anyway, I hope this tells a bit of where I am coming from and a bit more about me. It is a shame that we need to quantify these days what we mean by, Baptist or IFB. Used to be the word Baptist said it all.

God bless all.

Praise the Lord that there still are Independant Fundamental Baptist churches that do live up to their names!

Until five minutes ago, I had never heard of IFB, my school (adjacent to my church) is Southern Baptist, and as soon as I graduate, I may start looking at other churches. Anybody here know of a Fundamental database?

Thank you for all your priceless input and prayers.

I may post more questions here, soon.

Try this one:

http://wayoflife.org/fbns/churchdir/churches.htm

This may be of help:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/churchdir/churches.htm

Sorry, I posted my reply above before I got to this page of the thread. Thanks Mike.

I agree this is an excellent point. I also started with the NIV. When I began reading the KJB, (after much research) my process was to go to the NIV when I came to a passage I didn't understand. What I found was that I didn't understand the passage in the NIV either. I came to the conclusion that there were some passages that I just needed to dig deeper into, not have the modern version explain it to me.

That's a good place to start. Just sharing my experience with that Church directory. I live in Spokane and found 2 Churches to look at and I didn't feel at home at either one. I searched on my own and found a very loving and Biblically sound Church. An Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. They only use the KJB and follow Biblical principles fundamentally. I thought "why on earth were they not listed on the directory." and I found out later it was because my Pastor was divorced. While in some circumstances I can see why a Church should not be on the directory. Although my Pastors first wife abandoned him and their kids. He tried to get her to receive Christian counseling and she refused. She wanted to go to school and make a career for herself. While my Pastor is not perfect, he not only loves Jesus with a full heart, but is also God fearing and a wonderful example of a Godly man. He is now married to a wonderful women and as a team they have helped so many to make changes in order to become more like Christ. (including myself)

I don't want to turn this into a debate on whether or not Pastors can be divorced and still preach, I just think that a Biblically sound divorce should be considered. I agree a Pastor should be blameless and although not perfect, my Pastor was blameless in this divorce and because he was abandoned, he is no longer bound to the first marriage and is in fact the husband of one wife.

you might find this article helpful
 

Praise the Lord indeed. I found one and my family and I have been unbelievably blessed ever since!!

A true IFB Church is certainly on the narrow path! Well worth the time it takes to find one though!

I always recommend this Bible. It's great to have the definitions to the harder to understand words below each page. After you read this Bible for a while, the archaic words are no longer an issue.

The Bible nowhere indicates that a divorced man cannot preach - but it states that a divorced man cannot pastor. A man can be a preacher and used by the Lord, yet never be qualified to pastor a church.

Where does it say that a divorced man cannot pastor a church?

My understanding is that some people read "husband of one wife" as excluding men who have re-married after divorce from being a bishop. But I don't quite understand that, since John 4:17,18 seems to indicate that past marriages are not present marriages, so why is an ex-wife considered a "present" wife?

I agree. I believe a husband of one wife means that he is only married to one woman and that he is faithful to his wife.

I bring up this verse again,
Is it only Pastors that are still under bondage of a marriage when their unbelieving spouse departs?

Justifiable divorce
 

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If a man divorces his wife ( or visa versa) due to infidelity on the others part, the non offending party could re-marry without committing the sin of adultery.

Jesus says "whosoever"...this would include men who would become or are presently Pastors, deacons etc.

I cannot find a reference anywhere in the Bible that disallows men divorced in this circumstance to serve in an office of the church.

Fundy

Yes, I agree.... fornication and abandonment are the two exceptions that result in a Biblical divorce.