|And chances are, you CAN'T read a real KJV.|
A bit of history first, then I'll get around to REALLY annoying KJV Apologetics.
More important anniversaries, which we can actually identify, linked to the Judeo-Christian Bible are in no particular order:
1648 Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty more'n anything else, set up the modern concept of democratic and republican forms of government. This treaty ended the de facto theocratic rule of the Catholic church.
|He didn't the water into Tang.|
Far, far, far, far more important than the KJV is what happened in the 1450s. Johannes Gutenberg, considered by many to be the most important person on the planet for the past 1,000 years, printed the Bible in Mainz, Germany. Gutenberg and his press set about the educational revolution in which reading and writing were no longer the exclusive province of monastic scholars and the very wealthy.
Admittedly, books were not available to the masses at that time, but the movable type press presaged the time when books would become available to anyone.
Martin Luther set up the protestant reformation and translated the Bible from Latin into ordinary language at the time.
The Council of Trent December 13, 1545-December 4, 1563, further cemented a schism between the Catholic church and the protestants. This Council also canonized what the protestants call the apocryphal books of the Bible. Those books were rejected as canonical by Jewish Council of Jamie in A.D. 90.
Nuf of all that eh?
It's wonderful because it has changed the lives of so many people around the world. They shifted from being despicable to being upright. Criminals reformed. Those addicted to various chemicals found within those pages the strength to lay down their addiction and walk away.
Leaning on that same book, humans have killed and tortured each other in the most horrible ways imaginable, all in the name of the God represented within those pages.
No matter how you look at it, the book inspired people. People, each person so affected, had to make a decision on their own to do what they did. Even the Bible is clear on that part.
Put people aside for a moment and consider the book. Beautifully written with flowing language, amazing poetry and incredible syntax and the vast majority of people who think they possess a KJV do not actually have a KJV.
|In the original.|
The original KJV is as hard to read as Chaucer in the original.
I know. I have a modern copy of KJV printed in the style and formatting as it was in 1611. I only use it to prove most people can't read the original KJV.
KJV is also a multi-generation translation of the original writings. The fact is, no matter how hackneyed it sounds, something is always lost in translation. Argue that I am wrong, and I will point you to the acrostics in Psalms. If you do not know what an acrostic is, then you have no intelligent grounds to argue against me. If you know what an acrostic is, you have to agree with me.
Those who argue the KJV corrected earlier errors in the Bible, from which the KJV was translated, also don't have an empirical leg to stand on.
If you can't read the ancient texts in the original writing, then how do you know that your translation is correct?
"Because scholars have verified it's accuracy?"
Really? People who CAN read the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate edition and Ancient Greek do know the KJV contains some translational errors.
|Shall we dance?|
Ya got me there. I can't rationally debate an article of faith. I can counter with my own faith that the KJV has errors.
Tautology gets you where you already are.
Back up my assertations? A f'r'instance? Ok. The word "slave." KJV uses "slave" through when the ancient texts used different words to describe the different kinds of slaves.
Not important? If it was important enough back then to differentiate between the kinds of slaves, why is not important to make that distinction today?
Today, the KJV is not the best-selling translation of the Bible. Blindbegger.org provides this list of best-selling translations:
|Idiocy knows no bounds.|
- New International Version
- King James Version
- New King James Version
- New Living Translation
- English Standard Version
- Holman Christian Standard Bible
- The Message
- Other Translations
- Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
- New International Readers Version
In my ministry and prison preaching, I my first choice is the Amplified Bible. That's followed by the NIV, NLT, Holman. I use the KJV only for passages which are VERY familiar and which most people who listen to me preach have memorized.
I give away the NIV exclusively.
The purpose of a Bible, as I understand it, is to let the reader come to a greater understanding of the word and the Word. If a person can't easily read and understand the Bible (yeah, yeah I know parts of the Bible are pretty confusing, but I refer to the grammar, syntax and language), then the Bible merely becomes something to prop up a short table leg.
If you come to my office and wanna speak to me, you will walk under a sign which states: Eschew Obfuscation.
So far, no KJV apologetic has understood that sign. Either word or the entire phrase. Yet, one of those words appears in the KJV.
Therefore I ask: If you can't understand the words in what you read, what good is it? Why don't you get something with words you can understand?
Riddle me this, riddle me that. If you don't understand, why do you criticize others who attempt to understand?