What’s the Big Deal About the KJV? {episode 4}: dumbed-down version.

Somewhere between episode 3 of “What’s The Big Deal About The KJV?” and this episode 4, I got caught up inthe busy-ness of my jam-packed life and didn’t realize the latest episode had come out! My apologies for not being more on the ball with this.

If you missed episode 1 of “What’s the Big Deal About the KJV?,” click HERE to watch it. If you missed episode 2, click HERE to watch it. If you missed episode 3, click HERE.

And, as always, I’ve got some more interesting resources for you to give a look-see at:

Here’s episode 4 of “What’s The Big Deal About The KJV?” —

Thoughts…? Opinions…? Leave your comments below!

Advertisements

Posted on February 1, 2013, in What's the Big Deal About the KJV? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Not very convincing. I use the King James for its beauty and word for word literalism from greek and hebrew according to my interlinear bible. However, NRSV is another version that captures the substance of some of the greek words that don’t have direct translations. I’m in favor of the KJV, but for me it’s about comfort and the ability to understand the Word and Message. That said I do not condone “The Message,” and other texts that lose the heritage and cultural ties of the Bible, but I do not think that narrow-minded comments should be made about Jesus and the disciples not quoting the original texts or referencing them, as stated in the “Fighting Back” article. This is mainly because Jesus did use the original greek in the Septuagint in instances such as Luke 4: 18-19, and continually referenced Scripture that would have been in Greek after Hellenization. The argument I keep seeing is “what makes them better? The King James was here first.” That argument works against itself. First doesn’t mean holiest or best, which is the same message the Pharisees and the Sadducees couldn’t process. The people who translate the Bible maintain the same values as those who did the King James; the fact that they are academic and want to get to the meaning of the Word doesn’t make them any less suitable. The rest of the arguments seem to be a bunch of ad hominem statements about the purity of the new translators and their work. Honestly that has no place in any field. The fact is there is no infallible Bible. Inspired by God is not the same as written by God. Every book has its political and religious affiliation that adds to the richness and complexity of it. There is only an infallible Word that is capable of reaching through the boundaries of language and healing the hearts of those involved, and that Word is the logos, the logic and wisdom known in Hebrew as Sophia, who is Jesus Christ. Don’t limit God to working through only one man-made collection of manuscripts.

  2. correction: they would’ve used Hebrew scrolls in the temple, but the fact remains He quoted original Scripture. He constantly used variations of the phrase “Have ye never read..” So the argument that Jesus and the disciples never used the practice of correction based off of original texts is false.

  3. Well, Heather, I hope you still want to be be friends after this (I am sure you will, because you’re great). I posted a response to this on my blog. Just keep in mind that even though we may disagree, we’re still family (and I make that clear in my post).

    http://therecoveringlegalist.com/2013/02/07/a-video-rebuttal-to-a-kjv-only-post/

  1. Pingback: A Video Rebuttal to a KJV-only Post | The Recovering Legalist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: