KJV-only Nazarenes?

[Rich Schmidt]

In a conversation over on Manny's Reformed Nazarene blog (see the comments on this blog post (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/seductive_poison_of_apostas/)), I found that several of the participants are KJV-only folks. I don't mean that they just prefer the KJV; they believe other translations are corrupt. Granted, not all of the participants there are Nazarenes, but some of them are. (And I think all of them were at some point.)

Do you know any Nazarenes who insist that only the KJV is inspired / uncorrupted / trustworthy? I've met Nazarenes who prefer the KJV, because it's what they grew up with, but I don't think I've every met one face-to-face who holds to a KJV-only position.

Edited to add: I really don't think Manny would appreciate it if a bunch of folks from NazNet started bombing his blog with comments on this topic. So please don't do that. I linked to that blog post for context.

[Larry Parsons]

In a conversation over on Manny's Reformed Nazarene blog (see the comments on this blog post (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/seductive_poison_of_apostas/)), I found that several of the participants are KJV-only folks. I don't mean that they just prefer the KJV; they believe other translations are corrupt. Granted, not all of the participants there are Nazarenes, but some of them are. (And I think all of them were at some point.)

Do you know any Nazarenes who insist that only the KJV is inspired / uncorrupted / trustworthy? I've met Nazarenes who prefer the KJV, because it's what they grew up with, but I don't think I've every met one face-to-face who holds to a KJV-only position.

Edited to add: I really don't think Manny would appreciate it if a bunch of folks from NazNet started bombing his blog with comments on this topic. So please don't do that. I linked to that blog post for context.Most people at our church uses KJB except my wife and I think she uses some modern day translation But most people don't relize that the KJB have change few time over the years. I told my wife what Hans had to say about the bible and all she said we have the Bible to help us to find Christ.
Larry P.

[Hans Deventer]

Most people at our church uses KJB except my wife and I think she uses some modern day translation But most people don't relize that the KJB have change few time over the years. I told my wife what Hans had to say about the bible and all she said we have the Bible to help us to find Christ.
Larry P.

That's true.

BTW, Rich, I wonder how they deal with the poor people in other parts of the world who cannot read English and thus are deprived of using the KJV?

[Benjamin Burch]

That's true.

BTW, Rich, I wonder how they deal with the poor people in other parts of the world who cannot read English and thus are deprived of using the KJV?

I think they argue for translating their bibles from the KJV, or something like that.

[Scott Moseley]

Its interesting to note that here in the Philippines there is a rather large number of KJV only Baptist churches. the service and preaching is done in local dialects but scriptures are read in KJV. ONLY

[Cindi Hammons]

Rich,

On our district down in Southern Ohio, there were two KJV-only churches that refused to allow their teens to participate in Teen Bible Quizzing because we were quizzing in the NIV. Both of those churches are now closed. Currently, there is one church in our area who only allows their kids to quiz in a local quiz league (Free Will Baptist and other KJV-only churches). This church's pastor only recently came from another denominations (Bible Missionary/Church of Christ in Christian Union) and has brought along many of his personal beliefs. I can see the lights of their church parking lot from my bedroom window...we drive 12 miles to our church! :)

[Todd Erickson]

Most of the folks at Greenbrier lean toward the KJV, and would probably be disturbed at any push toward using something else. I think that the pastor sometimes quotes from the NLT for clarity, but as a church, they tend to be mostly KJV with a sprinkling of NIV. I get really weird by leaning toward Amplified and ESV.

[Susan Unger]

Do you know any Nazarenes who insist that only the KJV is inspired / uncorrupted / trustworthy? I've met Nazarenes who prefer the KJV, because it's what they grew up with, but I don't think I've every met one face-to-face who holds to a KJV-only position. Thankfully, no. Baptists, yes. I know of one that was called "King James Bible Baptist Church". That kind of said it all.


Its interesting to note that here in the Philippines there is a rather large number of KJV only Baptist churches. the service and preaching is done in local dialects but scriptures are read in KJV. ONLY
Poor things.

[Kevin Rector]

That's true.

BTW, Rich, I wonder how they deal with the poor people in other parts of the world who cannot read English and thus are deprived of using the KJV?

There are several strands of KJV only. Most of them would probably argue that KJV is the only correct "English" translation. They really don't care what translation you use in the Dutch - most of them probably don't much care about you at all.

[Scott Moseley]

Poor things.

Verily

[Craig Laughlin]

My first Sunday at my first church as a brand new NTS graduate I noticed a Ford Bronco in the parking lot with a bumper sticker that said "If it ain't King James, It ain't the Bible." (Not kidding - One bumper sticker on each bumper) This man believed in a sort of "Biblical succession" like Catholics believe in apostolic succession of the pope. (He thought catholics evil) This meant for him that there was a succession of Bibles that were "literally inerrant" and the KJV was the one for this time. It mattered not that the best Greek manuscripts differed from the KJV, the KJV was the authority. He also argued that there were KJV versions of the bible in every language. He even got into it with a prominent Portuguese speaking Nazarene in my church who spoke 7 langues and told him there was no such thing in Portuguese. To his credit he had almost all the NT memorized, KJV of course and large sections of the OT memorized as well. When I first came he told me it was okay that we differed about this but over time it became apparent that it was not okay and he eventually left.

His position was so radically different from me that I found it impossible to even have much of a conversion. Since he rejected the idea of moving as close to original manuscripts as possible there was very little to talk about. His was a leap of faith concerning a specific translation and there is not a lot one can do to argue against that.

[David Pettigrew]

This was a lot more common when I was a kid. My family and church were KJV only, and we quit using the denominational "quarterly" when they used NIV for their scripture quotations. I guess we weren't the only ones, as for a time the quarterly included scripture in both KJV and NIV.

My favorite argument was when my family concluded that the KJV was actually easier to understand than the NIV.

[Rich Schmidt]

My favorite argument was when my family concluded that the KJV was actually easier to understand than the NIV.

That reminds me of something Steve said in the comments on that blog post: The little lie started out that the “thees” and “thous” were out dated.

[Susan Unger]

My first Sunday at my first church as a brand new NTS graduate I noticed a Ford Bronco in the parking lot with a bumper sticker that said "If it ain't King James, It ain't the Bible." (Not kidding - One bumper sticker on each bumper) This man believed in a sort of "Biblical succession" like Catholics believe in apostolic succession of the pope. (He thought catholics evil) This meant for him that there was a succession of Bibles that were "literally inerrant" and the KJV was the one for this time. It mattered not that the best Greek manuscripts differed from the KJV, the KJV was the authority. He also argued that there were KJV versions of the bible in every language. He even got into it with a prominent Portuguese speaking Nazarene in my church who spoke 7 langues and told him there was no such thing in Portuguese. To his credit he had almost all the NT memorized, KJV of course and large sections of the OT memorized as well. When I first came he told me it was okay that we differed about this but over time it became apparent that it was not okay and he eventually left.

His position was so radically different from me that I found it impossible to even have much of a conversion. Since he rejected the idea of moving as close to original manuscripts as possible there was very little to talk about. His was a leap of faith concerning a specific translation and there is not a lot one can do to argue against that.Sadly, this sounds too familiar to me.

[Cynthia Prentice]

My first Sunday at my first church as a brand new NTS graduate I noticed a Ford Bronco in the parking lot with a bumper sticker that said "If it ain't King James, It ain't the Bible." (Not kidding - One bumper sticker on each bumper) This man believed in a sort of "Biblical succession" like Catholics believe in apostolic succession of the pope. (He thought catholics evil) This meant for him that there was a succession of Bibles that were "literally inerrant" and the KJV was the one for this time. It mattered not that the best Greek manuscripts differed from the KJV, the KJV was the authority. He also argued that there were KJV versions of the bible in every language. He even got into it with a prominent Portuguese speaking Nazarene in my church who spoke 7 langues and told him there was no such thing in Portuguese. To his credit he had almost all the NT memorized, KJV of course and large sections of the OT memorized as well. When I first came he told me it was okay that we differed about this but over time it became apparent that it was not okay and he eventually left.

His position was so radically different from me that I found it impossible to even have much of a conversion. Since he rejected the idea of moving as close to original manuscripts as possible there was very little to talk about. His was a leap of faith concerning a specific translation and there is not a lot one can do to argue against that.

That must have been a very frustrating conversation Craig. I am always amazed when people have this approach. The church was birthed with multiple "tranlations" at pentecost. It is as if people can't see the forest for the trees.

[George Wallace]

That reminds me of something Steve said in the comments on that blog post: The little lie started out that the “thees” and “thous” were out dated.

I read from and study from many versions. But now that I am taking Greek I really wish that the Contemporay English language had a functional second person plural like they used with the "thees and "thous."

For real clarity it wouls be nice to have say A Philly Version that uses "Yous" or "Yous guys." Or a Pittsburgh Version that uses "You-uns" Or a Dixie Version that uses "Y'all" or "Mom en ems" :smile:

It would be nice to know with out Greek if a Biblical writer was addessing "me" or "us."

Blessings
George

[Ryan Scott]

His position was so radically different from me that I found it impossible to even have much of a conversion. Since he rejected the idea of moving as close to original manuscripts as possible there was very little to talk about. His was a leap of faith concerning a specific translation and there is not a lot one can do to argue against that.

Its perhaps a good lesson that all of us, from time to time, place our faith in things with less than solid foundation. We have to be careful to be willing to rethink those positions when necessary.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

I don't know of anyone who is KJV only. I know people who use it because it is the version they grew up with and have verses memorized in that version. But I don't know anyone who says it is the ONLY authentic version.

Incidentally, I just read Philippians in The Message and it was a riot!

[Shea Zellweger]

I have said before and will say again, as soon as they find unicorn fossils, I will become KJV-only.

[Hans Deventer]

There are several strands of KJV only. Most of them would probably argue that KJV is the only correct "English" translation. They really don't care what translation you use in the Dutch - most of them probably don't much care about you at all.

Ah, that's encouraging. Helps a lot in taking these people very seriously themselves. Not.

[Wayne Paul]

I have been associated with the CofN for 70 years. In all my life I have never know the denomination to take the King James only as an official position. It has always been recognized that the KJ was nothing more an attempt to translate the original Greek and Hebrew into English and is highly influenced by the need of King James to preserve the concept of divine ordination of the English monarchy and church.

[Hans Deventer]

It would be nice to know with out Greek if a Biblical writer was addessing "me" or "us."

There are many advantages to being Dutch, this is one of them.

[Mike Schutz]

When I was a young whippershapper (now I'm an old whippersnapper) I was on my way to preach at the teen camp of one of the more conservative districts on our region, and was scheduled by the good folks in our admissions office to preach at one of the more conservative churches on that conservative district - because there were several prospective students there. I met with the teen Sunday school class before the service, and we had a great time. I had not yet met the pastor. As we were concluding the class, I asked them where they sit for the service. "Oh, we don't usually stay for the service." "Why not?" "Have you met our pastor?" "No." "We didn't think so. Wait until he sees your Bible, and your beard."
As soon as I met the pastor - before he even said hello - he said, "I don't allow men with beards to preach in my church, but i guess there is nothing we can do about that now." Then he looked down at my NIV Bible and said, "And we are a King James Version church." So, when I got up to preach, I recited the scripture passage from memory from the KJV, and then said, "But most of my students use the NIV, so I would like to read you the passage from that translation." After I read it, I said, "And did you know that Professor Ralph Earle from Nazarene Theological Seminary was a key member of the translation committee of the NIV. As Nazarenes, we should have sanctified pride in the work of one of our finest biblical scholars." I know it was wrong, but it was so much fun.

When I arrived at my present assignment there were KJV Bibles in the pews. They were worn and in need of replacement, and I went to the family who gave them as a memorial gift. I explained the need for replacement and took care of it within a week, replacing them with NIVs. There was never a single comment. Seems all of the folks who love the KJV always bring their own Bibles to church! ;)

Just this week a wonderful leader in our church asked me if it would be alright to distribute a book on the life of Jesus as a teen to our Caravan Bresee recipients. I pointed out to her that this book was published by a fundamentalist Baptist group that disagrees with much of our Wesleyan theology, and that they believe that the only appropriate English translation of the Bible is the KJV. "Don't you think it will be confusing to these young teens, after spending all this time in Caravan with all of the scripture passages from the NIV, to be given a book from our church written by someone who doesn't believe that all those words they have been memorizing are actually scripture?"

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Quick story:

Around 25 years ago I was asked to do pulpit supply just one Sunday in SW OK. We drove out to the church, arriving just before Sunday School. I said I'd just sit in the empty nursery at the back of the sanctuary and collect my thoughts for the message rather than sit in the sanctuary for the adult class.

However, I could hear what was being said in the class. The teacher was talking about versions of the Bible and how he could never be a part of a church that used anything but a KJV. Everyone seemed to be in agreement. There I sat with my NIV in my lap preparing to preach the only sermon I would ever preach there.

I didn't want to stir anything up, so I slipped down to the church basement where the only other class, the teens, were meeting. I looked in several empty rooms, sure that there'd be an old KJV laying around somewhere. No luck.

Back upstairs, I could see that there was a pastor's study off the platform and I guessed that there would be a Bible there.

The adult class ran just a bit long and, since everyone was already in the sanctuary by then, they wanted to get right to the service. I said I'd like to step into the pastor's study for just a second. Some folks gave me a strange look, wondering what I needed to do that for after having been praying in the nursery for all of Sunday School.

In the study, there were several nearly empty bookshelves, but I didn't see a Bible. Then, as they were starting the music for the service, I spotted a stack of a few rag-tag Bibles. I grabbed the one that looked the most presentable and hurried to my assigned spot on the platform.

I opened the Bible.

It was written in Chinese.

(During the offering I retrieved one of the more ragged looking Bibles - it was KJV.)

[Billie Goodson]

I opened the Bible.

It was written in Chinese.


If it was good enough for Jesus, it should have been good enough for you! :)

Personally Scott, I want to commend you on your willingness to live out Romans 14 for that congregation. I would poke fun at Mike's approach to the dilema he was faced with .... but not sure I can pull it off right now without offending someone. For the record -- if I had the opportunity and the information that Mike had, I would not have been able to resist his approach -- which I am sure he did with grace and humility (which are pretty much beyond me). Your actions, Scott, demonstrate why we all think you are worth a % pay raise as site administrator.

[Norayr Hajian]

Quick story:

Around 25 years ago I was asked to do pulpit supply just one Sunday in SW OK.

....

I opened the Bible. It was written in Chinese.
(During the offering I retrieved one of the more ragged looking Bibles - it was KJV.)

That is quite a story! I felt sorry for you while reading it. I'll tell you what, if you ever pass through this way, you can stop in and preach from virtually any version of the Bible.

[Shea Zellweger]

That is quite a story! I felt sorry for you while reading it. I'll tell you what, if you ever pass through this way, you can stop in and preach from virtually any version of the Bible.

"Virtually" any? So no American Patriot's Bible, or Joyce Meyer's Fashion Edition?

[Norayr Hajian]

"Virtually" any? So no American Patriot's Bible, or Joyce Meyer's Fashion Edition?

Well, I didn't want to door left open to just about anything and everything... we got to use some discretion here! :smile:

[Billie Goodson]

"Virtually" any? So no American Patriot's Bible, or Joyce Meyer's Fashion Edition?

See, I'm over analyzing again...I thought he meant any version as long as it was online... Sorry -- engineer humor at its best (or worst).

[Ryan Plott]

IV. The Holy Scriptures

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

I don't know any. According to the manual they'd be a self-contradiction. You can't be Nazarene and specify a specific translation because we intentionally make room for multiple translations, as we make room for multiple eschatological views, methods of atonement, and multiple modes of receiving baptism or the Eucharist. Why be divisive over the form of a thing, rather than the thing itself?

After thinking about it though, I think that maybe we should return to the KJV. Or maybe the Greek and Hebrew. Or maybe the oral tradition would be better.....

[Billie Goodson]

IV. The Holy Scriptures

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

I don't know any. According to the manual they'd be a self-contradiction. You can't be Nazarene and specify a specific translation because we intentionally make room for multiple translations, as we make room for multiple eschatological views, methods of atonement, and multiple modes of receiving baptism or the Eucharist. Why be divisive over the form of a thing, rather than the thing itself?

After thinking about it though, I think that maybe we should return to the KJV. Or maybe the Greek and Hebrew. Or maybe the oral tradition would be better.....

But that raises the question of are we a "big tent" because we allow for some variation or are we a "big tent" because we demand you must accept all? I would argue that it is the former not the latter. I would even offer that in our "bigness" we should be more accommodating to some degree. I once had a discussion with another poster on this forum about truth (I think it was some specific aspect but I can't remember what it was and it probably doesn't matter). A statement was made in the discussion that I recall was something like, "truth is what a community affirms it to be". I think in matters such as this one, the statement I quoted from my flawed memory perhaps finds its most restful home. If a community has decided that they are ministered to through the KJV, then are they really that wrong?

Sure, we believe that there is a richness of the many variations of text/translation that other versions provide, but isn't the full gospel contained in the KJV also? Yes, I understand that there are more recent codex and texts that give us the availability of a more "accurate to the original", but can we argue that the someone reading the KJV only will not encounter the Christ like the men on the Road to Emmaus? Yes, I know there is a battle cry for Sola Scriptura -- but is Sola Christus not at the heart of that? So when guests, should we not do as Paul and become all things to all men? Yes, I know I am getting repetitious....sorry about that.

Why battle over a version of the bible when we can argue over more substantive things like the music or whether dunking or sprinkling is sufficient?

[Scott Moseley]

[QUOTE=G R 'Scott' Cundiff;4295]
I opened the Bible.

It was written in Chinese.

[QUOTE]

Was it simplified or traditional Chinese text?

[Rich Schmidt]

If a community has decided that they are ministered to through the KJV, then are they really that wrong?

There's a big difference between a pastor or congregation saying, "We prefer the KJV here," and a pastor or congregation saying, "The KJV is the only reliable English translation. All others are corrupt."

One of the first sermons I ever preached used the KJV, because that's what the congregation preferred. The pastor told me they preferred it, but that I should feel free to use whatever translation I wanted. I went with the KJV, because it didn't really matter that much.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Was it simplified or traditional Chinese text?

It was.....25 years ago!:)

[Craig Laughlin]

One of the great things about being on the west coast is that I don't think anyone even knows what the KJV is. On the other hand we are delighted if they accept the Bible as anything more than cultural/historical literature. If someone regards the Bible as spiritual it is good news for us. :smilies0262:

- This debate is one thing I really don't miss from the Midwest.

Carry on...

[Ryan Plott]

...what Rich said

[Mike Fraley]

Everything I learned on the subject came from a Chick Tract.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

Seriously, though... I wonder how some of these people would feel if they knew that the original King James contained the apocryphal books.

[Jim Chabot]

After thinking about it though, I think that maybe we should return to the KJV. Or maybe the Greek and Hebrew. Or maybe the oral tradition would be better.....

I think that Oral Roberts was a KJV guy?:smilies1722:

[Randy Wise]

My favorite argument was when my family concluded that the KJV was actually easier to understand than the NIV.

I see the KJV as using outdated terms and thats why I don't read that translation on a regular basis. I have discussed the issue with KJV baptists on a preexisting thread and they stated in reply to my outdated reasoning, (for myself), was what you stated above. My stance is I don't tell people what translation they need to use.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

sundry times? divers manners? what? The sun is hot and can make the air dry. Must have been a warm spell perhaps summer. This also suggests that divers were seen as polite mannered people.:smilies1722:

[Rich Schmidt]

Everything I learned on the subject came from a Chick Tract.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

Seriously, though... I wonder how some of these people would feel if they knew that the original King James contained the apocryphal books.

Ah, but the Chick tract explains that! It was the Jesuit spies on the translation committee who sneaked it in!

I can't believe I just read that whole thing....

[Mike Fraley]

Ah, but the Chick tract explains that! It was the Jesuit spies on the translation committee who sneaked it in!

I can't believe I just read that whole thing....

I usually make it about half way through before it just becomes too painful. Usually the tracts on his site are really hilariously wrong, however, they can be a bit hard to read when you have any idea of the real facts.

[Norayr Hajian]

It was.....25 years ago!:)

Good point. 25 years ago we had the book, "Why I Am a Nazarene".

[Kazimiera Fraley]

in reference to the chick track Mike posted:
I have to say there is no arguing with that wonderfully thorough pictoral representation of translation history. The devil did it.

[Susan Unger]

In my former church, there was a guy who owned a Christian bookstore. He remarked how he'd get from time to time poor innocents who'd start attending a KJV only church come in and ask for the original KJV. They had been told by the pastor of their new church that the KJV was the only version from God...it was God's original thus, they must get the "original KJV'. He'd bring out a copy of the 1611 version for them to read. He probably used a version that kept the original spellling such as this one http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm. As the customers looked at in confusion, he'd then see his chance to offer them a more readable bible.

For those that did not know, the KJV that we are used to is from 1769. Here is a comparision I found on wikipedia -

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

[Shea Zellweger]

In my former church, there was a guy who owned a Christian bookstore. He remarked how he'd get from time to time poor innocents who'd start attending a KJV only church come in and ask for the original KJV. They had been told by the pastor of their new church that the KJV was the only version from God...it was God's original thus, they must get the "original KJV'. He'd bring out a copy of the 1611 version for them to read. He probably used a version that kept the original spellling such as this one http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm. As the customers looked at in confusion, he'd then see his chance to offer them a more readable bible.

For those that did not know, the KJV that we are used to is from 1769. Here is a comparision I found on wikipedia -

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Although I agree with those who would assert that the KJV is outdated (and fairly inaccurate), I really don't have any trouble reading the above, or the link you posted. I've always felt the "readability" argument was probably one of the weaker ones for anyone to make on either side of this debate.

[Susan Unger]

Although I agree with those who would assert that the KJV is outdated (and fairly inaccurate), I really don't have any trouble reading the above, or the link you posted. I've always felt the "readability" argument was probably one of the weaker ones for anyone to make on either side of this debate.

Even the 1611 version gave you no trouble? The weird spellings distract me too much.

I believe people are comfortable with what they are used to reading. If one is used to that style of language, it would be readable. What changed it for me was trying to memorize Phillipians 1:8 as an 8 year old for VBS one year "For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ." I said that over and over aloud trying to memorize it [thinking it was a strange verse]. My mother couldn't take it anymore and asked me if I was sure that was the verse I was supposed to be memorizing. Turns out she was correct. But, I got to tell you as an 8 year old kid, my mind wasn't on the love part at all...but on contemplating what were Jesus' bowels were like??????

[George Wallace]

Although I agree with those who would assert that the KJV is outdated (and fairly inaccurate), I really don't have any trouble reading the above, or the link you posted. I've always felt the "readability" argument was probably one of the weaker ones for anyone to make on either side of this debate.

Really?

I prefer Jesus Christ to Iefus Chrift and Gospel to Gofpel.

http://greatsite.com/images/facsimiles/fac_KJ_detail3.gif

[Hans Deventer]

Really?

I prefer Jesus Christ to Iefus Chrift and Gospel to Gofpel.

Tell me about it! At home, at Christmas, we used to read from the 1637 Dutch translation, an equivalent of the KJV. I got to read this, and it wasn't easy.

158

[Greg Farra]

One edition of the 1611 read,'thou shalt commit adultery',which could make it a popular version in some circles.

[Susan Unger]

One edition of the 1611 read,'thou shalt commit adultery',which could make it a popular version in some circles.I saw that on wikipedia. I believe it is called the "wicked version".

[Scott Sherwood]

I knew a few KJV-only Nazarenes growing up, but I haven't known one in a long time. I suspect that KJV-only Nazarenes are now actually outnumbered by the lesser-known-but-gaining-influence MSNBC-only Nazarenes.

[Shea Zellweger]

I knew a few KJV-only Nazarenes growing up, but I haven't known one in a long time. I suspect that KJV-only Nazarenes are now actually outnumbered by the lesser-known-but-gaining-influence MSNBC-only Nazarenes.

who watches MSNBC? It's The Daily Show for me!

[Peggy Gray]

I was trying to remember what version our pastor preaches from...I think he "mixes it up", uses a different version depending on the emphasis. Or maybe I just follow along and don't really notice. Hmmm.

[Daniel Hamlin]

who watches MSNBC? It's The Daily Show for me!

Or the Colbert Report!

[Dan Ross]

Do you know any Nazarenes who insist that only the KJV is inspired / uncorrupted / trustworthy? I've met Nazarenes who prefer the KJV, because it's what they grew up with, but I don't think I've every met one face-to-face who holds to a KJV-only position.

Several decades ago, at a general assembly, an attempt was made to have the denomination declare that the King James Version would be the only version allowed for use in the CoN. To which many Africans and Asians said: "What is a King James Version?"

[Wilson Deaton]

To which many Africans and Asians said: "What is a King James Version?"

Some of the adults, many of the teens, and probably most of the children in my Wisconsin, USA church would ask the same thing!!!

Wilson

[Roy Richardson]

Everything I learned on the subject came from a Chick Tract.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

Seriously, though... I wonder how some of these people would feel if they knew that the original King James contained the apocryphal books.

I once had a guy who was trying to hijack my SS clas (we were using the Dialog Series book "What does the Bible Say about" and he was digging in on the KJV issue. I finally had him bring me his Bible, I looked at it, and gave it back to him and told him it was fraudulent becasue it didn't have the Apocryphal books. He sputtered, and sat down. He never came back to my class. He took his joy to another class in the church. I felt kind of bad about my less than grace-filled response to him, but he is one of those who like to stir up things and argue

[Sarah Smith]

I grew up on the KJV, so that is what is apparently in my brain--call me King James saturated, I guess. If I really need to quote scripture without one in my hand that is usually the version that comes out of my mouth.

When I first became a Nazarene I had just started using the NASB1977. The local preacher took me aside one Sunday and asked why I didn't use the Nazarene Inspired Version, aka the NIV. Told him then and it is still true today--I do, some, but it just doesn't "hit" me. Harder to read versions like the NASB, ESV, and NKJV move my spirit. So do easy reads like the old Living Bible and the NLT. I love the TNIV--and it isn't all that different from the NIV which comes across as flat to me.

I'm not too fond of the HCSB, but love the NET. I don't love but will use the CEV. Can't stand the NCV--too many inaccuracies to suit me.

Best version: whatever one moves your spirit--even KJV.

[Gary Creely]

The real important thing is the size of the bible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4

[John F Martin]

We at Oklahoma City First generally hear from the NRSV in the worship service, although I suspect the NIV is in the majority among our people for their personal use. The Bible I usually take to church and use there is the NASB.

[John Kennedy]

I'm an unapologetic user of GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN. I grew up in a KJV household - my parents weren't all that opposed to other versions, it was more a case of 'version inertia'. I still remember enough KJV that I tend to go to it, get the reference, and consult a more contemporary version.
I realize that I'm thereby rejecting what was good enough for Paul and Silas, but what're you gonna' do?

[John Reilly]

There are certain scriptures I prefer to read from the KJV like Luke 2. Every Christmas Eve I read Luke 2:1-20, slowly, prayerfully and deliberately. So much of KJV is written poetically and beautifully. I will often use the KJV during a funeral service reading Psalm 23. And of course everyone knows the official translation in heaven is KJV read in everyone's native tongue simultaneously and we will understand it perfectly.

[David Graham]

Thanks for that John, you remind me of the beauty of some of the language of the KJV, which hasn't always been fully captured by the later translations.

In our funeral services we often use the KJV wording of the 23rd Psalm, and most people appreciate it
we also use (if it is for an older person) the traditional KJV rendering of the Lord's prayer even though we use the more contemporary version (based upon the KJV translation and modified) in our services generally as I've written below; it's okay but I still like the older version.

The Lord's Prayer
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name
may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us
Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil
for the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours,
now and forever; amen.

Blessings,
Dave

[Steve Reece]

It was written in Chinese.

(During the offering I retrieved one of the more ragged looking Bibles - it was KJV.)

Too bad you were Nazarene instead of Pentecostal. You could have used the gift of tongues.

[Administrator]

My late mother went to her grave saying "If it (KJV) was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me!":smilies0295:

[John Kennedy]

I had attempted to directly respond to David G's post somewhere above. When I did, the computer informed me, after posting about a 500 character response, that my message was too short. These infernally confounded things are certainly a work of Satan and clearly illustrate the dire need for someone to set up a cyber deliverance and exorcism ministry.

As I was saying, before this instrument of the Devil so rudely interupted me, I had originally started using GOOD NEWS (GN) for personal/devotional reading. When I got started in lectionary-based weekly worship planning, I found GN read aloud very nicely, both for the lessons and the responsive Psalm around which much of the service was structured. It seemed to have an appealing flow that was lacking in some other modern language versions, some of which had a way of sounding like some of the less winsome portions of the Internal Revenue Code.