A look at life from the pulpit at Sharon!
Perhaps people are scared of this one, Michael? Or perhaps there is no one out there who favors the KJV enough to stand for it?It would be easy to keep things simple and say "No! He should not preach." The decision in this would surely be heavy upon what the Spirit is leading a pastor or church to do, and whether or not the speaker is known well by the pastor or church.If there are any doubts about whether the speaker would pose a risk to the harmony and wishes of the church, it would surely be best to call someone else to preach and err on the safe side.Opinions on this, of course, are a measure of a person's or church's belief in KJV only.
I believe the King James is God's inspired and preserved Word. All other versions either take away from God's intended meaning or are complete error. To preach what God intends for people to hear the preacher must study what God said not what men think He said.I believe all scripture shoulded should be quoted from the KJV!
A church calls an evangelist, who does not preach out of the King James Version at his church that he pastors, but when the pastor of the church having revival contacts this man and brings up the question, he responds, "don't worry, I know how you and your church stand, I'll be preaching out of KJV.Does this situation become a test of fellowship, as far as being a candidate for an evangelist?Adrian and Tommy, may want to expound further and anyone else who might want to touch this one.I have pastored in TX, LA, and now AR and it seems as though this situation is coming up more and more, especially in this area. It is either just the culture of the ABA in this state or just a coincidence.
I would take all things into consideration, there is always an exception to the rule. Yet, I would chose a KJV evangilist that is always KJV over a non-KJV preacher.I understand that in different states different versions are popular because of ignorance(not stupidity) and that an exception may be made when I know the pastor.
To follow my comment, just because a man uses the KJV does not mean I believe he is free from error. The Catholics, Methodists, and Jehovah's Witness use the KJV that does not mean I would call one of them as an evangilist.
I think a man that is anti KJV should not be called, the pastor of the Church should know the man enough to lead the Church in another direction.A man that exclusively preaches from a different english speaking version should not be called either. I further believe that non-kjv missionaries should also not recieve support from KJV only Churches (the only exclusion would be foriegn missionaries).However, a man that uses the KJV in his preaching but might study out of another version I would be ok with him coming as our evangelist.I think the Pastor should know the man that the Church is looking at calling. This can be done in an informal meeting before the business meeting when the Church would normally call an evangelist.
I do not want a man in the pulpit who would preach anything other than the KJV. Bro. Tommy brought up a good point that there is a lot of ignorance on this subject. I know a pastor who preaches from the KJV who said "I just have never really studied it." You read so much in our papers (not calling any names) today about not majoring on the minors and it chaps my hide. I do not understand why this is not a test of fellowship because it is a matter of the Word of God!Bro. Jason brought up a good point. Our focus is usually on the English language and the KJV, but does anyone on here know what is the correct translation in other languages?
Brother young landmarker, if a preface of a Bible (in any language) tells you it is a static, formal, complete or perfect equivalence translation of the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus only, and it has no footnotes about textual variants, it is good to go *assuming it is truthful, but usually it will be b/c it is usually financial suicide to claim this.* Also, make sure it translates all words right. How? Don't know. Check the key scriptures that are usually changed.
Perhaps some of you have heard of the King James 21st Century...From my understanding, the translation is the same, the "thy/thee/thine/ye" are all retained (for singular vs. plural, etc.The only changes are to "archaic words" such as twain (two), etc.I'm not promoting this, nor do I own one. Anyone familiar with the origin or trustworthiness of this KJV version? (sorry Michael, I know this doesn't fit your question)
Version InformationThe 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21®) is an updating of the 1611 King James Version (KJV). It is not a new translation, but a careful updating to eliminate obsolete words by reference to the most complete and definitive modern American dictionary, the Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, unabridged. Spelling, punctuation, and capitalization have also been updated. What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained in this updating. It is readily distinguished from the colloquial language of commerce and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than 500 years in most of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find the use of secular English in Bible translations. All language relating to gender and theology in the King James Version remains unchanged from the original. The 21st Century King James Version contains universally useful study aids. It includes the chapter summaries from the 1611 King James Version, updated for quick reference. Also included are the cross references from the original King James Version plus many more, but without sectarian emphasis. Not since 1611 has there been a Bible that is so - Right for its time, Right for traditionalist, Right for Bible lovers. http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=48#copyJust found this hope it helps. I'm not sure about it yet.
I would know beforehand if a preacher is KJV or not. No invitation would be extended to non KJV preacher. If KJV is Word of God (IT IS) then let every other version be a lie (they are). Why would anyone want someone who prefers a lie rather than the truth to preach for them?
"If KJV is Word of God (IT IS) then let every other version be a lie (they are). Why would anyone want someone who prefers a lie rather than the truth to preach for them?"A new complete equivalence (aka static equivalence, formal equivalence or perfect equivalence) translation of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text would be fine. As far as I can tell, the KJ21 and the TMB are both SPOT ON with the exception the TMB including the apocrypha (though the KJ 1611) did also. These are actually not translations but rather updates of the KJV, just as the KJV we use is an update of the 1611 AV. There is DEFINITELY no problem with a new translation, but as far as I know, NO new translations are formal equivalence translations of the TR and MR. Again, as far as I can tell (from the preface and otherwise) of the KJ21 and the TMB, they just change words which no longer appear in our dictionary to the closest synonym, and they leave the other words the same, (even thee, thou and ye). They keep the same word order and sentence structure. All they do is update words that are COMPLETELY obselete. While I don't use them, I would be interested to reading logical arguments against them. After all, we do accept the modern updating of the 1611 AV which did indeed change some words to synonyms.
Post a Comment