Yes sir you did, It’s all I have ever used or studied or has been the standard at any church I have attended. I do have a KJV study Bible in which people contribute there thoughts and ideas on verses and text. If that makes makes me ignorant for believing in one specific translation and nothing else than I guess I’ll be ignorant.
Murdoc, I didn't read Mr. Clark's statement in any way to be condescending as you took it. Far be it from me to say something about being overly-sensitive (
I'm awful about it), but I think you might be on this matter. He said it was ignorant for the church to have
a pulpit with a literal engraving of "KJV only", sort of in a sarcastic tone as if that church believed the KJV was the only true word of God. Perhaps you'd have to know that there's this weird sub-belief in the realm of Christendom that the KJV is the "real" Bible, and if your church isn't using it, then you're a heretic. THAT is ignorant. The KJV is fine and dandy, Mr. Clark doesn't believe there's anything wrong with it. You aren't ignorant for using it, he doesn't believe that.
Just my personal stance has always been: The KJV is simply a word-for-word translation of the original texts.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: THE KJV IS NOT THE ORIGINAL TEXT, IT IS A TRANSLATION JUST LIKE ALL OTHER VERSIONS) However, it's written in centuries-old English (thou's, thereto's, herefore art thou unto thine???....daheck that even mean?
) So if I could use an equal word-for-word translation that uses modern English (ESV for example), which is how you and I actually talk, why wouldn't I? If the same passages infer the same meanings, but you insist on using a Bible that's written in virtually another language (because you believe it's different or better somehow), then that could reasonably be called ignorant.
