Hi Brothers and Sisters,I am just wondering for those of you that are open air preaching on a consective basis or for others to comment, what version of the bible do you think is best for open air preaching and the proclamation of God's word to this generation? I use KJV as a prefered bible now.
I'm with ya... KJV. Nothing is as clear and in your face as the KJV.Krispy
wen'a street preachin on saturday, read from Jeremiah, was going to modernize what was being said.. take out the thee's and thou's etc..didn't... got half way through the reading before i noticed too.. lolKJV defnintely, think people hear the thee's and thou's and know your reading from the Word of God
Hey Greg, I use the KJV, because that's the version I am reading/ studying myself.In open air preaching I will read throught the passage (in the KJV), then I go back and go through the text verse by verse, keeping within the context of what God is saying/addressing, but I will put it into simple language that the people that come can relate to and understand.I really don't think it's the version that matters, primarily...it's the heart of the person opening their mouth.
In my mind I have the KJV because that is 'my bible' but like others I am ready to paraphrase or even to just state biblical truth. Paul's encounter with the pagans in Athens finds him quoting neither Masoretic text nor Septuagint ;-) but heathen poets.
The Holy Spirit
I take my NASB with me, but when doing open-air, I tend not to preach like I do in a pulpit... as most heathen don't care about what version you are using, nor do they generally care where verses are located. If you say it is in there, they generally believe you. Sometimes I have read passages out loud in length, e.g. the sermon on the mount. But, since NASB is my prefered translation, I use the NASB when reading passages. Fact of the matter is, most Christians have a hard time reading the KJV and comprehending it. Most heathen will have an even harder time understanding it. Perhaps though, they might be more interested in it if they were to walk by and hear somebody speaking KJ english.. then again, they might be turned off. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It simply matters if the preacher is being faithful to the message.
Thanks for all the comments, the main reason was my small inkling that felt it would be too hard for people to understand the KJV if read in public. But I do think the trend is that if the text becomes real to me then sharing with others will only be a bi-product of what it has already done in changing my heart. I think it is easy enough as brother Josh said to modify some of the langauge in KJV on the "fly" when preaching open air if that is needed to clarify the verse.
I even modify the language when preaching from the NASB on the fly, and sometimes paraphrase parts that might be a little less important to my audience, and jump around and the like. I feel free to use the "King Jimmy" Version of the Bible. All preachers, even strong KJV only advocates, regularly paraphrase from the Bible when preaching. Even the writers of Scriptures felt free to paraphrase some of the verses they quoted from the OT. As long as the essence of what you are saying is the word of God, and what you say agrees with Scripture, and that you are being faithful to the gospel message, and following the leading of the Spirit, then it really doesn't matter.
beenblake wrote: The Holy SpiritIf you're preaching out of the Bible... then you ARE preaching from the Holy Spirit!Krispy
Greg,If you don't have one you can probably get it for free. It's called the " The Evidence Bible " compiled by - Ray Comfort -It's truly remarkable and used specifically for just that, "witnessing". There are tons of articles relating on how to respond to questions from non believers. Theres also tons of articles on things such as: Information on Islam and how to respond to them for salvation. Information on Mormonism and how to respond to them. Buddhism, Hinduisum, Jehovah Winess, and more. This Bible answer's "Hundreds" of questions in Article's that people ask you and equipt's you with the answer using scripture. It's remarkable, and truly easy to read and understand.One last note that i'll quote from, at the front of Ray Comforts " Evidence Bible"Quote:The text used in this Bible is a "Comfort-able KJV" - a sensatively rivised King James Version, in which archaic words have been simplified to make God's Words more understandable.Scriptural quotations designated Amplified are from the Amplified Bible.End QuoteI called them up awhile back after purchasing a pocket size New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs "Evidence Bible" just to tell them how awesome it was for witnessing and reaching the loss with all thier questions and how to respond, and that i wanted to purchase thier full and complete Bible and to my shock they insisted on sending me the whole and complete "Evidence Bible" free of charge along with a CD and many tracks. I was so stunned. :-?
My apologies for resurrecting an old thread, I was searching in the archives and I had to reply.I am shocked that most of you use the KJV (in open-air preaching). I think it creates such an unneccesary linguistic barrier between the preacher and the lay-man. You must understand language is evolving more and more rapidly everyday. People (lay-men) really dislike the archaicness of the KJV. And my fear is that if that would keep away some people from hearing you out, is it really worth it then to preach with the KJV?The KJV is great, but seriously, 'consider your ways'. You must understand that in America (and in the U.K.), literacy is on the decline. It shows in people's conversations. They would be thrown off balance if they heard the KJV. Think about it, what if your preaching to some poor person who isn't very literate. You're reading from the KJV, say, and he is thrown off. He doesn't understand a word your saying with your thee's and thou's. So he walks away and you lost the chance to reach out to him... just because of something so minute as a translation that is out of date. If you had an updated modern translation, maybe he would have stayed to hear you out.Now, I understand that the modern translations may go easier on what it calls sin. If your worried about that, then just update the modern versions your preaching from.I use the English Standard Version. It's very nice.
I did'nt know there was another version. ;-) Well, if Gods word is perfect, and, one verse comes to mind, Psalms 12:6-7, Please read these verses closely. "The WORDS of the Lord are PURE WORDS:" (notice words is plural) this means all his WORDS. RIGHT? "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, PURIFIED seven times.v.7 Thou shalt KEEP them, O Lord, thou shalt PRESERVE THEM" (plural), (NOT the context, NOT the message), but, "THEM from this generation FOREVER". It is my understanding that Elizabethan English is the purest form of English. It is the language of the PURITANS, it is the language of SHAKESPEAR. So, therefore, the thees and thous are as important as the rest of the words, because they are pure. Thee is plural, and thou can either be singular, or plural. This is very important to remember when you study the word. The problem is, were trying to bring the word of God down to mans level, when it's not mans word, it's Gods word. :-D
Honestly, Jordanamo, I don't see your point. Now I'm not an "Open-Air Extraordinaire," but most don't just stand and read scriptures when in the OA. It might happen, but usually you do a lot of Q&A. It may be possible that literacy is on the decline, but literacy has to do with reading/writing, not listening. Even if they do have a small vocabulary, they should be able to understand the message. People (lay-men) really dislike the archaicness of the KJV.That is just a personal opinion. If you are flaming with passion you can quote the KJV or the ESV and people will stop. If your heartless and have no annointing you can read either one and you will flop.
I have a story about literacy that I would like to share with you. My wonderful wifes Grandfather,who was a baptist preacher, could barely read or write when he answered the call to preach. He only had a sixth grade education. He learned to read and write very well through studying the word of God, and could pronounce, and define every word that was in the bible, CORRECTLY. He served as a pastor of a small country church for most of his life. He won the familys in the are to the Lord, and died having a great testimony.
Honestly, Jordanamo, I don't see your point.Looks like you missed it.Now I'm not an "Open-Air Extraordinaire," but most don't just stand and read scriptures when in the OA. It might happen, but usually you do a lot of Q&A.Most do. If your not reading Scriptures, then I don't know how your preaching. Normally preaching in the open-air, from my experience, includes reading some if not a lot of Scriptures. Q&A includes answering with the Scriptures. Thus the translation your using is important.It may be possible that literacy is on the decline, but literacy has to do with reading/writing, not listening. Even if they do have a small vocabulary, they should be able to understand the message.Literacy is reflected in understand and comprehending words. I'm not speaking in literal terms, you should be able to tell that from the context. Again, the KJV is archaic (TO LAY-MEN-- i.e., most people) in the modern-day language of English. It throws them off, and that means God can't get glory just because you like to stick with a 200 year old translation that a lot of people have trouble understanding. I even for one. Even though I like reading it for it's sheer poetic linguistic value, it can be hard to comprehend.
This isn't a personal opinion. It's a completely fair generalization. Use simple logic here. Most lay-men of the public do not understand the KJV as as well as compared to modern versions. If you are flaming with passion you can quote the KJV or the ESV and people will stop. If your heartless and have no annointing you can read either one and you will flop.You must hit the mind if your going to hit the heart. Their both connected. You can't preach in Spanish to an English audience and expect them to understand, when you have English at your hand to use. If you say, "well, its my native language, the Spirit will convict them!".. that's just nonsense. You got English at your hand, so you'd use it. The same with KJV vs. modern versions. It's out of date. People have a hard time with it. You've got versions that are generally more comprehended and understandable to the lay-men than the KJV, so use it.Think of the eternal consequences of just one person not listening to you because you quote from the KJV and it throws them off because they aren't as intelligent as you are and they can't comprehend it.Again, consider your ways!Me: People (lay-men) really dislike the archaicness of the KJV.That is just a personal opinion.
Thee is plural,'Thee" is singular! (and objective If the experts can't get it right...? ;-) If you want to get this right here is something I did a little time ago called Teach Thyselfe Olde Englishe.
Sorry philologos,I got it backwards. Boy, I really have to be careful don't I? :-o :-D
To philologos Very good read. If you know this than why question the KJV?
A fairly detailed answer to this question may be found here. :-)
Honestly, those other versions do something to me when I read them. Don't ask me to explaine, I could'nt put it into words. I have done a little research on them just to have a working knowledge, but, I would rather stay out of them if possible. Thanks for the read
Could anyone constructively respond to what I wrote concerning preaching with the KJV?I think it's an important issue and I don't know why you guys who replied did not confront it wholly.How can you justify using a version to preach in the open-air when it's something that you have to 'teach' yourself to read because it's so archaic and out-dated? The N.T. was not written in scholarly Greek, but common Greek that the masses understood in those days.Please take into prayer and consideration my thoughts and comments concerning this so vital issue.
JordanamoI have done quite a bit of open-air preaching over the years and always carry a Bible that 'looks like a Bible' because I want the hearers to know where I am 'coming from'. I have done similarly when speaking to young folk in clubs or schools. I want them to know the basis of what I am saying...you will have noticed that I have not answered your question. ;-) The reason is I don't recall ever "reading" the scriptures in the open air. I quote them constantly, prefaced by the old Billy Graham intro "the Bible says" but open air listeners are often a transitory congregration and I have never felt it appropriate to 'read' scripture at such times. If I am in personal conversation I would show someone a 'verse' of scripture, usually from the KJV and would translate it 'on the fly' into modern English.I find it instructive that Paul did not 'read' (or even quote) scripture in Athens but started from 'where they were'. Philip did quote scripture to the Ethiopian but that was where the Ethiopian was at the time, but there is was the enquirer who brought 'the Bible' rather than the preacher.We sometimes have folks here on SI quote the verse “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1Cor 1:21 KJVS) but 'preaching' here is not the method but the content. In all these passages... Matt. 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. Luke 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 1Cor. 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1Cor. 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Cor. 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 2Tim. 4:17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; ... the reference is to the content of the message rather than the methodology of the messenger. In all but the last of these references the word 'preaching' is preceded by the definite article so as to read 'the preaching'. The NKJV has captured the sense better...“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1Cor 1:21 NKJV) The Greek word 'kerugma' is a herald's proclamation.I still believe God 'manifests his word through the message preached'. The key thing about the messenger is his relationship to the author of the message. “And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Rom 10:15 KJVS) Apparently if the messenger has not been specifically sent he has nothing to say even if he says it in Bible verses. :-?
Apparently if the messenger has not been specifically sent he has nothing to say even if he says it in Bible verses.Hi Ron,I was reading this and I can't recall if you ever got to this issue any place? (Who does the sending and how that plays out.) I know this may not be the right thread to discuss it, but have you written on this before?Thanks,-Robert
Ahh. Good post Philo. That is what I was wanting to express. Maybe in a few years I'll have that ability :-P JordanamoI guess I just don't see how it is an issue. I've not really had a problem with people not understanding me when I've been in the open-air. Being in the Bible belt, a lot of people may not even believe it is the Bible if there isn't a few thee's and thou's in there. That could just be due to the "religiousness" that has been put in them from being from this area. The only word I have ever been questioned about is 'drunkard.' Some lady walked by mockingly and said, "Look it up! That's not even in the dictionary." Ofcourse it is in the dictionary. I don't know anyone that if you were to ask them to define 'drunkard,' they would have a problem defining it.
How can you justify using a version to preach in the open-air when it's something that you have to 'teach' yourself to read because it's so archaic and out-dated?I use the KJV in the open-air because that is what I study. I would hate to say "this is a direct quote" and then show them in my "other version" and it not be a direct quote. That's my primary reason for using it in the open-air.
I was reading this and I can't recall if you ever got to this issue any place? (Who does the sending and how that plays out.) I know this may not be the right thread to discuss it, but have you written on this before?Hi Robert,I think in this instance the sender is clearly the one who gives the message ie God Himself. I have some views on 'sending' but I have views on most things. :-D
The reason is I don't recall ever "reading" the scriptures in the open air. I must be the only weird open air preacher that just sits around sometimes in public places and reads Scripture passages loudly :) ("Give attention to the public reading of Scripture" [granted, probably in the context of the local church]) I use the NASB when doing such, but even then I will sometimes give a more "dynamic equivalent" of a verse e.g. substituting "heathen" when reading "Gentiles". I pretty much keep my reading to the discourse passages from the gospels, namely from John, as Paul's epistles can often be too "churchy" in language, and the prophets can be pretty hard to understand in large portions out of their context without being explained.
I pretty much keep my reading to the discourse passages from the gospels, namely from John, as Paul's epistles can often be too "churchy" in language, For some reason this brings an old story to mind. During the Welsh Revival of 1905 one young man was troubled and unable to come to faith. He was asked, by a preacher, the reason for his distress. "I don't know if I am one of the elect" said the young man."What have you been reading?" asked the preacher."Paul, to the Romans" said the young man."That's what comes" said the preacher " of reading other people's letters! You read John's Gospel, and 'mind your own business'"There is a serious side to this. Just how 'relevant' is Romans and the Revelation to the unbeliever? (now we shall have some fun!) :-D EDIT: or to rephrase the question "What right do we have to 'terrify the neighbours' with words which were specifically intended to 'comfort the saint'?“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1Th 4:17-18 KJVS)
There is a serious side to this. Just how 'relevant' is Romans and the Revelation to the unbeliever? (now we shall have some fun! :-)EDIT: or to rephrase the question "What right do we have to 'terrify the neighbours' with words which were specifically intended to 'comfort the saint'?LOL. I think one can no doubt use the epistles and such for preaching material, or "terrifying the neighbors." However, while Romans might be a very challenging book to you and me, simply reading Paul's letter out loud to unbelievers will probably just leave them with a desire to scratch, but no idea as where to begin to itch.However, take John's gospel which was written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him we can have eternal life. Such has unbelievers written all over it.
However, take John's gospel which was written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him we can have eternal life. Such has unbelievers written all over it.I'm not sure that John's record was primarily intended for the unbeliever but I don't want to get stuck in the detail. My point was that the Epistles were intended for the saint and some of the information in them eg is 'mystery' for the initiated ie the saints. If it is true that “... the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Cor 2:14 KJVS)... is there a 'gospel' that we can preach to the 'natural man'?This is not so far off the original theme of this thread referring as it does to communicating with the unbeliever. :-)
I'm not sure that John's record was primarily intended for the unbeliever but I don't want to get stuck in the detail.Well, it was probably written moreso to reaffirm the faith of the saints, as we are in continual need of renewing of our core beliefs. However, John says what it says, and I think John's gospel is especially good for evangelistic witness. The thrust of John's gospel is to show people Jesus, or as John the Baptist said, "Behold!" And such John does with long narrative stories mixed in with relevant dialogues and testimonies.
... is there a 'gospel' that we can preach to the 'natural man'?If you are speaking to the 'natural man' who has little to no knowledge of things spiritual, we ought to start by preaching that Jesus died and God raised Him from the dead, for this is the essence of the gospel. They can surely understand that. It's all physical ideas they can grasp. Starting off with heavenly notions of righteousness will totally fly over their heads, as it does most saints!
There is a serious side to this. Just how 'relevant' is Romans and the Revelation to the unbeliever?I'm not sure I like the implications here. Can't the Holy Spirit use any verse or passage to reach the unconverted? Is all Scripture profitable for correction and reproof only in the saint, or in the sinner also? Ron, if I remember correctly, you have said that you were converted at a Billy Graham crusade, did he not use something from Romans that the Lord may have quickened in your heart during his message? He often does. In Christ,Ron
I'm not sure I like the implications here. Can't the Holy Spirit use any verse or passage to reach the unconverted? Yes no doubt. But if they have no prior knowledge, and are given no explination of a lone verse of Scripture, it will probably just stand as that: a lone verse of Scripture. I think what Ron and I are batting around is the idea of reading large parts of Scripture stand-alone open air. Unless the preacher is going to turn around and offer exposition on a long read passage from, let's say, Romans 1-8, then those who have no prior knowledge of the gospel will probably be totally bewildered by the things Paul is talking about. *Further Edit* Where the Scriptures truly get their power from is not in stand alone statements, but when a verse is lifted off the pages and actually brought to the individual so as to bring understanding. This is the goal of expository preaching. So long as the hearer remains in the dark and without understanding, there will be no quickening of the Holy Spirit to convict them..
I'm not sure I like the implications here. Can't the Holy Spirit use any verse or passage to reach the unconverted? Is all Scripture profitable for correction and reproof only in the saint, or in the sinner also? Hi RonI am not trying to legislate here but just to think things through. God is able to use what He will, as I keep on saying Athen's is interesting in that Paul quotes no scriptures. And yes I'm sure God planted words from Romans (not even sure I knew there was a book called Romans then). I am just trying to think why we do the things we do. And if it is true (as it surely is) that that natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God then should this affect our thinking regarding evangelism?As regards your quote above, it does go on to say 'that the man of God' might be thoroughly equipped?
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate