King James Version

Originally posted by franklin


neo, sounds about right, God is the creator of eveything including good and evil! There is plenty of evidence in scripture that says God creates peace and He creates evil, or disaster.... Thus God is the source of "evil" in the sense of being the ultimate permitter of the problems that we have in our lives.
Hebrews 12:6-11, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth...If ye endure chastening...afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."

Click to expand...

This isn't a mistranslation in the KJV. With all due respect, it's more of a misunderstanding on your part. The 'Evil' as spoken of is not the essence of evil, or wickedness. If you read the entire KJV bible, you'd realise that this word also refers to the consequences of evil, such as pain and suffering. Also, In Job, it was written:

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

It was obvious from Job's viewpoint that the evil that was spoken of was the painful events that had since transpired.

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
I believe that God can teach anyone to read the bible. Saying that someone "struggles" to read ANY version and to go reading another version that is more watered down

Click to expand...

Modern versions are not "watered down" (well, some of them may be, not all of them are).

God gives us what we can handle and leads us where he wants us to be regarless of what version. Reading the KJV is not that hard. Once you start readin it, its like reading anything else. I like the KJV I think it is the best translation out there.

Click to expand...

More power to you. As I said, if someone wants to read the KJV, then they should go right ahead. I have no problem with people reading the KJV, or saying they like it the best.

I draw the line at telling other people they *must* read the KJV or they are reading a "corrupt" version that has been made with Satan's influence. That I cannot agree with (or allow to stand as an "alternate opinion")

-Chris

It would appear as if this person has not done much translation, or at best has taken maybe a year of Greek and uses the Interlinear as a crutch to establish his/her point.

Click to expand...

Using an interlinear is a good way to make yourself seem as though you know Greek (or Hebrew) without actually having to get a thorough understanding of the language. You can look up the English translation underneath, then find whatever Greek word you have a problem with, and look that up in the dictionaries and then come up with a scholarly-looking, but weak-foundationed theory or interpretation.

I am all too sadly aware of my own deficiencies in this, as I cannot read Greek - all I can do is transliterate the letters into English letters, and recognise a few words. I have an interlinear (in fact, the one mentioned above) and it is tempting (and too easy) to go down that route. Use of an interlinear, along with use of Strongs, is something I regard as an indication that a source is not to be greatly trusted.

And, of course, saying "some scholars say" in an essay I've done that myself, when I'm too chicken to say "I think that...". Thankfully, its a habit I'm near to breaking.

Emma

Emma,

My point is not to disparage the use of interlinears and Strong's. These are useful tools, for those who do not know the language. The problem is that to assume that because of that the person "knows" the language, which is not true. Even worse is when someone makes a declarative/definitive statement about a text or doctrine based on that information.

I have been reading Greek for 20+ years and Hebrew for 19 years. But I consider myself a neophyte in these languages. The more I learn the languages, the more humble I have become about my abilities.

At the same time, the internet has spawned many "instant experts" because they can publish an opinion, others can quote it and it seems to gain acceptance as "authoritative. In reality there may be no, or little, authority to the teaching or position because it is based on faulty grammar/vocabulary/exegesis/interpretation.

Originally posted by filosofer
My point is not to disparage the use of interlinears and Strong's. These are useful tools, for those who do not know the language. The problem is that to assume that because of that the person "knows" the language, which is not true. Even worse is when someone makes a declarative/definitive statement about a text or doctrine based on that information.

Click to expand...

Thats what I was getting at Its an easy trap to fall into, particularly if you really really want to know something about the text, but don't have the knowledge of Greek or hebrew to read it for yourself, then to use an interlinear, and then look up definitions and so think you "know" exactly what it says.

At the same time, the internet has spawned many "instant experts" because they can publish an opinion, others can quote it and it seems to gain acceptance as "authoritative. In reality there may be no, or little, authority to the teaching or position because it is based on faulty grammar/vocabulary/exegesis/interpretation.

Click to expand...

Thats why if I see references from Strongs I tend to take less notice of the "instant experts". My apologies if anyone is particularly fond of Strongs, but I have some suspicions about how good it actually is, and in any case its the easiest Greek & Hebrew tool for non-languists to use to back up a point/come up with a new definition, etc.

Emma

Im think Im with filosofer up there. I know some Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and I translate through parts of the NT and OT (and other literature) every day. The more I study the languages, the more I'm aware of how really tough Bible translation is -- even when you have all the best reference grammars and lexicons. I read books and articles nearly everyday where one well-established scholar is disagreeing with another about the best translation and meaning of a text -- both in light of linguistic information as well as historical background. It makes my head spin sometimes. But the more I understand the depth of the difficulty in all this, the more I become very leary about any of those Vines dictionaries, etc. -- especially since more than once I've heard people make unfortunate interpretations based on the parsing of a verb, or the bad choice of a homonym -- and the truth is, they make loads of interpretive decisions to try to "guide" you to what they think is a "proper" understanding -- which may or may not be right. Vines is one teeny tiny dictionary on the whole Bible, and it "makes interpretation seem easy". But when I need to do my translation work, I need to use a huge 1100 pg Greek Lexicon, and a 2100 pg Hebrew/Aramaic Lexicon.

I can take a particular example my "issue" from my own life: before I started learning Greek, I used one of those Greek-Hebrew Word Study BIbles. Big mistake on several levels. One in particular is that I've heard it remarked several times by scholars that the editor's (Spiro Zodhiates) BIblical Greek isn't very good (because he's a modern Greek speaker), and it shows in that he does bad exegetical work. Anyway, I made many an unfortunate interpretation from that book -- both because of some of his Greek and Hebrew, but then also because of some of the conclusions I drew based on the Greek and Hebrew. Looking back, I think that book is a horrendous danger -- both to the one who might "kind of know" the languages and the one who doesnt.

I have lots of thoughts on this, but I'll stop now.
-JD

The KJV is a very bad translation loaded with "Blashemous titles" you read about in Revelation.

In Isaiah 65:11 the word "troop" was taken from the Hebrew word "Gad" which "Gad" is transliterated in English as "God". "Gad" was a deity of "fortune" and "well being" and "prosperity".

In Hebrew 4:8 KJV stuck "Jesus" where"Joshua" belongs".

Julie,

you stated back in post #45 that you liked the NKJV because some of the archaic language has been updated. The NKJV went threw the same translation technique as the NIV and other modern translations. It is not and update of the KJV but a completely new translation apart from the KJV.

A great book to read concerning KJV onlyism is by James White entitled The King James Only Controversy.

If one is looking for a KJV translation where the archaic language is updated look to the 21st Century KJV. The folks who publish this fall into the KJV Only camp but it is tha KJV that has been truly updated.

I have a question for those who believe the KJV is the only truly inspired translation....Which KJV is the one that is truly inspired, the 1611 version or one of todays KJV that has been updated? If you say the 1611 version is that the one that you read?

If you are interested and will take the time to read it here is a good link that answers your question:http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp

Julie

Jack Chick is not a reliable source of information IMHO. By that I mean that he is wrong (sometimes to the point of deceit) more than he is right. IMHO Chick is sort of like the Christian equivalent of the National Enquirer. . .once and a while he does get something right, but much of the time he is wrong or uses a horribly wrong approach. I am not trying to be judgmental, but merely discerning as a Christian.

As Christians, we are supposed to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves, nevertheless if we are not careful we may end up being as wise as doves and as gentle as serpents. *Ouch!*

I am sorry if I have caused anyone any hurt feelings  

BTW I am a Protestant raised in the Independent Baptist tradition, although I'm currently nondenominational going to a Baptist church. Just so you know. . .

There are no hurt feelings, You are entitled to your opinion.

The article was not written by Jack Chick.

Julie

 

 

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Romans 8:32

Julie,

Skimmed through the article. It is pretty long and i just got home from work and am beat.

have you ever read the Appendix to the original 1611 KJV?
I have a copy and I would like t give you a couple quotes from the translators themselves. This appendix reveals that the translators had something totally different in mind than those in the KJV Only movement.

" Translation it is that openeth the window to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel: that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the Most Holy Place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered (Genesis 29:10). Indeed WITHOUT TRANSLATION INTO THE VERNACULAR TONGUE, THE UNLEARNED ARE BUT LIKE CHILDREN AT JACOBS WELL (WHICH WAS DEEP) , WITHOUT A BUCKET OR SOMETHING TO DRAW WITH (John 4:11)

This clearly shows that the KJV translators set out to give a rendering of Scripture that could be understood by the common man. It also shows that they expected this to happen again and again whenever the need arose. I know of no one except Pastors and Preachers who use the KJV who speak this archaic english. This clearly shows the need for a current translation in the vernacular of modern english for the common man. the NIV and other modern translations fill this need.

It has been a long time since I read this Appendix and I just skimmed the things I highlighted. I remember reading that they acknowleged their fraility and shortcomings and admitted they had limitations in making this translation. We have to remember that we are talking about a translation. We probably do not have the original manuscrips and if we did we probably wouldnt know it. We can put the pieces of this puzzle together and come super close to what the original manuscripts were.

At the time the KJV was translated they took the best manuscript evidence they had available to them and did the best they could do with it. Today we have thousands more manuscripts available and we have more info available to make a better translation.

I have nothing against the KJV. It is an outdated although worthy translation of the scriptures. I believe it has its place in serious Bible study and should be used. I think for these and many other reasons the NIV is a far superior translation to the KJV.

I do not oppose the KJV either. I simply agree with kern that the line should be drawn at denouncing other versions as "satanic" or producing a needless dichotomy in Christianity between the "good" KJV onlyists and "lesser" Christians who don't read the KJV but read another recognized as legitimate version.

Archaic Words in the NIV



BIBLE VERSE.......... NIV ..................KJV
Ezra 9:5 ..........abasement............. heaviness
Is 24:23 ..........abashed ..............confounded
Ezek 40:18 ........abutted ...............over against
2 Chr 15:14....... acclamation ...........voice
Is 13:8 ...........aghast ................amazed
Ezek 40:13 ........alcove ................little chamber
2 Chr 13:22....... annotations........... story
Num 31:50 .........armlets ...............chains
Acts 2:6.......... bewilderment.......... confounded
Ps 58:7........... blunted ...............cut in pieces
Job 8:2 ...........blustering ............strong
Ps 93:4 ...........breakers.............. waves
Ex 35:22.......... brooches ..............bracelets
Is 57:4 ...........brood .................children
Dan 10:6 ..........burnished............. polished
Rev 4:3........... carnelian .............sardine

The NIV is up to date? Easier to understand? Does away with Archaic words??

I am not defending the NIV.
I am simply defending the privilege to choose whatever legitimately recognized version that is preferred by the reader.
If that is KJV, good for you! If it is NJKV, NASB, or even NIV, good for you also.

Originally posted by Julie
Archaic Words in the NIV



BIBLE VERSE.......... NIV ..................KJV
Ezra 9:5 ..........abasement............. heaviness
Is 24:23 ..........abashed ..............confounded
Ezek 40:18 ........abutted ...............over against
2 Chr 15:14....... acclamation ...........voice
Is 13:8 ...........aghast ................amazed
Ezek 40:13 ........alcove ................little chamber
2 Chr 13:22....... annotations........... story
Num 31:50 .........armlets ...............chains
Acts 2:6.......... bewilderment.......... confounded
Ps 58:7........... blunted ...............cut in pieces
Job 8:2 ...........blustering ............strong
Ps 93:4 ...........breakers.............. waves
Ex 35:22.......... brooches ..............bracelets
Is 57:4 ...........brood .................children
Dan 10:6 ..........burnished............. polished
Rev 4:3........... carnelian .............sardine

The NIV is up to date? Easier to understand? Does away with Archaic words??

Click to expand...

This post was directed to heydeerman, and I do see your point Susan.

It is a well known fact that King James english is not spoken by anybody anywhere. It is an unfamiliar language to most Americans and english people anywhere. My post was intended to show a need for updated transations. The KJV translators themselves recognized this need.

The KJV is not an inspired text. It is a translation as well as the NIV. Do I believe God was involved in the process...of course. I believe God is in the business of preserving His word. He has done so with the NIV and other translations as well.

I dont want to get into a "word war" trying to prove what words are archaic. You are at a serious disadvantage supporting the KJV in this way.

Again let me go on the record that I am not anti-KJV. It is an excellent translation. A needed translation. It is not the "only" translation though.

The KJV has mistakes, although none on issues of essential doctrine. Just like the others. However the accuracy rate for all recognized translations varies from 95 to 98 percent as a whole (including things like misspellings, wrong names, and other minor and irrelevant typographical errors) and is 100 percent on essential doctrines.
Also, if a typographical error were to affect a doctrine (such as the infamous drop of the word "not" from "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in an edition of the KJV no less) it would be compared against historical Biblical evidence (the manuscripts and existing legitimate versions) and be corrected.
Also a question, if the English of that time was "divinely inspired," why is it that several KJV words are now at the very least impolite in conversation, and at the worst, highly vulgar?

Originally posted by Julie
IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?

Click to expand...

That is a good question. The basis of our faith is Jesus Christ who is perfect. The Bible is the testimony to him. In other words we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. We are NOT saved by grace through faith in an infallible Bible.