a bible question

[BlueWolf35948]

I'm taoist...trying to make my way in the general apologetics forums (and not really having any luck either...)

I've been reading the King James version of the bible to back my points up, but I've been told time and time again that I'm referring to the "4th grade version of christianity" or that I'm just wrong...

What's the predominant bible read by the christians of this site, so I can be more accurate in the future? (bother that there are more than one versions...sigh...)

By the way, my posts are "Concerns about the theme of christianty pts 1-4", maybe someone who reads these forums can help me get my point across in the general apologetics forums? Haha...

Ciao,
Joe

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Most Baptist use the King James Version.

 

[heron]

Joe,
Please don't take that "4th grade" comment to heart! The King James version was the best in its time. It has gone through many revisions, but they didn't always check with original Greek and Hebrew when they made the changes.

People either love or hate KJV...but that's usually about the rich Old English. Olde English.

When I run across verses that don't seem in sync with the rest of the Bible, I look at Strong's Definitions (I bought Bible Library CD for about 8 bucks years ago.) of specific translated words. Some examples here... http://www.josiahnews.com/controversy/retranslation.htm

A lot of people here use NIV- New International Version. They're all very similar, even those paraphrased for easier reading, so I would read any one you can get your hands on.

I will look for your other post.

 

[icxn]

You are Taoist! Wow! Taoism is 100% Orthodox Christian Theology... you only have to replace the word Tao with Christ.

icxn

 

[Ann Doupont]

I'm taoist...trying to make my way in the general apologetics forums (and not really having any luck either...)

I've been reading the King James version of the bible to back my points up, but I've been told time and time again that I'm referring to the "4th grade version of christianity" or that I'm just wrong...

What's the predominant bible read by the christians of this site, so I can be more accurate in the future? (bother that there are more than one versions...sigh...)

By the way, my posts are "Concerns about the theme of christianty pts 1-4", maybe someone who reads these forums can help me get my point across in the general apologetics forums? Haha...

Ciao,
Joe

Hey Joe,

I'm not sure what a taoist is. Maybe you could explain briefly for me.

Regarding Bible versions, my favorites are the King James Version, the New International Version, The New American Standard. I sometimes look at the Amplified Version. The Living Bible is pretty popular these days.

Don't be concerned about what others like or don't like. If it's a genuine translation, like the KJV is, it's fine. The only problems with is seem to be that you have to sort of translate the "thees" and "thous" and quite a few other terms that were used in 1611 when it was translated.

I don't care for the New King James Version. I can't really tell you why. I just don't like it. I do like the NIV (New International) very much, and read it and the KJV mostly.

God bless you.

Ann

 

[jbarcher]

Are you really trying to explain what ancient texts says, or are you looking for English translations to support what you think Christianity is?

If the former, I'd like to know what scholars you have appealed to in order to exposit those ancient texts. If the latter, no knowledgeable person will take anything you say about ancient texts very seriously. See here for more details.

 

[BlueWolf35948]

icxn! guess what!

You replaced the word tao with Christ, I didn't replace Christ with Tao!
But you know...thanks for belittling my philosophy and everything...sigh.

Taoism is the mindset that what is, is, and what isn't, isn't... in the end it's all the same, but the less you ask of it, the more you recieve. The critical difference between taoism and christ as icxn put it so inaccurately, is that taoists stress equality and stress humility...where as these values really don't seem to matter to christianity anymore. Go out and read the Tao Te Ching... it's like... 50 pages...

You don't need a big book to make a big message

Even if you don't like the thought of converting...eh...don't, the tao te ching reads like poetry anyway. Keep your faith, but watch closely where it takes you, and what it does to we who don't agree.

---as far as my version of the bible thing is concerned... what I know of christianity, I know of the king james version. I'm not looking for absolute proofs because it's pretty futile to point out absolute contradictions in the bible since even these are somehow immune to common logic when they're questioned.

=) who wants to know more about taoism? IM me, let's chat... we'll have fun, promise (I won't try to convert you, no worries).

 

[Serapha]

---as far as my version of the bible thing is concerned... what I know of christianity, I know of the king james version. I'm not looking for absolute proofs because it's pretty futile to point out absolute contradictions in the bible since even these are somehow immune to common logic when they're questioned.

HI there!



The King James Version is written at a twelth-grade level. Maybe you are talking "above" the people in your posts????


this link might help you...

http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm#NIV


~serapha~

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

It must be hard for you to come here and have to talk down to all of us. It so beneath you.

 

[mystery4]

I'm taoist...trying to make my way in the general apologetics forums (and not really having any luck either...)

I've been reading the King James version of the bible to back my points up, but I've been told time and time again that I'm referring to the "4th grade version of christianity" or that I'm just wrong...

What's the predominant bible read by the christians of this site, so I can be more accurate in the future? (bother that there are more than one versions...sigh...)

By the way, my posts are "Concerns about the theme of christianty pts 1-4", maybe someone who reads these forums can help me get my point across in the general apologetics forums? Haha...

Ciao,
Joe

Don't believe those who say the KJV is a forth grade level. I personally don't use it because I don't understand half of what its saying. I've heard the most popular version in the Bible is the NIV. Its more in today's language.

As far as what the most predominant version read by people on this site, I don't know. All I know is that the Bible version they have on this site is a KJV, if that is any help.

 

[VCman]

The problem I have with the KJV is the fact that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was a translation of a translation. Ancient Greek to Latin to English. A translation of a translation doesnt suit my fancy. Thats why I choose either the NAS or the NIV.

-VC

 

[BlueWolf35948]

Hmm, I'm really not trying to talk down to anyone...and as far as my reading comprehension is concerned...ha, well I have no problem with that (I've always been a pretty voracious reader, I have a pet library actually =)

I was looking more along the lines of which bible is more 'accurate' to a more 'true' translation of the christian faith, but it seems to me to be a toss up between the KJV and the NIV... I've got dozens of both, some new, some old, so I'll check out the differences between the two and see which I like better.

I'm beginning to think however that the reason there are so many discrepancies between my reading of the KJV and the people who've disagreed with me, is that I just read it as a fiction which instills a faith, and the people who disagree read it as the backbone of their morality... minor difference eh? =/

Oh well, I'll make do, thanks for your help everybody

Ciao,
Joe

 

[BlueWolf35948]

or maybe one of these days I should get around to finishing learning latin eh? hahaha

eh, no biggie =P

 

[icxn]

icxn! guess what!

You replaced the word tao with Christ, I didn't replace Christ with Tao!
But you know...thanks for belittling my philosophy and everything...sigh.

Taoism is the mindset that what is, is, and what isn't, isn't... in the end it's all the same, but the less you ask of it, the more you recieve. The critical difference between taoism and christ as icxn put it so inaccurately, is that taoists stress equality and stress humility...where as these values really don't seem to matter to christianity anymore. Go out and read the Tao Te Ching... it's like... 50 pages...

And where is your humility my friend?

Accept humiliation as a surprise.
Value great misfortune as your own self.
What do I mean by "Accept humiliation as a surprise"?
When you are humble
Attainment is a surprise
And so is loss.
That's why I say, "Accept humiliation as a surprise."
What do I mean by "Value great misfortune as your own self"?
If I have no self, how could I experience misfortune?
(Tao Te Ching)

A humble person does not speak up when belittled... after all, as Lao said or as St. Theophan (A Christian Saint) put it:

"This is the measure of humility: if a man is humble he never thinks that he has been treated worse than he deserves. He stands so low in his own estimation that no one, however hard they try, can think more poorly of him than he thinks himself. This is the whole secret of the matter."

Your friend nonetheless,
icxn

 

[heron]

Joe's original post was humble, but received some very defensive responses. In fact, the other threads he started ended up the same way. The heat seemed to generate from one member's post to the next, and maybe we were all reading more into his questions than we would admit.

He simply asked what version of the Bible to read.

"...don't seem to matter to christianity anymore."

How perceptive. Throughout history, Christianity and its denominations have had to keep in check with the pendulum swings. We are in fact at the opposite end of the 1970's self-denial swing, and starting to bounce from the 2000 prosperity trend. We'll pop in to balance for a bit in another couple of years. ;-)

 

[Mr.Cheese]

The KJV is a very poetic, but very dated translation. Also, when one does not know the mother language then it is wise to have at least two other good translations as well because you cannot translate one language into another in only one way and convey all the nuances of the original language.

The NASB is a good translation.

I prefer to use anything except the KJV. Its language is antiquated to the point that many people don't know what the words mean anymore.

 

[novcncy]

The problem I have with the KJV is the fact that it was translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was a translation of a translation. Ancient Greek to Latin to English. A translation of a translation doesnt suit my fancy. Thats why I choose either the NAS or the NIV.

-VC

Not the right forum, but the above is a wrong statement. The KJV comes from the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Textus Receptus.

The KJV is a fine translation, but sometimes a little confusing due to the evolution of commonly used English words. (gay, for example, used to mean happy or cheerful) IMHO, the best translation of the Bible we currently have is the New American Standard Bible (NASB), because it is easiest for the average English speaker to use while being faithful in its translation. I use the KJV because I am most familiar with it, but unless you have used it for quite some time, its English can be a little confusing. I can elaborate if you desire re NASB and KJV, but I say again, the KJV is NOT translated from the Vulgate.

 

[novcncy]

I was looking more along the lines of which bible is more 'accurate' to a more 'true' translation of the christian faith, but it seems to me to be a toss up between the KJV and the NIV... I've got dozens of both, some new, some old, so I'll check out the differences between the two and see which I like better.

I'm beginning to think however that the reason there are so many discrepancies between my reading of the KJV and the people who've disagreed with me, is that I just read it as a fiction which instills a faith, and the people who disagree read it as the backbone of their morality... minor difference eh? =/

Oh well, I'll make do, thanks for your help everybody

Ciao,
Joe

Well Joe, there are many who will take issue with your assumption regarding the NIV being an accurate translation. You see, it was translated by committee, and whenever something offended a special interest group of the committee, that particular passage was edited until everyone approved. Sort of like a congressional bill. So some things that are VERY strongly denounced in other translations, are not plainly spoken of in the NIV.

There are two main families of texts for the NT. The NASB and the NIV use the same family of texts, yet if you compare them, you will see significant differences. The KJV comes from a different family of texts. In fact, there are verses in the KJV that are not in the NIV, and put in italics in the NASB, to demonstrate the differences between the families of texts. SOOOoooooo, as if you weren't having enough troubles figuring out this whole Christianity bit, now it's even more muddied. Don't despair, there are entire books dedicated to textual criticism which blah blah talk about the science of determining the authenticity of divergant texts. One really good book I read is called "One version only?" and talks about the variations, and more importantly, the commonality between different source texts. At first, it would seem more confusing, but once you begin to learn about the complexity behind the Bible, it becomes much more improbable that it would have survived on its own.

I wish you good progress on your journey.

 

[wayfaring man]

- From Blue Wolf -What's the predominant bible read by the christians of this site, so I can be more accurate in the future?

I read The King James , almost exclusively . The New King James changes too many key words , not just "shall" into will , "Thou" , into You ... etc.
The King James combined with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance w/ Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries is quite sufficient in conveying what was meant by what was said : If only we study with an open , honest heart .

Form Blue Wolf -The critical difference between taoism and christ as icxn put it so inaccurately, is that taoists stress equality and stress humility...where as these values really don't seem to matter to christianity anymore

Many people seem to make the mistake of attributing apparently incomplete / hypocritical professions as that which defines the unpretentious and genuine .

Which is like deciding apples are bad for you , because the ones you've been sampling are either terribly sour , or predominately overripe .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick definitions (Taoist)
noun: an adherent of any branch of Taoism
adjective: of or relating to the philosophical system developed by Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life
adjective: of or relating to the popular Chinese religious system based on the teachings of Lao-tzu but including a pantheon of gods along with divination and magic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the " simple honest life " part ; but the pantheon of gods etc.

That's a Big " No No " , according to Christianity , Judaism , and even Islam .

Peace and Joy In Jesus Christ .

wm

 

[wayfaring man]

Not the right forum, but the above is a wrong statement. The KJV comes from the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Textus Receptus.

The KJV is a fine translation, but sometimes a little confusing due to the evolution of commonly used English words. (gay, for example, used to mean happy or cheerful) IMHO, the best translation of the Bible we currently have is the New American Standard Bible (NASB), because it is easiest for the average English speaker to use while being faithful in its translation. I use the KJV because I am most familiar with it, but unless you have used it for quite some time, its English can be a little confusing. I can elaborate if you desire re NASB and KJV, but I say again, the KJV is NOT translated from the Vulgate.

Appreciate this , I was also compelled to write what you did .

The beauty of the King James , is that it is largely the work of William Tyndale , who was a faithful martyr for The Lord and The Word of God , and for one to endure martydom well , they must be full of God's Spirit - the same Facilitator one needs , to understand The Scriptures and convey their meaning accurately via translation .
His last words were , " Lord , open the king's eyes " , as he was being burned at the stake , and strangled by severely misguided zealots . Then around 70 years later King James comes along , and in acute contrast to the way of the " ruling party" of those times , declares that The Holy Scriptures , should be translated into the language of the common tongue .

A bunch of Scholars were hired and they " compared digently " all previous works , which included William Tyndale's , and Miles Cloverdale his understudy .

That's what was learned , when studying the subject quite some time ago .

May The Lord Be Please To Bless .

wm