• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Hector Medina, May 21, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Oh and this could go on and on!
    I am happy to see you standing so firmly on the KJV julie and I appreciate your understanding of others who prefer other translations.
    Here is a good question...why is shakespear still the same? Why have we not changed his writings so that we can understand it? Would it lose its value if we chaged it so we could understand it better? IF one sentence was misused or mislead the reader...would shakesspears messsage still be the same????? hmmmmmmmmmmm
    Anyway...even thougth I stand firm on the KJV...I do know that people can be saved and lead thru other translations. Good luck with the debating.
    I'll just sit back and watch.
    GEL
     
  2. suzie

    suzie Senior Member

    861
    +30
    Christian
    Hope you all dont mind if i jump in here with my little tidbits of info. I had this question posed to me at one time regarding the KJV and attained some info. If this is repetitive of what some of you have already gone over I apologize. It seems like a good discussion.

    The KJV was originally written in the early 1607-1610 with a group of 54 Biblical scholars from only Great Britain. These were divided into 6 groups with 3 working on the OT and the other 3 the NT.One of the rules in translating the KJV was the committees were to follow an older translation known as the Bishops' Bible (written in 1568). and as little altered as the Truth of the Original will permit. Even most of that translation was based on the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible which were revisions of the Tynedale Bible which was published in the early 1500's. Over all the KJV has only 39% of its language unique to itself, and over 90% of the NT can be found word for word in the Tyndale NT. England didnt have any ancient Greek manuscripts until 1628, which gave the translators a great disadvantage trying to decide which passages were in the texts originally, and which were added by someone copying or translating another copy or translation.

    The NIV committee consisted of over 100 scholars from 5 countries who had much older versions which were more true to the originals and much better grasp on Hebrew. The newer translators attempted to correct some mistakes in the older translations. But we still know that over 99% of the Bible is true to the original context (only which is considered the Inspired Word of God).

    The translators of the KJV and American Standard tried to keep the word order as close as they could in translation. The translators of the NIV were developing a reading Bible, and tried to make a thought by thought translation. This conveys the essence and meanings of the original documents, but becomes more conversational to the modern reader.
    One thing to consider for the KJV only readers is that there are people from other countries who dont speak English. They need translation in their own language and they face the same problems as we have in our translations.
     
  3. Ioustinos

    Ioustinos Veteran

    +157
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    US-Libertarian

    Hi GEL! :wave:

    Maybe because Shakespear's works were ORIGINALLY written in Old English, while our Old Testament and New Testament were ORIGINALLY written in Greek and Hebrew :)
     
  4. Julie

    Julie ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

    +4
    Christian
    Jesaiah, hope you know that no one has ever seen the "originals".
     
  5. Ioustinos

    Ioustinos Veteran

    +157
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    US-Libertarian

    Of course :) All we have are manuscripts. It is these manuscripts that our English "translations" are based upon ;)
     
  6. Crono

    Crono Regular Member

    218
    +4
    Agnostic
    Single
    US-Others
    The KJV was not the first English translation of the Bible, and the Bible existed long before it was even translated into English. What is the basis for saying that this one version--in English--is the one divinely inspired version? What does it mean for those who lived before the KJV was translated or for those today who do not speak English?
     
  7. Mr.Cheese

    Mr.Cheese Legend

    +499
    Christian
    Single
    Actually, shakespeares stuff was written like you read it. Old English was way before shakespeare's time. We have no originals of shakespeare. We only had copies of scripts of individual characters and we had to piece together the plays that way.

    As far as originals, no one has seen them, but since 1611, we have found many more manustripts and have come lightyears ahead in textual criticism so now we are better able to come up with better translations.
     
  8. Divinus

    Divinus Member

    192
    +0
    Even Shakespeare needs fairly extensive annotation in some places before people can understand it properly. Also, as Mr. Cheese has pointed out, Shakespeare wrote to be spoken - words written to be spoken aloud tend to be far easier to understand than words which are just plain written.
     
  9. MatthewDiscipleofGod

    MatthewDiscipleofGod Senior Veteran

    +261
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Very interesting conversation going on. I could write a book on the topic (maybe I actually will in the future). I think KJV should be respected but I don't think it's perfect. I perfer NKJV even though I think it isn't perfect either. We need to go back to manuscripts. I think God's word is infallible. Now with NIV and it's wanting to take what I consider divine words of God out upsets me. Then you got the TNIV which makes some terrible changes for the sake of being PC. Not every bible gives a good picture. I own a NIV also. If you only read NIV will you be damned? I don't think so one bit. I think we need to start to draw boundaries though and think before buying the latest and greats translation without even thinking about how accurate or inaccurate it may be!
     
  10. Ioustinos

    Ioustinos Veteran

    +157
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    US-Libertarian

    Sorry Mr. Cheese :sorry: I was trying to find a "description" of the type of English that were used in writing Shakespear's works. I do remember reading some of his works in high school and it was not Old English but it wasn't modern English either :D :wave:
     
  11. Divinus

    Divinus Member

    192
    +0
    Jesaiah,
    The term you're looking for is Early Modern English :) Now you can impress people at parties with random bits of strange knowledge...works for me anyway!
     
  12. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    I don't think anyone would be damned if you read another bible. In my opinion it is the best literal translation. Those who claim that you cannot be saved, you are damned and your sinning to read anything else is crazy.
    I do however feel that that the truth is less watered down and there is more "meat" in the KJV. BUt that is just my opinion.
    Like I have said before. Instead of looking at which bible is the best and reading about manuscripts...should we all be looking at the contents INSIDE the bible..not outside?
    Just a thought.
    GEL
     
  13. Ioustinos

    Ioustinos Veteran

    +157
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    Hi GEL!! :wave:


    I don't have a problem with you prefering the KJV over the other translations :) But as you said it is not that we have the Bible that makes us Christian, but it is what we do with what is inside of the Bible that counts.
     
  14. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +40
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    On this side of the pond we just as often refer to it as Elizabethan English. :)
     
  15. ZiSunka

    ZiSunka It means 'yellow dog'

    +276
    Christian
    I have 34 translations of the Bible. I use them all at different times, usually opening up several when I really want to study something. I always have the interlinear and the NKJ, and Strong's concordance, plus an old book I have called, "King James Dictionary" to help me understand how the meanings of the words might have changed over time.
     
  16. Divinus

    Divinus Member

    192
    +0
    Even when the KJV would be better classed as Jacobean, Didaskomenos? ;)
     
  17. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +40
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    The period of Elizabeth's reign supposedly marked a noticeable, classifiable change in the language. The language apparently didn't change enough between Elizabeth's reign and James' to warrant a reclassification of the language. ;)
     
  18. Divinus

    Divinus Member

    192
    +0
    :p
    Early Modern is a better term, IMO, as you don't then get the problem of talking about Elizabethan English after Elizabeth was dead, and it shows the similarity between our English and "Shakespearean" or whatever, English, while emphasising that they are two different forms. Plus it looks more classy.

    I must say, though, it annoys me when people say the KJV is "Old English" - intellectual snobbery, I suspect - because it isn't. Old English looks totally different.
     
  19. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +40
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    I agree. "Early Modern" is a better term, but not because of people being confused about the time frame. In fact "Elizabethan" does a better job of placing that period of the language firmly into a specific period of time. I prefer "Early Modern" because it fits better in the classifications, "Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, Modern English." But I wanted whoever it was that asked to know the term "Elizabethan" because it's often referred to in that way. :-Þ
     
  20. Julie

    Julie ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

    +4
    Christian
    "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psa. 12:6-7)


    "For ever, O Lord,thy word is settled in heaven"


    (Psa. 118:89)


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

    "...Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." (Luke 11:2)

    "God has placed alot of importance on His words.

    Mathew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

     Psalms 138:2 says, "For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." ...The spiritual life-blood of the human race is the word of God. It brings salvation:

     "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." (1Pet. 1:23)

    It produces faith: "...Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17)

    It brings spiritual growth: "...Desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" (Pet. 2:2)

     Jesus said in John 6:63, " the words that i speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...