King James Version

Status
Not open for further replies.

GreenEyedLady

My little Dinky Doo
Jan 15, 2002
2,641
167
Missouri
Visit site
✟4,791.00
Faith
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
 
Upvote 0

suzie

Senior Member
Aug 1, 2002
861
31
68
Visit site
✟1,406.00
Faith
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.
 
Upvote 0

Ioustinos

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,719
175
✟56,948.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
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


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 :)
 
Upvote 0

Crono

Regular Member
Feb 9, 2002
218
4
45
Nashville, TN, USA
✟15,445.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
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?
 
Upvote 0

Mr.Cheese

Legend
Apr 14, 2002
10,141
531
✟21,948.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
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.
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,992
267
46
Minnesota
Visit site
✟13,302.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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!
 
Upvote 0

Ioustinos

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,719
175
✟56,948.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by Mr.Cheese
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.


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:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreenEyedLady

My little Dinky Doo
Jan 15, 2002
2,641
167
Missouri
Visit site
✟4,791.00
Faith
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
 
Upvote 0

Ioustinos

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,719
175
✟56,948.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
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

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.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Originally posted by Divinus
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!

On this side of the pond we just as often refer to it as Elizabethan English. :)
 
Upvote 0

ZiSunka

It means 'yellow dog'
Jan 16, 2002
17,005
284
✟38,767.00
Faith
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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
: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.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
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
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Julie

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES
Apr 22, 2002
1,086
5
42
Visit site
✟9,327.00
Faith
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."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.