Kings James Version why the best ?

[rdcast]

All English Bibles have the same heritage, the KJV I'll admit has had a larger impact, but that's just because the KJV has had a longer time in the spotlight after all 2 Centuries is a long time

Okay, I love the KJV, have several. It's the one translation most ingrained in my soul, the one I started with and will hopefully never be without.

 

[benelchi]

You must actually experience translating to understand the problematic nature of such a project. One of the first hurdles you're faced with is the sorry fact that many ancient words, have no direct translation to go on, so the translator has to choose an idioms for the reader that seems to fit the gap. This is a serious problem for keeping God's written word perfect, indeed, it makes it impossible to do so. Then you have what is called vernacular flow that all translators must bow down to(they have no choice with this), in order for their translations to be politically and civically acceptable. If the reader isn't comfortable, with a reasonable confidence they can read it without stumbling too bad, the translation would fail the readability test. So, there is this constant strain that prevents ever achieving what the inerrant fanatic blindly insists upon. To cheer you up, believe me, it's God's plan.

I read biblical Hebrew fluently, so I do understand the issues involved in translation quite well. Please present your arguments for why you believe the NIV has more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow in their translation of Ps. 37:14. When I look at the Hebrew text and at each of these translations, I just do not see it.

 

[rdcast]

I read biblical Hebrew fluently, so I do understand the issues involved in translation quite well. Please present your arguments for why you believe the NIV has more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow in their translation of Ps. 37:14. When I look at the Hebrew text and at each of these translations, I just do not see it.

ah, you're being unfair by misreading my response. I gave the two examples based on them being brought up by maybe you or someone else in conversation. I never said the NIV or any other translation was more severely bent than another. The fact is, and if you're honest you must agree, all modern translations have to deal with the issues I've mentioned, issues that are never ideally resolved.

 

[OzSpen]

He's no more perfect than you or I. Just like Adam had to come out of the garden imperfect, so does the written word. I doubt even the original manuscripts were perfect. They may have had every jot and title, but once they were translated, you can forget it, and why on earth are you pretending that God promised us this fantasy of His written word handed down form scribe to scribe, perfect each and every time and know for a fact that it has undergone many revisions. That's a lie I wont play with.

Your reply is a red herring logical fallacy. You did not answer what I wrote but spun off into where you want to go.

We can't engage in a logical discussion when you do this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

4 centuries handled, translated by sinful, imperfect man, having had to revise it over and over due to imperfections they claim to have found. Maybe they were right but maybe they were wrong. Fact it, somebody made mistakes.

Yes, and Erasmus could not find a Greek MSS with the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation so he translated from the Latin Vulgate. Since that time, there has been no MSS found that agrees with that translated by Erasmus for these 6 verses.

If copyists and translators are sinful human beings, why does that make the KJV a very good translation for the 21st century?

Oz

 

[rdcast]

Your reply is a red herring logical fallacy. You did not answer what I wrote but spun off into where you want to go.

We can't engage in a logical discussion when you do this.

Oz

It's a sneaky tactic I rely on to channel noses to the grind stone.

 

[rdcast]

Yes, and Erasmus could not find a Greek MSS with the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation so he translated from the Latin Vulgate. Since that time, there has been no MSS found that agrees with that translated by Erasmus for these 6 verses.

If copyists and translators are sinful human beings, why does that make the KJV a very good translation for the 21st century?

Oz

good is a long way from perfect, and a Holy Bible is good for casual communion with God as well as prayer and discussion groups. Pastors make a living from it too. And why would you say "if copyists and translators are sinful" when you know full well they are guilty of all sin as we all are from birth?

 

[OzSpen]

It's a sneaky tactic I rely on to channel noses to the grind stone.

You may call it a "sneaky tactic" but it really is a use of an illogical tactic. I will not engage with you if you will not be open and honest in your communication. "Sneaky tactic" betrays dishonesty in communication.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

good is a long way from perfect, and a Holy Bible is good for casual communion with God as well as prayer and discussion groups. Pastors make a living from it too. And why would you say "if copyists and translators are sinful" when you know full well they are guilty of all sin as we all are from birth?

Again, a red herring!

Bye, Oz

 

[rdcast]

Again, a red herring!

Bye, Oz

You asked If copyists and translators are sinful human beings, why does that make the KJV a very good translation for the 21st century? and I answered truthfully, that there is no if ands or buts about it, they ARE full of sin. The issue of their obvious sin making their work good for the 21st century is the red herring. There work is sufficient for the desired outcome, as long as the desire isn't unrealistic, like it has to be perfect, not gonna happen. All man's work that is completed, was and is performed by desperately sinful men and women. So desperate, they all deserve death. Working on translating God's written word doesn't distract from that fact.

 

[benelchi]

ah, you're being unfair by misreading my response. I gave the two examples based on them being brought up by maybe you or someone else in conversation. I never said the NIV or any other translation was more severely bent than another. The fact is, and if you're honest you must agree, all modern translations have to deal with the issues I've mentioned, issues that are never ideally resolved.

Here were your exact words:

"Both the NIVO and NIV here have more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow. I can't say I can agree with that."

Ref: http://www.christianforums.com/t7656653-18/#post61053333

I am not sure how I could have understood your response any differently than I did; I really don't think I misread it or quoted it out of context.

 

[Keachian]

Make that 4 centuries in the spotlight.

Oz

Between the KJV1611 and the first major update the RV1888? was 2/3 Centuries

 

[Hishandmaiden]

I like the NIV bible. It is so much easier to understand than the KJV bible.
The NIV bible is also the first bible that I received.
But I like only the 1984 version. I do not like the 2011 version, which altered some parts of the bible to be politically correct.
I am purchasing a ESV bible. I heard that it is good, and I am looking forward to reading it when my NIV bible is broken down from normal wear and tear.

 

[OzSpen]

Between the KJV1611 and the first major update the RV1888? was 2/3 Centuries

The KJV I have used in the past is the 1769 revision. It does not have the wording like the original of 1611. The RV and ASV are based on different MSS evidence in the NT compared to that used by the KJV and NKJV.

Oz

 

[childofdust]

If anyone wants the original 1611 KJV (with Apocrypha, notes, and all of it) you can download a scanned PDF here (warning: large file). It is not the best quality, but it is readable. I, myself, use a much better (and bigger) facsimile version in DJVU format.

 

[redrose42]

i was brought up with the king james version its sound relible and has lasted through the years it has stood the test of time

maggie[BIBLE][/BIBLE]

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Hardly anyone uses an actual 1769 KJV. They've been changed since then.

 

[coons786c]

Accuracy of the translation from Greek is most important to me. Of course, the Holy Spirit's ministry is needed in all exegesis.

Oz

Then you need to look into Desiderius Erasmus work.

 

[coons786c]

But, unless you can read the original languages, at a fully competent level, and accept the core documents behind any translations were compiled by men too, and in addition you have a great grasp of literature, both English and those of the cultures in biblical times, what translation are you going to use that avoids "these sinful, imperfect individuals?"

John
NZ

Thats easy its the King James Version, They already did the work for us. Dont you trust that God used these men to write his word?

 

[benelchi]

Thats easy its the King James Version, They already did the work for us. Dont you trust that God used these men to write his word?

Please show me where God said anything about the KJV translators that set them apart from other translators of the bible?