• 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.

Kings James Version why the best ?

Discussion in 'Christian Scriptures' started by Christian12, May 13, 2012.

  1. Timothew

    Timothew Conditionalist

    +610
    Christian
    Private
    I can see you like it.

    It sounds stilted to me. Maketh? Leadeth? Yea? Thou art? Thou preparest? Mine enemies? Thou annointest? Runneth over?

    Excuseth me, an insect flyest over mine couch and I must swatest it, lest I becometh overrun with pestilence-eth.

    Does the King James Translation really say "shepard", or was that a typo?
     
  2. L0NEW0LF

    L0NEW0LF Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

    308
    +8
    Lutheran
    Married
    That was a mistake on my part.
     
  3. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    This is much more beautiful, elegant and poetic for me:
    Psalm 23 (NIV)

    1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
    2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
    he leads me beside quiet waters,
    3 he refreshes my soul.
    He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
    4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,
    I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.

    5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
    You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
    6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
    and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

    Sincerely, Oz
     
  4. Timothew

    Timothew Conditionalist

    +610
    Christian
    Private
    I agree, it is beautiful because of its simple elegance. Form follows function. I don't have ape-hanger handlebars on my Harley because they serve no purpose. I think tall handlebars are stupid and ugly. We don't need to dress up the bible in archaic language to make it beautiful either. It's beautiful because it is God breathed.
     
  5. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    I agree. I studied that archaic 'elegance' when I was in high school and studied Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Merchant of Venice, etc. But to continue to use that language is an anachronism.

    That NIV translation of Psalm 23 is beautiful in its contemporary elegance.

    However, its "God-breathed" nature applies not to the NIV (KJV or any other translation) but to the original Hebrew of Psalm 23.

    Oz
     
  6. Timothew

    Timothew Conditionalist

    +610
    Christian
    Private
    Well, yes I agree. Unfortunately, I can't read Hebrew.
     
  7. rdcast

    rdcast Regular Member

    871
    +9
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The KJV is so inspired that I'm convinced blessings should pass from it just by holding it's binding in our repentant hands.
     
  8. Keachian

    Keachian On Sabbatical

    +242
    Baptist
    Single
    Have you read this, it's quite an interesting read, blows whopping great holes in your belief that the KJV is an inspired translation:
    Preface to the King James Version 1611, Part 1 of 10
     
  9. rdcast

    rdcast Regular Member

    871
    +9
    Non-Denom
    Private
    It's not what I read in it, but rather its heritage and its impact on our walk in Jesus Christ. I'm not hear to blow holes in anything, or to take seriously KJV haters.
     
  10. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The KJV is a good translation (not the best) but, like all translations, it has its weaknesses. Here are a couple of the significant weaknesses of the text.

    1) There have been many advancements in the study of biblical Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew over the centuries since the KJV was translated. We have many, many more manuscripts available to us today than did the translators of the KJV.

    2) The English langauge has changed significantly since the KJV was translated. Many passages that were correctly translated and correctly understood by the original readers of the KJV are misunderstood by modern readers today. The difficulty isn't, for the most part, the archaic langauge but words that are commonly used today with very different meanings than were used in the 17th century. Some examples are: let, meat, conversation; all of these words (and many more) carried a very different understanding in the 17th century when compared to English today and since very few KJV only people have bothered to learn 17th century English misunderstandings of the text are prevalent in KJV only circles. Even things about the langauge that are valuable to understand, like the differentiation of the 2nd person singular and plural pronouns in 17th century English, are rarely understood by KJV only people today. To truly understand 17th century English requires one to stop making assumptions about the words they think they understand and go and look up those words in dictionaries that provide 17th century English definitions. It is hard work that is rarely ever done by KJV only advocates.
     
  11. rdcast

    rdcast Regular Member

    871
    +9
    Non-Denom
    Private
    You could very well be right on some of the things you've said, but the funny thing is, here in this thread, I'm defending the KJV while at the same time I'm in another thread defending its alternatives.
     
  12. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I have been on both sides of the fence myself at times. One of the things that often strikes me funny is that people will often try to prove a KJV translation wrong (or KJV only people will try to prove other translations wrong) when, in some cases, both translations say essentially the same thing; the difference is often just a misunderstanding of 17th century English rather than a different choice made by the translators. For example these verses are identical in meaning but changes to the English langauge make them appear to be slightly different.

    KJV Psalm 37:14 The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation.

    NIV Psalm 37:14 The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose ways are upright.


    KJV Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

    NIVO Romans 1:13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. (Rom 1:13 NIV)

    Ironically, many discussions about which translation is better presume a difference in meaning that did not exist in the 17th century.
     
  13. L0NEW0LF

    L0NEW0LF Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

    308
    +8
    Lutheran
    Married
    1611 KJV, Circa 1900 PCE KJV, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1599 Geneva Bible, ESV, NRSV, NASB, HCSB; use them all, among others. They all provide a wealth of knowledge and information and they all point to Christ. The PCE KJV is my most trusted and favorite, but all of these Bibles have a use.
     
  14. rdcast

    rdcast Regular Member

    871
    +9
    Non-Denom
    Private
    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. The newer translations do more and more of this.
     
  15. rdcast

    rdcast Regular Member

    871
    +9
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I too am fond of my 1599 Geneva Bible.
     
  16. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    On what basis do you grant inspiration to the KJV? There is only one group of books that is theopneustos (God-breathed) according to 2 Tim 3:16, and they are the Scriptures (here referring to the OT) in the original languages.

    Don't you understand how many errors were made in the original KJV translation?

    [FONT=&quot]The 1769 revision of the KJV, which we use today, differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 details (Goodspeed in Geisler & Nix 1986:568). On YouTube there is a side by side comparison of the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV. A copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV is currently available for sale as The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha (Oxford World’s Classics).

    [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Bruce Metzger (1992:99-103) has summarised the situation:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]So, which is your "inspired" version of the KJV? Do you read the 1611 edition?

    [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Oz

    References:
    Geisler, N L & Nix, W M 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible, rev ed. Chicago: Moody Press.
    [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Metzger, B. M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,and Restoration (3rd ed). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.[/FONT]
     
  17. L0NEW0LF

    L0NEW0LF Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

    308
    +8
    Lutheran
    Married
    I have the Patriot's Edition from Tolle Lege Press. You? And of course the facsimile from Hendrickson.
     
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    So what is that a description of? Confusion or something worse?

    Oz
     
  19. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +611
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    So do you read the original languages of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek to know this?

    Oz
     
  20. rdcast

    rdcast Regular Member

    871
    +9
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Only Aramaic with references, Hebrew I've studied but to no avail yet. Greek? Well, Greek is Greek to me ^_^
    And yes, I know this from experience.
     
Loading...