KJV and Copyrights

[SumTinWong]

So which version do you use? If you come from the position that the 1611 is a new plenary verbal inspiration of the text, then any revision thus becomes an editing of the inspired word of God.

I use the NAb, NASB, or NIV. Go back and read the post again. I didn't say that the 1611 is a new plenary verbal inspiration of the text. I have no idea where you got that from reading what I wrote.

 

[SumTinWong]

And Uncle Bud, modern versions aren't just updating the spelling of words like the example that you gave. So, to argue that we're not using the 1611 on that argument is just not valid. We're talking about whole new translations in the modern versions (from different texts too, but we'll stay off that one here).

First of all I compare the versions of today with the KJ. Please go back and read the text of my post again, and the one that it quoted. She was moaning on about the language and having people buy dictionaries when they don't know what words mean and she doesn't even use the original version from 1611. KJV only people contend that they use the AV when it is actually a revised version that they are using. That is what I said. So the argument is valid and still stands. You all are moaning about the 1611 AV when you don't even use the 1611 AV. That is what I was trying to point out, not making a comparison between todays Bibles and the antiquated KJV.

So, what's the reason that there are over 100 different modern versions?

What may I ask is wrong with it if there are actually 100 different versions?

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I use the NAb, NASB, or NIV. Go back and read the post again. I didn't say that the 1611 is a new plenary verbal inspiration of the text. I have no idea where you got that from reading what I wrote.

You misunderstood me, and your right, i didnt draw that from your post.

It was meant to be a question to the KJVO position. Since the 1611, there have been a couple of revisions, some within a few years of the 1611, by some of the same people who translated the 1611. The translators never considered the KJV to be the word of God alone.

 

[SumTinWong]

You misunderstood me, and your right, i didnt draw that from your post.

It was meant to be a question to the KJVO position. Since the 1611, there have been a couple of revisions, some within a few years of the 1611, by some of the same people who translated the 1611. The translators never considered the KJV to be the word of God alone.

Phew. I thought what the heck man I have two people that misunderstood me. I had to go back and read my post and thoguht, what is he trying to say?

Anyway, yeah they thoguht they were making a translation in the English language , not creating THE word of God.

 

[TwinCrier]

Revising a hymn doesn't make is copyrightable again, it is still in the public domain, so there is no profit to the update.

Ahh, that explains it. Thanks.

 

[TwinCrier]

It was meant to be a question to the KJVO position. Since the 1611, there have been a couple of revisions, some within a few years of the 1611, by some of the same people who translated the 1611. The translators never considered the KJV to be the word of God alone.

Spelling correction and printing errors are not revisions. I don't think it's fair for you to speak for the KJV translators. Please post your source for making this conclusion.

 

[hindsey]

Quote: Originally Posted by: TwinCrier Then why not call it How great you are, since that archaic language is so very difficult for you to understand? Personally, I think it's a copout. There is more money in revising bibles than hymnbooks. When I was in school (don't I sould old) we were required to look up words we didn't know in the dic-tion-ar-y. I guess it's just easier to take some revisors word for what the words really mean.http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html


Do you know that the King James Version you read is not the AV 1611 version but an update to that version?

From the actual 1611 Version:
John 3:16 "For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

From the later revision:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I guess you had better get out ye olde english dictionary and practice what ye preach eh-eth?

What KJVO fail to understand is that the originals were in Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew, not ye olde English. So every translation was made into the modern day language. In 1611 it was this. In 2005 it is not. The original texts in Greek and Hebrew are the handed down word of God. Every translation including this one is someones opinion of what the texts mean.

I don't think I misunderstood your post. You are making the claim that the 1611 is different than the KJB that we use today. But the words are the same words. An updating spelling of a word does not change the word. Even between the 1769 edition of the KJB, which is what Cambridge uses to print their Bibles, and what we have today, there are different spellings: musick, saviour, etc. Twincrier's argument was that if you don't know what a word means, look it up, don't change the word to a different word.

The problem with 100+ versions is that people will just look around until they find one that says what they want it to say. Like those people that want to live in the sin of fornication or homosexuality, they will go and use the "Good As New" translation (http://www.bible-researcher.com/gan.html). 100+ versions causes doubt as to what God actually said. If a person doesn't like what they read, they can just pass it off saying it is probably a mistranslation, or there are other ways that the verse could be understood and they don't feel that they have to take it literally. The Bible becomes less reliable. You don't know if what you have is actually the Word of God.

 

[ZiSunka]

What may I ask is wrong with it if there are actually 100 different versions?

Oh there are WAY more than 100. There is a website, I can't remember the address, that list over 200 versions, but they include the NWT and a few others that are, um, a bit unorthodox.

 

[ZiSunka]

Twincrier's argument was that if you don't know what a word means, look it up, don't change the word to a different word.

My argument is that if the meanings of the words have changed, what good is it to look them up in a modern dictionary?

 

[SumTinWong]

The problem with 100+ versions is that people will just look around until they find one that says what they want it to say. Like those people that want to live in the sin of fornication or homosexuality, they will go and use the "Good As New" translation (http://www.bible-researcher.com/gan.html). 100+ versions causes doubt as to what God actually said. If a person doesn't like what they read, they can just pass it off saying it is probably a mistranslation, or there are other ways that the verse could be understood and they don't feel that they have to take it literally. The Bible becomes less reliable. You don't know if what you have is actually the Word of God.

Really? That is what you think? Wow, I thought I was cynical. Must suck to be you.

 

[SumTinWong]

My argument is that if the meanings of the words have changed, what good is it to look them up in a modern dictionary?

That is true. I saw your post earlier and that was a brilliant showing of what words can mean, and do mean from generation to generation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The problem with 100+ versions is that people will just look around until they find one that says what they want it to say. Like those people that want to live in the sin of fornication or homosexuality, they will go and use the "Good As New" translation (http://www.bible-researcher.com/gan.html). 100+ versions causes doubt as to what God actually said. If a person doesn't like what they read, they can just pass it off saying it is probably a mistranslation, or there are other ways that the verse could be understood and they don't feel that they have to take it literally. The Bible becomes less reliable. You don't know if what you have is actually the Word of God.

There may be some translations that go out of their way to support a specific theological position. Biblical scholars who are knowledgeable in the original languages and source materials will be able to quickly identify the intent of the translator if the translator didn't already make that intent known from the get go. These translations will have difficulty gaining respect from those who are interested in minimizing the theological bias that is present in all translations.

There are also many modern translations where minimizing the theological bias is primary to their translation philosphy, with varying degrees of success. The focus on this aspect of translation usually leads to drawbacks on other aspects of translation like clarity and readability. The theological bias of the KJV was a compromise position between conformist and puritan Anglicans in the 1600s.

 

[hindsey]

Can you try to give me an example of a KJV translation that was biased according to their theological beliefs?

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Spelling correction and printing errors are not revisions. I don't think it's fair for you to speak for the KJV translators. Please post your source for making this conclusion.

Sure thing, give me a day or so. I've got a couple papers to write, one of which pertains to this subject. Those come first.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Can you try to give me an example of a KJV translation that was biased according to their theological beliefs?

Sure. There are many biases towards language to raise up the idea of ordination and office of bishops.

KJV - Acts 1:22

Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

The word translated "ordained" is a greek word from the root ginomai and is better translated in modern versions as "become".

KJV - 1 Tim 3:1

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

In this passage, the greek word episkope is translated in some versions as "overseer". For a "high church" like the Anglicans, the office of an overseer would have been an Anglican bishop.