KJV haters

[Albion]

...and it is clearly the most beautiful, uplifting, and even familiar version. If people who say they need a "modern language" version only realized how many expressions and phrases that we all use every day come from the KJV, they might re-think the idea of turning to a simplified translation.

Anyway, it's actually much easier just to find out what the occasionally difficult word appearing in the KJV really means than to move to a completely different translation. Really.

 

[DawnStar]

Bringing back a dead thread like this one is a sure sign that all you want to do is cause contention. Your post adds nothing to this thread but ignorance.

 

[Swan7]

Bringing back a dead thread like this one is a sure sign that all you want to do is cause contention. Your post adds nothing to this thread but ignorance.

Please be very wise in the words chosen.

 

[DawnStar]

Please be very wise in the words chosen.

Do you not think the phrase "they might re-think the idea of turning to a 'dumbed down' translation" was goading? I did not call anyone ignorant. I said the post displayed ignorance. In addition I do not believe Anglicans are supposed to be putting their two cents in here are they?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

In addition I do not believe Anglicans are supposed to be putting their two cents in here are they?

So long as they do not preach against Baptist doctrine, they are free to post here.

 

[DawnStar]

So long as they do not preach against Baptist doctrine, they are free to post here.

Last time I checked KJV only was not a Baptist doctrine.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Last time I checked KJV only was not a Baptist doctrine.

Exactly! As such, they are free to say something either in favour of it or against it.

 

[DawnStar]

Exactly! As such, they are free to say something either in favour of it or against it.

Agreed. But they are not free to goad people. Bringing this dead thread back to life especially in the manner of his post is meant to elicit a negative response.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Agreed. But they are not free to goad people. Bringing this dead thread back to life especially in the manner of his post is meant to elicit a negative response.

I am sure that @Albion's intention was not hurtful.

 

[DawnStar]

I am sure that @Albion's intention was not hurtful.

It was not hurtful. It was obviously meant to incite. If he did not mean it to be that way he should change the wording.

 

[Albion]

Do you not think the phrase "they might re-think the idea of turning to a 'dumbed down' translation" was goading? I did not call anyone ignorant. I said the post displayed ignorance. In addition I do not believe Anglicans are supposed to be putting their two cents in here are they?

Oh, for heaven's sake. Why didn't you just point to whatever was upsetting and I'd have changed it. And no, I didn't say that every modern language translation is "d**** d****," and I really thought that that was a pretty mild and common expression. It wasn't about anyone, didn't refer to anyone, and no particular Bible edition was being discussed by anyone when I wrote that. But there are some that are quite inexact as they pursue readability at a junior high school level. That's fact. The KJV is considered difficult, and it's rated at a 12th grade reading level--12th grade! So anyone who is looking for a newer translation needs to be careful of the one that they choose.

Thank you, The Portuguese Baptist for your post and bye-bye to the rest of the forum. I think this forum produces some really interesting threads but if fellowship is not permitted, I'll pass it by in the future.

 

[Albion]

It was not hurtful. It was obviously meant to incite. If he did not mean it to be that way he should change the wording.

Maybe I could have been asked that before the accusations started. I just now saw this little dust up and quite by accident.

 

[Albion]

Last time I checked KJV only was not a Baptist doctrine.

I said nothing about "KJV only."

 

[Albion]

Bringing this dead thread back to life especially in the manner of his post is meant to elicit a negative response.

I wasn't the one who did that, either. The post of mine referred to here was posted only six minutes after the previous one. Had I seen a dead thread, I would not have made any post, no matter what the topic.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Had I seen a dead thread, I would not have made any post, no matter what the topic.

That is an excellent principle!

 

[Swan7]

That's the thing about texts and conversations online. No matter the structure, it can certainly be taken both ways - all in how the reader reads it.

My only suggestion would be to take a moment before posting anything and make sure what was read, was read accurately. If there are any questions as to what the other meant, by all means, ask politely.

 

[MWood]

I like the KJV

 

[Swan7]

I certainly enjoy it myself

 

[Dave-W]

Also, I remember the bible talking about the jots and tittles of scripture, 'Jots and tittles' are like crossing your t's and dotting your i's in the english idiom.

Except that phrase is NOT an "English idiom" since Our Lord was NOT speaking in English.

 

[tall73]

King James wanted the new translation to be without bias..and no footnotes or commenatry or anything without scripture in it, which a lot of bibles had at the time..church agendas and dissensions. Just plain scripture.

It dispensed with commentary, but the Authorized Version did have notes in the margin. And sometimes they used them to discuss different possible meanings or translations.

Here is an example, from a scan of the 1611 text, of a marginal note that has alternate manuscript readings. It is from 2nd John.

You can check out the scans of the 1611 at this site, and get a text based side by side comparison of the 1611 KJV and the modern KJV.
THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERALL OF IOHN. (ORIGINAL 1611 KJV)

In the below scan we can see two types of margin notes. One gives different readings from "copies" and starts with "or" introducing other possible readings. In other words, it notes a different reading in other manuscripts.

The other starts with "Gr" which gives an elaboration on the Greek text. Usually these are more literal than the translation in the text. In this case the original text reads "mouth to mouth", but the more common English idiom was substituted, "face to face."