who, what, where, when, how?

[louiseandgary]

Why do many Christians quote the KJV. It completely disengages the majority of people. So cut out the whosoevers and thous and wheretofors and stick to plain english. The Bible is confusing enough without this verbal gymnastics.

 

[WashedClean]

I agree to some extent and I usually read/quote the NIV. However, it's my understanding that the KJV is the closest to the original transcripts...

 

[louiseandgary]

The original transcripts were in Hebrew and Greek. Surely any deviation from this is altering the word of God. What we need is to be able to spread the word of God, but how can we if we don't give it in an understandable format.

 

[WashedClean]

OK, I'm not trying to argue with you. But if we quote it in Hebrew and Greek, surely they will be confused. What do you propose?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I think the NIV and NASB are good for quoting. If you want deep study, forget the KJV altogether and go straight for the original texts

 

[seebs]

It may be archaic, but it's also pretty.

 

[CPman2004]

I mostly read the New Living Translation. So you could try that version.

 

[Vigil]

Greetings and Blessing be upon Thee in the name of Thine Lord Jesus Christ.



Haseth tho lost thine mind? Wherefor art thee see any problem pertaining to the original texts of the Kings James Version Bible. Isits not one thy great works?

Sorry, I just had to do that.

On a serious note:

I quote the KJV and NIV versions. I like the Thine Speak of the KJV, because it sounds so proper, however when I seek to talk about the bible. I try to keep my words simple when I seek to convey the bible and it’s message to people. Remember it’s not how much you quote from the bible, it’s how well you convey the message that is the real importance.

Anyone can Quote scripture, not everyone can filter the scripture though there heart, mind, and soul, and then present it to others in a manner that is coherent and easy to understand.

I would believe the Quoting from the KJV is because many believe it to be the most exact, and others just think it looks really cool with the old English word system, while others quote it to sound more intelligent, or to add “Validity” to what they quote.

I would say in truth there are many reasons, but if you do not make your point or spread the word of God, what was the worth of the quote in the first place?





God Bless.

Vigil.

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8)

 

[bratchaman]

I like the NIV and the NESB. The NIV is supposedly transcribed and translated from the original and later texts together.

 

[Underdog77]

I love the sound of the KJV but when I quote (for the most part) I quote the NKJV. The NKJV holds its accuracy of the KJV but holds back on the complex language of the KJV.

All in all I like the both King James versions, the NIV, and NAS.

 

[drummer in Christ]

personally, the version of the bible does not matter to me. As long as you understand the word of god, everything is going to be okay . I know where I'm going in life (and after it), so I'm not to worried about what version of the bible i'm reading.

 

[Asar'el]

Greetings and Blessing be upon Thee in the name of Thine Lord Jesus Christ.



Haseth tho lost thine mind? Wherefor art thee see any problem pertaining to the original texts of the Kings James Version Bible. Isits not one thy great works?

Sorry, I just had to do that.

If you didn't mean to butcher that for a joke, lol, here's how it might read:

Greetings and blessings be upon thee in the name of our Lord Christ Jesus! [ or, if you meant to exclude yourself, ...in the name of thy Lord... ]

Hast thou lost thine mind? Wherein dost thou see a problem pertaining to the tongue used in translating the original text of the King James Bible? Is it not one of the great works?

I use the King James bible because I believe it to the best (most accurate) English translation. Having studied the history of the King James translation, and that of modern versions, I cannot, in good conscience, declare them 'equally good'.

English is not my native tongue; but the 'old English' is more beautiful (imho), and closer to the more 'romantic' languages. A pity that today many folks are willing to learn 'Klingon' or 'Elvish' more than a tongue of their heritage...

 

[Krazeekkc]

Some day I'm going to right a book and prove to you all that KJV is better and more accurate than any other version!

 

[Serapha]

Why do many Christians quote the KJV. It completely disengages the majority of people. So cut out the whosoevers and thous and wheretofors and stick to plain english. The Bible is confusing enough without this verbal gymnastics.

Hi there!





People use the King James version of The Holy Bible for a lot of different reasons... some just because they are comfortable with it... some because they are told that it is the most perfect translation... some because they believe the other translations are poor translations...


But the best translation to use is one that will translate into life.

One must go to the level of the receiving ear to be able to communicate, and if you feel that the King James is "over the head" of most people, then by all means... use a lesser version... all the time, knowing this... the King James is written at a twelth-grade level.

Not every translation is designed to be the "closest" translation... and as long as people using those translations know that, then using lesser translations is fine... for easy reading or to reach an unlearned person...

But I also believe the Spirit of God goes before the witnessing Christian to open the heart and ear of people so they may hear the gospel of Jesus Christ in their "language". Using a lesser translation is for your own benefit because the Holy Spirit will lead anyone on a sincere search into truth.

I would ask you to review the "reference support material" level of translations here....


http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm

~serapha~

 

[Reformationist]

Some day I'm going to right a book and prove to you all that KJV is better and more accurate than any other version!

Well the KJV may be better and more accurate but if you're going to write a book you may want to brush up on your spelling.

By the way, I'm just picking at you. Please don't be offended.

God bless

 

[Freodin]

How someone can show a German flag, and claim that the KJV is "better and more accurate" is beyond me.

I´ll stay with my trusted Luther Bible.

Translation is always a tricky thing, and even reading ancient texts in the original is not fool-proof. You have to realize that you are 2000 years removed from the culture, the language and the mindset of the original authors, and 400-500 years removed from the original translators in your language.

It is not easy to ascertain: "Yes, and THAT was what the author really meant." Often it is possible to be certain that some interpretation is incorrect, but correctness of interpretation can only be achieved by a direct conversation with the authors.

Yes, I know that many Christians claim that they are in direct contact with the author - but differing interpretations make me doubt that claim.

Accept that your preferred interpretation/translation/version may be incorrect, and a major cause for strive is extinguished.

 

[Rafael]

I like to post the NLT, but have found that the KJV is the most concise and easily memorized. The KJV of the Bible got stuck in my heart and mind better than any of the other translations, and when I do a search for scriptures, it is the KJV that lets me find the right scripture. Maybe that just works for me, but another good friend of mine has admitted the same to me about memorization and the KJV.

 

[RVincent]

I use the KJV because of the study tools I have for it. If a verse appears to be obscure, I will supply a brief elaboration.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[Pedant]

Thy Lord, not Thine Lord. Forms of the possessive pronoune ending in -ne are only used before vowels.

[/Pedant]



Asar'el got it right.

However, this is not old English. This is early modern English.

This is Old English:

Fæder ure þuþe eart on heofonum
si þin nama gehalgod tobecume þin rice gewurþe þin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice.

þ and ð are "th"; æ is a sound between "a" and "e", close to the sound in London "cat".

Even Middle English looks pretty strange:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be. Be þi wille don in herþe as it is dounin heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

[Voice=Rolf Harris]Can you tell what it is yet?[/Voice]

 

[Greatcloak]

KJV was commissioned and written witht he intent of being the most accurate veriosn to date, at it's time. Even in current and modern cross referance translations it's accepted as such. The New King James is essentially the same book, just brushed up language to modern standards. I myself go by the Spirit Filled Life Bible.