Why is it that most all converts cling and defend modern Bibles (albeit do use the King James too), when you had the wisdom and knowledge to know to come out of a religion probably because you study and did research and if so must have researched the histories of Bibles, manuscripts, translations and translators?
I haven�t done a lot of researched in Bible codes nor need to go beyond my KJV, but I do believe the codes are only encoded in the Hebrew books, the Textus Receptus and the KJV and none of the modern Bibles can encode. Some of these codes are pretty trippin. Daniel12:4 does say (knowledge shall be increased), and Im thinking our high tec world and brainiack professors may not be what God had in mind for knowledge, after all the Preacher did say in Ecc 1:9 (no new under the sun), Im thinking that knowledge has always been here waiting for us.
No offence on the word convert. the Lord God uses it graciously in Isaiah 6:10 (Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.)
I like what my thesaurus says about a convert �To change into a different form, substance, or state� and uses the word �translate� which is only used once in the Bible in 2 Samuel 3:10, go king David! And poor Abner (no pun intended) :~)
Why is it that most all converts cling and defend modern Bibles (albeit do use the King James too), when you had the wisdom and knowledge to know to come out of a religion probably because you study and did research and if so must have researched the histories of Bibles, manuscripts, translations and translators?
James replies:
I think you mean versions of the Bible, or Translations for the title of this thread.
The reason? Because the art and science of Translation has improved.
You should not use an old KJV bible for serious study, because you don't speak that language.
The best translation for a Modern English speaker?
ESV or English Standard Version. The ESV and the NAS have the tightest word for word translation.
I think it is ironic that some protestants demand KJV only, and it was a translation paid for by a CATHOLIC king, in response to the protestants Geneva Bible!
Which Bible did the founding fathers use?
The Geneva Bible!
Which one did Shakespeare use?
The Geneva Bible!
And now Modern American Christians hardly have even hear of it!
Here is a link:
http://www.genevabible.com/editions.php
So, to recap, why do Christians use newer translations of the Bible?
Because language changes over time, and the art and science of translation has improved. the KJV has been changed so many times it is silly. There is even a KJV dictionary, because modern English speakers don't know the definition of a lot of words in the KJV.
Which translation do I recommend?
The ESV is in my opinion the best for modern English speakers.
In reading James's post about tightest word per word it made me think perhaps some may benefit from the following.
Basically Bible Translations are made (translated) 3 different ways. This is mainly due to differing sentence structure in different languages. For instance one language may say 'the house is red' while another may say 'red the house'. Also meanings of words change with language, time and place, so it is important to understand who was saying what and when.
1) Translated word per word as close as possible and have it still readable. (It will be up to the reader to understand the who, what, and when) Example: New American Standard (NAS)
2) Translated phrase per phrase to obtain the best sentence structure in the new language. (Flows better, but takes small liberties in interpretating certain meanings as to who, what, and when) Example: New International Version (NIV)
3) Translated idea per idea. Takes the idea being conveyed and presents it in a new language. (Reads like a newspaper. Takes large liberties in interpretation in who, what, when and even factors in the "why") Example : Living Bible
The English version King James1611 also known as the Authorized version are a good start, although there is a 12 verse rule of difference in the printing that should always be kept in mind. The modern KJV and the now NKJV are modern bibles that I believe are susceptible to error due to there sources. And Leon, don�t get me started on that most historic document that was taken out of the trash can at the Vatican.
Twosparrows:
I really appreciate your knowledge and mannerisms and do respect your opinion here. Defiantly the context of every verse is extremely important.
ThunderofGod:
I kinda feel a slap there, let me turn my other cheek to you. I believe my English version KJ1611 is complete with the Old and New Testaments, the Hebrew texts for me are no longer necessary.
cool trek1:
1:Sorry I know very little about the Koran.
2: I can see how one might feel judged by the topic, no judgment intended. I believe my English version KJ1611 is complete with the Old and New Testaments, the Hebrew texts for me are no longer necessary. Other languages I wouldn�t know, I only know English.
3: I would be very carful listening to words of men who claim to be learned and have insight from God.
SirJames:
That�s totally absurd, I mean common Shakespeare! What part of the KJ1611 Bible are you having a stumbling block with? There is so much wrong with what you said that it needs a whole new thread, one being �the KJV has been changed so many times it is silly".
To answer my own question is, I think why most converts cling and defend modern bibles is because converts coming out of a religion now on fire for Jesus Christ have a different mix of fellowship, and the modern bibles being the most popular are used to be on the same page. And or maybe they used them in the religion they were in, got saved using them and have a sense to cling and defend it.
I believe Jesus Christ is God and that the English version King James1611 Bible (also known as the Authorized version) is an exact word for word God inspired Bible, infallible (including Mark versus 9-20), and the translators were in full prayer with the Holy Ghost (God) when this Bible was translated using the Holy Testus Receptes, Im not sure of the accuracy of the sources of the modern bibles that the translators used, and question some of the translators themselves. I do believe and have heard several Born Again Christians say they were saved by a modern bible but have switched to the KJ1611 Bible only, for their increase of the Truth, and Truth is accuracy, and Galatians 5:9. Im pretty sure any one that has given serious verse for verse consideration of the modern bibles compared to the KJ1611 can give a pretty decent rebuttal to someone defending verse modification of any modern bible.
Sorry about the lengthily post I have started very few threads in about 20 years of owning a computer and have a sense of duty to this thread. I am no Bible scholar and believe everyone should do their own study and research.
"That�s totally absurd, I mean common Shakespeare! What part of the KJ1611 Bible are you having a stumbling block with? There is so much wrong with what you said that it needs a whole new thread, one being �the KJV has been changed so many times it is silly".
James replies:
What exactly did I say that was absurd? Be specific.
First, I would have been more honest of you, if you just admitted that you are KJV ONLY. If you will re-read what I said, I said I have a real problem with using an OLD KJV Bible, BECAUSE YOU DON'T SPEAK THAT LANGUAGE.
I also said that the art and science of translation has improved, and the English language has changed.
All of that is reasonable and common sense, UNLESS you are KJV ONLY.
KJV ONLY is not really about the translation it is about the Textus Recepticus. I think KJV ONLY is silly and wrong.
If you were to take ALL the most extreme positions of the KJV ONLY crowd, it would not change even ONE doctrine!
You have already admitted you believe the KJV Translation itself is inspired, and I don't believe in infallible translations.
I stick by what I said earlier, the ESV and the NAS are the best for Modern English speakers, although some other translations are also very good.
You asked, What exactly did I say that was absurd? Be specific.
I gave you two in my rebuttal to your first post who you hold in regard of validation for the bibles you promote. The first was Shakespear who I believe was a Catholic and possibly a Jesuit, either or neither I doubt he was born again because a man of his literature would have shown fruit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Shakespeare
The second is your statement �the KJV has been changed so many times it is silly". This one I ask you to give me proof and I ask you to stick to the Bible in reference here the English version KJ1611.
More absurdities you gave:
1: �Because the art and science of Translation has improved.� Science also tells us of the big bang theory
2:"You should not use an old KJV bible for serious study, because you don't speak that language." I speak the language in my Bible, its in English. And most people who study the Bible rather they commonly use modern bibles or not do use the 1611KJ for serious study.
3:�ESV or English Standard Version. The ESV and the NAS have the tightest word for word translation.� This statement does not make sense. �tightest�? Are you saying it has the most translated verses? If you take the name Jesus out of the Bible are you doing it justice?
4:�I think it is ironic that some protestants demand KJV only, and it was a translation paid for by a CATHOLIC king, in response to the protestants Geneva Bible!� I think this quote sums up your faith in the Textus Receptus, you have none.
5: �The Geneva Bible!� I have only made reference to the 1611KJ and modern bibles. Here you attempt to make direct conflict with my topic and post, and even catagorize me in a group and calling me out into saying Im involved in a tight nit group that believes in only one book and one book only. Well wrong again SirJames I have nothing against the Geneve Bible, the related Hebrew books, Textus Receptus and many history books, also I have no affiliation with any such group that calls themselves KJ only.
I�ve said this before, be very careful following the words of men. The founding fathers that you seem to put your trust in have searchable quotes that could rock the very foundation of what you believe their biblical foundation is.
Actually I have no problems with the KJV other than that I don't think it is as reliable as newer translations simply because of the availability of more manuscripts since it was originally written. And why the 1611 KJV when there are older versions of it. I would love to see the Geneva Bible in print with updated spellings and letters but no changes in the wording. I have it on my computer and I read it often. I also use the NKJV and NSA. I just find it interesting when people claim the KJV is their favorite translation and there are so many different versions of it that's all. No offense intended, just having a little KJV fun.
You know, United States is about the only country that argues over translations. We get so caught up in traditions, it's nuts.
The reason why new converts like the newer translations is very simple: THEY CAN READ THEM.
I know people love the older KJV versions, but most people now a days just can't understand them. If you love the old translations, fine. But, don't try and push them on to new coverts as is they are somehow better, or more "spiritual" than the newer translations.
To me, I think the KJV has become the circumcision of the first century. Because we find it comforting, therefore it must be the correct one. You are piling on obligations that are not Biblical
It is also funny that most KJV only people are lost with a 1611 edition. They cannot read it or understand it.
I am Baptist, so you know I see these people all the time. The sad part is, they would rather go by it than any of the original manuscripts. (Well, as close to original as we can get)
There is nothing wrong with the KJV.It has stood the test of time better than many translations. Mainly because it has been updated so many times. These are not major changes, but things like spelling. But that is one of the reasons that you have to have footnotes to understand it. Below is an example of what I am talking about:
Job 22:30 He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. KJV
Job 22:30 He will even deliver one who is not innocent; Yes, he will be delivered by the purity of your hands." NKJV
Would anyone have gotten not innocent from island of the innocent? It is clarified in the footnotes, but most people only read them in bible study.
I can's speak about other languages (due to ignorance). However, in Spanish, there is a LOT of debate concerning which translation of the Bible is more valid/best/etc.
My Bible is actually bilingual. It has Spanish on one page and English on the other. Interestingly, phrases in English that are ambiguous due to language are sometimes crystal clear in Spanish.
My Russian Bible exhibits an even greater level of specificity in the language. However, the English allows for more personal interpretation. That is mainly because English has so many meanings that can be derived from the same sentence or phrase. Other languages do not. Russian is extremely precise and demonstrates a great deal of precision. This is the reason the language is often used for research.
Sparrow was correct on translations. To translate a text word for word is to risk losing the meaning entirely. When sentences or phrases are translated for meaning, the context and interpretation has then passed through a person. That person now has flavored the text through their interpretation and subsequent translation. What is fascinating is that even with all f this, the Bible still essentially says the same thing in all the languages.
The reason that is so amazing is that if the same text is translated by several people, the results often resemble the old game of telephone. A message passed from one person to the next is essentially incomprehensible or bears little relation to the original message when the last person says what they heard. Each person interpreted the message personally and that changed it just a touch. By the end, all those little changes are really amplified.
When considering the Bible, with all the "touches" and cultural differences between languages, it is truly amazing that the documents even slightly resemble each other. God is the only one who could have pulled that off.
So, as to which version of the English Bible is better, my opinion is whichever one you will read, study, and use to know our Lord better.
