Author	Thread: King James Only
Admin	King James Only Posted : 19 Oct, 2008 01:32 AM Anyone else here King James only? Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 23 Mar, 2009 05:36 PM Just gonna toss this out there, but there are various hermeneutics (art of translation) that go into the various translations of the Bible. Of course the Greek and Hebrew will be most accurate in the content and context of the text, with the King James being right behind them. However as time has gone on, meanings of words have changed, items to be translated have been lost (in one way or another), and just various other things have happened that lead to the ways some translations go about it. The NIV for example is more or less translated so that it is easy to read and understand the basics of Scripture. Same for the NASB, but it is a bit more in the middle of the road, shooting for simplicity of reading while trying pretty darn hard to be accurate. Not saying any version is more correct than the other, nor am i saying I am an expert in Hermeneutics, but the above is just what i have learned while in school. Still learning every day too. Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 23 Mar, 2009 05:38 PM haha, i see someone else said what i said, only in a bit more detail lol. Post Reply
scurvy View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 30 May, 2009 08:17 AM The factors that a translator must take into account is accuracy, clarity, and beauty. I do admit that the KJV is by far the most beautiful translation, but it is rather inaccurate, and not very clear. The common mistranslation in the ten commandments stating in the KJV is "Thou Shalt not Kill" should actually read, "You shall not murder" as stated in the newer versions. (The Hebrew word for murder is pronounced, "rahatz" meaning there has to be maliceaforethought in this act of killing.) I was actually frustrated with other errors as well in the KJV, such as saying that God tempted Abraham (we know that God never tempts or falls into temptation). However, I do recommend the KJV as a good read for Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon, the more poetic books of the bible. Post Reply
tristan07 View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 31 May, 2009 05:14 PM hermeneutics is the *art of interpretation* not translation, silly wabbit. but yeh I used to get mixed up on that word too. just grab a good book about the differences in bible translations from CBD. It's pretty simple. Not really a spiritual/faith issue, just go by the evidence and facts. there are alot of good books that explain how each translation came to be and what original texts were used and whatnot, no need to be in the dark, just do some investigating. Post Reply
ProHooah7 View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 14 Jun, 2009 07:25 AM Since the publication of the King James version, many more manuscripts have been discovered. The most accurate translation to date of the Bible is the New Revised Standard Version. Period. It's very ignorant to think that a Christian should only read KJV. After all, KJV is a TRANSLATION of the Bible's original form. The NRSV is ALSO a TRANSLATION of the Greek/ Hebrew manuscripts that has completely done away with the archaic language of the KJV. Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 15 Jun, 2009 06:11 PM What most people don't realize is that the original King James translation doesn't even make much sense in our modern world - not because God has changed, but because language and culture changes. Here's a passage from the 1611 King James version - do you know what it means? "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children), be ye also enlarged." (2 Cor. 6:11-13) So, who understood it? I especially like the part about "bowels" - did you know that in Jewish culture, the center of emotion is the bowels? So if one of you gentlemen were interested in a lady, you could say to her "whenever I'm around you, my bowels move" - haha, just kidding! But you get the point. We have to be careful to remember that language and meaning changes in different cultures and different times. When we translate the Word of God, obviously we have to be very careful in order to keep the accuracy, but we also have to translate so that people can understand, or else it would be meaningless. Another story . . . there's a tribe in Africa where knocking is not the same as it is to us. When someone knocks, we think it means they want to enter, but in this tribe, people only knock if they're a thief - they are checking to make sure nobody is home. So, if we translated into their language "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice . . etc" then they would interpret that to mean God is a thief! So when it comes to King James . . . well, it was great for the English speakers of the 1600's, and the following versions were great for the people of that time who actually spoke the language that way, but for English speakers in the 21st century (and other languages), well, we need to read the Word of God in a language we actually speak! Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 15 Jun, 2009 06:19 PM Scurvy, looks like you've also heard about the "ABC's" of translation: Accurate, Beautiful, and Clear. That's awesome! Have you heard of Wycliffe Bible Translators? I know they use the "ABC's". Post Reply
View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 3 Oct, 2009 06:10 AM So, just wanted to point out, that the Amplified is actually the closet correct translation to the greek and hebrew versions of the Bible, so that kinda just thros out your KJV theory. i think that different versions create different responses in people. i personally love the RSV and the ESV. this is only because when studying the bible (theological certificate), trying to understand a bible passage, using different versions in parallel with each other to understand each word/phrase, was essential. these versions just shed light and more meaning on my favourite verses. but i think alot differently to others. so those versions help me. NIV, or TSV, or NLT might help you. each to their own, as long as we are all God-fearing, God-loving Christians who respect and love each other. simple as that. :applause: Post Reply
thealphajustin View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 8 Oct, 2009 02:21 PM i think it can be argued all day about which is translated more accurately. the KJV seems to be a great translation from the Greek. this makes sense tough because at the time Erasmus had mostly Greek manuscripts to work with. of course some Hebrew as well but mostly Greek. anything else was filled in with Latin which is a whole other can of worms. the Hebrew however is not good at all. the thing that concerns me is that at the time the KJV was translated, only about 1000 manuscripts were known. now we have over 5 thought. before the dead sea scrolls were found our olded texts were around 800-100 years old. now we have ones that date back within 100 years of Jesus' death. the JKV does not utilize the new findings of more original scripts nor does it contain a perfect translation of the ones it does use. this of course is why there have been so many publications and revisions of it. what we read today is almost nothing like the original 1611 version. you can download one from e-sword and read the original if you want. a final note.....anytime someone suggest that newer translations "change" the meaning of a verse i have to chuckle. the KJV was not first translation into English. Ever read the Geneva? Or the Tyndale? the standard is the original Greek and Hebrew not the KJV. at no time should English translations ever be compared to the KJV thinking that newer version are "changing" scripture because the JKV is "the standard". it is a beautiful read though :) Post Reply
thealphajustin View Profile History	King James Only Posted : 8 Oct, 2009 02:29 PM sorry for all the typos lol Post Reply

First

<< Previous  10

Page : 1 2 3

Next  7 >>

Last