| Author |
Message |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 623
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 2:53 pm: |     |
I have a low opinion of the KJV, for reasons I have stated elsewhere. Shean Smith sums up my arguments on pages 15 - 21 of this PDF. Most notably:
quote:Since there were already English Bible versions available, the King James Version was not unique. What made it different is that it was translated by decree and authority of a ruling monarch—something no other English Bible translators could profess. King James would show his personal bias by making his Bible the one true Bible in England and abroad. All other
English translations did not have his royal stamp of approval on them and were looked down on as not being authorized to be read in church—a humanistic opinion that thrives in King James Version churches today....
The king’s version of the Bible held on to those ecclesiastical words that best suited his divine right as king and the Anglican system of church. In the message from the translators, they make it clear that they wanted to avoid using the Puritans’ scrupulous recommendations of restoring the Bible to its unadulterated meaning [by properly translating ekklesia as "congregation" like Wycliffe and Luther did, rather than as "church," a phrase whose Greek etymology wrongly denotes a building instead of a people]. The same Puritans sought to purify the Church from papal influence by removing the future possibility of any kind of papist leadership, the greatest detriment to the common belief in the king’s divine right.
That said it is not wrong to study the KJV, but beware of the agenda of its translators when dealing with New Testament ecclesiastical matters.
(Message edited by bskillet on October 27, 2009) |
Nowisee
Registered user
Username: Nowisee
Post Number: 170
Registered: 5-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 3:02 pm: | |
River, when can we look for the New PJA version? I think I would love it! |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 5684
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 4:13 pm: | |
Nowisee,
Yer the first on my hit list...Uh...I mean mailing list.  |
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness
Post Number: 949
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 4:41 pm: | |
River, you make me laugh out loud!!! |
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness
Post Number: 950
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 4:43 pm: | |
I once heard someone say that Billy Graham was asked which was the best version of the Bible. He replied, "The one you READ!"
I'm not sure if he'd say that about the Clear Word, but that was probably before it even existed. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 680
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 6:45 pm: | |
I have a real dislike for the modern versions. They leave words, verses and endings off or put them in the margins. They often don't translate a word the same way throughout a book, unlike the KJV which usually does. That makes following a train of thought through a book difficult. So, for studying, it's the KJV and a Strongs. For reading, the NASB is good, but again, there's a fair amount that gets left out. |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 690
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 9:54 pm: | |
quote:They often don't translate a word the same way throughout a book, unlike the KJV which usually does.
Please take a look at this example and see if it would be better to translate the same word the same way always or to translate it using a word which conveys the meaning:
"The September/October issue of Proclamation took issue with the SDA church's declaration that the Investigative Judgment started in 1844. The issue here is that Daniel 8:44 does not refer to any judgment but answers the question of verse 13."
In this case if one translates the word issue the same way every time, one will mislead the reader because it means totally different things and in the receiving language there may not be a word that would be completely equivalent to the original word. This would happen in any language one translates any writings into.
One wants and need to use different words according to the meaning/context.
Hec |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 691
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 9:55 pm: | |
I appreciate all the comments and answers to my questions.
Thank you to all.
Hec |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 681
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 3:52 am: | |
Hec, true one has to regards context. But, most of the newer versions were translated with often times confusing uses of words.
For example, there is at least one translation that, to avoid appearing to use racial terms, decided to use 'night' instead of darkness in John, chap. 1. So, the light shines 'at night', but the 'night' couldn't overcome it.
At night? What time does the light shine at night? All night? Does that have anything to do with the verse from Psalms 'your word is a lamp and a light to my way'?
You can wind up getting hung up in the literal language and miss entirely the symbolical meaning.
The other big problem with the modern translations is leaving out texts, passages and even whole endings. There is both a long and a short ending to the Book of Mark. Check your modern version and it probably has the long ending missing or in parentheses in the margins. There will probably be a note that says 'not found in the earliest manuscripts'....which while technically true, is not very accurate or helpful.
The long ending was quoted by early 2nd century church fathers. The 'earliest manuscripts' are references to the Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus codexes, both of which were stored and had not been used for decades when they were discovered. Both have big variations from the Textus Receptus and Majority text. Yes, they are older, but that isn't an indicator that they are more accurate.
Do yourself a favor and pick up a book titled 'Crowned with glory' by Dr. Thomas Holland. Read through it and do some comparisons, then decide which version you want to use. |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 5686
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 7:56 am: | |
Since Loneviking has a far better education, plus even more book larnin’than I do, I am inclined to agree with him, but really not for the reasons he is such a likable feller and kept his nose in the books.
No less than 14 different versions, including several commentaries include mark 16:17.
Actually I would have to call on Loneviking to help me out as to which one left this out, because I don’t have the versions that do in my possession, thank God .
The subject came up briefly in theology class, but not pursued, accept the instructor preferred to leave it in, because of the evidence for it.
(I studied under my Uncle Lewie, just in case yer wonderin’.
I suspect the clicker for latching on to the said stored versions was because of the tongues, more than the poison and the snakes.
More likely, and especially those who are sessationist at heart latched on to this with the excuse that said stored versions did not contain this passage.
Perhaps because these ‘signs’ had never been made manifest in their own life?
Most people do not have common sense problems with taking chances on picking up a big old rusty rattle snake (I know I don’t, I pickem’ up by the tail very carefully after killing him twice dead, then backing over him a time er two to make sure) and neither do they have a problem with taking chances on dolloping down a slug of strychnine. So they don’t really have uncommon sense enough to think the Lord meant us to latch on to said live rattle snake and snuggle up to him.
All accept a few in the backwoods of Kentucky who decided to test it out for real, and if I ever visit Mary, I will stay clear of those churches to be sure.
Don’t worry Mary, I ain’t ready to board one of them airplanes just yet so you are safe for now.
But in my experience people do have problems with the new tongues bit.
If you was to pin them down, they would probably (after having been grilled over more than a smoked pig), say that they would have left 16:17 in if it wasn’t for those infernal tongues!
Tongues being one of the signs that follow believers according to Uncle Mark, it does create a problem.
Being sort of half honest folk, maybe even three quarters honest, they read through the book of Acts, and finally, after being beat over the head with a two by four, conclude that at least tongues are for some, but not for others, even then their favorite version is the one that leaves it out! Because low and behold there is still that infernal SHALL in there!
Now for the KJV’er only-ers, it does create a real problem if not a darned one of these signs manifest itself in their lives, so they study Mexican Spanish a few days and call it good. Their total repertoire is unos’ dos’ and via Cucamonga!
So fer them that prefers the versions that leave what uncle Mark had to say in, I recommend you pick up a book called Spanish fer dummies so you can get in little practice, just in case! Just in case you become a believer enough that the Lord decides to baptize you in the Holy Ghost and you let rip with tongues in a Baptist church, er down to the Lutren church were Leigh Anne hides out of a Sunday morning ifin’ she ain’t at Disney Land.
It has amused me no end (My wife says I’m easily entertained cause I laugh at T.V. commercials) well dang it, they are funnier than a barrel of monkey’s, anyhow it amuses me no end that since I been on this forum, that the most unlikely ones, the most vigorous one who don’t believe innem’, end up speakin’ innem’! Dang that’s funny! Especially since I figure them’s the one what got the versions that left it out.
So Hec old buddy, I recommend you might listen to brother Lone Viking there and latch on to that book ifen’ you can, just in case!
I know the Lord sure pulled a switch on me back in those early years, because I was always a scientist at heart (I figured out how to make a hot tub out of the bed a my Ford four by four).
So Hec, just in case you end up speakin’ in tongues (Since I know you’re a worry wart), you might practice this…say, Paddy picked a peck of pickled peppers while rubbing yer belly and patting yer head at the same time.
River |
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg
Post Number: 501
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 10:27 am: | |
I particularly like to listen to Scripture. I have a set of dynamic NLT CDs in my car as well as a little i-pod-like thingie I got from gobible.com that's loaded with NIV every which way to Sunday.
When I listen to Scripture I get to hear the whole flow. It just keeps on going when my SDA records get kicked off by some verse or other, so I don't tend to get bogged down in my own little thoughts that just go round and round (you know! ).
I've found that often Scripture sounds a whole lot different than it reads. You absolutely can't tell the verses, and chapter breaks tend to be noted rather inconspicuously. This makes "reading" Acts, for instance, more like listening to my favorite uncle tell about his travels overseas; Romans like hearing Paul talk to you in person.
Of course, for you King's English fans, they have those too.
But they won't sound like either your favorite uncle or Paul.
Pegg
(Message edited by pegg on October 28, 2009) |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 693
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 12:39 pm: | |
River,
I'm a worry wart? I may be old, but I'm no wart. LOL
Hec |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 682
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 5:52 pm: | |
Pegg, you're right about it sounding different when read! That's why versions like the NIV or NASB often are better for listening to, or for church readings. Note, I said use KJV for studying....and memorizing as there are some passages in the KJV that just can't be duplicated in the watered down versions.
River, those modern versions don't often leave it out, so much as they put the short version in and relegate the long version to a marginal reading. That's enough to confuse most anyone, and it's entirely uncalled for! The short version should be in the margin, not the other way around.
That's not the only example. I've been going around and around over on CARM with a bunch that want to translate Rev. 22 as 'take away from the TREE of life' (modern versions), instead of 'the book of life' which is the KJV. Look up book of life in a concordance and tell me how tree makes sense.
I could go on with examples like that for hours. But, you folks get the drift.
River, si', se habla un poquita, pero lo entiendo bien! Porgue? Quiere visitan Mexico?
Does handling bull snakes count for anything? |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 5688
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 6:36 pm: | |
I don't know Loneviking, if yer out just to impress the girls...more especially if they are all blondes..a bull snake just might pass for a rattler.
River |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 683
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 5:39 am: | |
Yeah, the one we have in the ol' aquarium sure did his best to make us think 'rattler'! All curled up, tail vibratin' like crazy next to some dead brush. Too bad for him, we like catchin' snakes. He's tamed down now, we toss him a mouse a couple times a week. |
Gcfrankie
Registered user
Username: Gcfrankie
Post Number: 632
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 9:43 am: | |
Loneviking,
I would like to suggest a parallel bible where you can compare a verse from several versions side by side. My version is NKJ,NIV,Living,and NRSV. This is what I started with and have grown from there.
Gail |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 685
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 3:15 pm: | |
Gail, the problem with parallels is that how do you know which wording is closest to the original? They can be helpful in getting an overall 'feel' for a book or a passage, but they aren't really designed for serious study.
I collect odd versions of the Bible and I have a New Testament around here somewhere that has some 16 translations used on each verse for any significant differences. So a verse will be in KJV, then 'NASV...' 'Moffat...' Tyndale....' . It's fun to wade through it, if a bit confusing at times as to which verse is being referred too. |
|
