King James Version Only...?

[Wrangler]

It’s Numbers not Deuteronomy (pay attention) and your favorite translation makes the case for infertility not a miscarriage. Num 5:21 - “At this point the priest must put the woman under oath by saying, ‘May the people know that the LORD’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel[fn] and your abdomen to swell. NLT

Here, your closed-mindedness really loses out on the weight of Scripture. Words have meany senses. Different translations often flush out these different senses.

I don't know who you think you are to pontificate what the better case is for translation. Some translations recognize the sense of the words better point to miscarriage. Fact. I'll take their expert opinion over yours, over you subordinating the text from God to your doctrinal filter.

 

[RLT63]

You keep moving the goalposts.

Didn’t move anything.

 

[RLT63]

Here, your closed-mindedness really loses out on the weight of Scripture. Words have meany senses. Different translations often flush out these different senses.

I don't know who you think you are to pontificate what the better case is for translation. Some translations recognize the sense of the words better point to miscarriage. Fact. Ill their expert opinion over yours.

Look at what the majority of Bible versions say. I’ll take the majority of expert opinions over yours. To keep from further derailing the thread I started a thread on this topic. https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/a-biblical-abortion.52997/.

 

[RLT63]

Tales of Translation: Thought-for-Thought Translations - Bible Study Tips

Thought-for-thought translators examine the whole sentence and do their best to move it over as an easily understood unit....

www.biblestudytools.com

I know literalists used the term 'paraphrase' as a pejorative. The non-literal translation process is properly called thought translation. I know this because I've read the introductions to my thought translation Bibles. Here is where the reliance on literal translations breakdown; the book is highly figurative. For instance, "a rolling stone gathers no moss" may be translated into a different language. However, there is a meaning of the idiom beyond the literal words of the expression.

I find literal translations an inferior translation, a bit sophomoric.

That's my opinion and I'm not going to change it; certainly not based on your petty criticisms. Yabut the NLT website says ...

Opinions are like butt holes everyone has one and most of them stink. JK. You are entitled to your opinion. The NLT is not a version I would use for serious study. I did use it for reading through the Bible and read the NT in it and it’s great for just reading through the Bible. But there are places it makes interpretations and changes and I would be aware of that when reading it. I already gave one example.

2Co 12:2 - I was caught up to the third Heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don't know—only God knows NLT /////.

2Co 12:2 - I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third-Heaven. NKJV .///////. 2Co 12:2 - I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. NIV

 

[Wrangler]

Look at what the majority of Bible versions say. I’ll take the majority of expert opinions over yours.

Why? Since when does the majority mean correct?

The majority of Bible versions jettison the KJV Middle English. Does that make the KJV wrong? Or does your appeal to majority apply when it is convenient for you?

 

[Wrangler]

the NLT … it’s great for just reading through the Bible.

I’ll take any translation over a translation with James in the title.

The idea that after centuries of further study, newer translations cannot improve upon KJV/NKJV is preposterous on its face.

 

[RLT63]

Why? Since when does the majority mean correct?

The majority of Bible versions jettison the KJV Middle English. Does that make the KJV wrong? Or does your appeal to majority apply when it is convenient for you?

I have never advocated for King James English so I don’t know what you’re talking about. It doesn’t make the KJV wrong just outdated. I love how you only address what you want and ignore the elephant in the room..

 

[RLT63]

I’ll take any translation over a translation with James in the title.

The idea that after centuries of further study, newer translations cannot improve upon KJV/NKJV is preposterous on its face.

The NKJV accepts the further study and references the differences in the footnotes. You are just showing your bias.

 

[Davy]

Go read any Bible you want. I prefer KJV. I don't have any problem with reading Middle English so it doesn't bother me. I find it to be the most artistic rendition and therefore most inspired. If I give someone a Bible, I would want them to have the most beautiful rendition of the Bible I can give them, so I give them a KJV. If they are stumped (for some reason) at reading it, they can get another translation, but you can keep the KJV as a work of art in its own right and go back to it when you're more comfortable.

Work of art, now that's funny, and a cave in to Liberalism.

The KJV Bible most use today isn't even the 'original' 1611 1st edition that was in Old English including Old English characters. So it's ignorance by those who keep trying to claim they don't like the KJV because of Old English! They really show they don't have a clue what they are talking about, but only regurgitating things they've heard from false prophets.

 

[Wrangler]

I have never advocated for King James English so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

I'm sure.

It doesn’t make the KJV wrong just outdated.

"Just outdated" is how you know there are better options.

The KJV is both, wrong - the most wrong translation available today - and outdated.

I love how you only address what you want and ignore the elephant in the room..

What, pray tell, is the elephant in the room?

 

[RLT63]

I'm sure.

"Just outdated" is how you know there are better options.

The KJV is both, wrong - the most wrong translation available today - and outdated.

What, pray tell, is the elephant in the room?

You ignored the verse I quoted from the NLT and how it changed the Word of God, and I agree the NKJV is a better option than the KJV

 

[Wrangler]

The NKJV accepts the further study and references the differences in the footnotes. You are just showing your bias.

Bias? You are too kind. I condemn it's use in the strongest terms possible, having concluded after careful study it is the worst of all possible options!

The NKJV remains an out dated translation. I may be getting mixed up with another thread, but I recently explained that it is not merely the words but the archaic sentence structure that NKJV keeps. It's like reading a novel written by Yoda. I hope, right, you are.

No one talks this way today.

I rely on a translators to overcome all these handicaps of translation. Jesus did not speak the King's English. I really don't know why anyone in the 21st century would read the most error ridden translation, written in an obsolete form of the language AND THEN, IDOLIZE it.

 

[Jim B]

Are you making a case in support of Westcott and Hort?

No, I am not "making a case in support of Westcott and Hort". What I am saying is that they were instrumental in the field of Bible translation. Their work is viciously opposed by the KJV people, who insist that progress in the art/science of translation stopped with the "satanic" Westcott and Hort. That is absurd.

They also claim that most modern translations are based on Westcott and Hort, which is nonsense. The art/science of Biblical translation is based on the best source materials and the best interpretation of those ancient documents.

Fanaticism about Westcott and Hort's work is stupid.

 

[Wrangler]

You ignored the verse I quoted from the NLT and how it changed the Word of God

Hmmm. I think your standard of reference is wrong. That is why you cannot understand the God of the Bible causing parents to lose their baby, etc. Because of your poorest of all possible translation choices, you never understood correctly what the word of God is.

 

[RLT63]

Bias? You are too kind. I condemn it's use in the strongest terms possible, having concluded after careful study it is the worst of all possible options!

The NKJV remains an out dated translation. I may be getting mixed up with another thread, but I recently explained that it is not merely the words but the archaic sentence structure that NKJV keeps. It's like reading a novel written by Yoda. I hope, right, you are.

No one talks this way today.

I rely on a translators to overcome all these handicaps of translation. Jesus did not speak the King's English. I really don't know why anyone in the 21st century would read the most error ridden translation, written in an obsolete form of the language AND THEN, IDOLIZE it.

This post lets me know you have never read the NKJV, you are going by something you have read or been told

 

[Jim B]

You ignored the verse I quoted from the NLT and how it changed the Word of God, and I agree the NKJV is a better option than the KJV

How did it "change" the Word of God? Every translation is an interpretation of the source materials and, as you may not know, there are no original Bible sources in existence.

 

[RLT63]

Hmmm. I think your standard of reference is wrong. That is why you cannot understand the God of the Bible causing parents to lose their baby, etc. Because of your poorest of all possible translation choices, you never understood correctly what the word of God is.

So the NIV is the poorest choice? This is what I compared it to

 

[Jim B]

Again I don’t care who you believe.

Again, you obviously believe only what you believe and reject sound scholarship, That's an excellent example of a closed mind! And your opinion of what I believe is irrelevant.

 

[Jim B]

So the NIV is the poorest choice? This is what I compared it to

The NIV is an excellent translation. Period.

 

[RLT63]

How did it "change" the Word of God? Every translation is an interpretation of the source materials and, as you may not know, there are no original Bible sources in existence.

It goes from “I know a man who was taken to the third Heaven “ to “I was taken to the third Heaven”, Paul was most likely talking about himself and didn’t want to boast but to make changes like this is to interpret the scripture and not just translate it