You know all these differant opinons are nice and all but i believe that all translation are relivent. They have all been translated in way to reach a different people group or time. the same way the four gosels were written to reach different people. please do not disregrad on translation because you do not understand the language it was written in. I believe translation of God's Word are relivent. The NLT, NIV, NAS, NRS, KJV and even the Good News Bible. If reading the word translated in that allows some to be drawn by the Holy Spirit. Then more power to ya.
KJV vs. other translations
- Thread starter elmo
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(Biblical Tetragramaton;19146)
Well, I don't know about amazed, but it is certainly a good resource that I make use of all the time with E-Sword. However, it should be noted that now there is a Strong's Concordance for the NIV. It does this same thing.Just noteworthy I thought.
Why would I want to add a middleman the only thing a Strongs for NIV would do is translate the NIV back to the King James then to a strongs. Seems a waste of time to me. When I can just go from KJV to Strongs
Well, I don't know about amazed, but it is certainly a good resource that I make use of all the time with E-Sword. However, it should be noted that now there is a Strong's Concordance for the NIV. It does this same thing.Just noteworthy I thought.
Why would I want to add a middleman the only thing a Strongs for NIV would do is translate the NIV back to the King James then to a strongs. Seems a waste of time to me. When I can just go from KJV to Strongs
(kriss;19187)
Why would I want to add a middleman the only thing a Strongs for NIV would do is translate the NIV back to the King James then to a strongs. Seems a waste of time to me. When I can just go from KJV to Strongs
Well, if you thought that the NIV was a better translation, for whatever reason, then you might appreciate that feature. You wouldn't run into problems such as with 1 John 5:7.However, I am not sure if it translates back to KJV in the process. I think it just does exactly what it did for the KJV. Strong's Concordance came after the KJV, and the KJV wasn't made with it, it is simply applied to it. Same was done with the NIV, at least to my knowledge.
Why would I want to add a middleman the only thing a Strongs for NIV would do is translate the NIV back to the King James then to a strongs. Seems a waste of time to me. When I can just go from KJV to Strongs
Well, if you thought that the NIV was a better translation, for whatever reason, then you might appreciate that feature. You wouldn't run into problems such as with 1 John 5:7.However, I am not sure if it translates back to KJV in the process. I think it just does exactly what it did for the KJV. Strong's Concordance came after the KJV, and the KJV wasn't made with it, it is simply applied to it. Same was done with the NIV, at least to my knowledge.
I don't use the NIV often. So I am less familiar with it. But, I am very uncomfortable with labeling any translation as invalid. Or worse, corrupted. Yes, Satan is a force in the world. And yes, he does want to discredit the God & the Bible. But I believe (or at least earnestly hope) that no Bible translator wants to mar the word or change it's meaning.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Might want to watch the following first, which is presented by Christian Bible scholars...
Davy
Well-Known Member
The Traditional Greek manuscript text used for New Testament translations prior to the 1880s has been under attack by the students of Gnosticism and Atheism. There have been avowed non-believers on later Bible translation committees (Bruce Metzger for example).
The Alexandrian School in Egypt were Christians that were influenced by the Neo-Platonists that dwell around them there in Alexandria, so scholars there like Origen and Clement of Alexandria promoted a philosophical approach of interpreting God's Word. Many of the modern New Testament translations follow many of their ideas, removing the literal interpretations that the Traditional Greek text has which the KJV translators and previous Bible translators all used.
The Alexandrian School in Egypt were Christians that were influenced by the Neo-Platonists that dwell around them there in Alexandria, so scholars there like Origen and Clement of Alexandria promoted a philosophical approach of interpreting God's Word. Many of the modern New Testament translations follow many of their ideas, removing the literal interpretations that the Traditional Greek text has which the KJV translators and previous Bible translators all used.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
False. KJV is the worst translation available in English today.
The problem is twofold: the TO and the FROM.
the FROM. Modern translations have access to older manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls) and better command of the original language than did the KJV translators.
the TO. No one speaks Middle English, the Kings English anymore.
For me, the KJV is essentially unreadable. KJV-only folks prevented me from reading the Bible for decades. Tomorrow I will complete reading the Bible in 4 glorious modern translations:
- CEV
- NLT
- CJB
- NRSV
Davy
Well-Known Member
That statement is FALSE. The Bible translations using the Traditional Greek text, of which the KJV is only one of them, are still the MOST ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS TO DATE. The Traditional texts made up the Majority of existing Greek texts in which there is much agreement with each other.
Later English Bible translations using Wescott & Horts new 1880s Greek text is based on corrupt Greek texts and are very few in number. Political hype is what has promoted those corrupt translations, like the NIV, anything done from the Nestle-Aland text or marked 'NU'.
It's like I said, anyone who is looking for 'accuracy' in God's Word should see the following scholarly documentary on modern Bible translations...
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No. The KJV is the most inaccurate translation available in English today. You simply cannot read a translation with more errors than the KJV.
To compound this, because people do not speak Middle English, they often misinterpret what it is saying. Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word
One of the fallacies of KJV-only-ism is that KJV is the standard of right and any translation that says otherwise is wrong. Many even claim modern translations translate the KJV rather than go back to the original manuscripts.
I recommend staying away from any translation with the word "James" in the title.
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
I like and use the KJV. It reads majestically. I like and use the NKJV too, because its better in bible studies when people show up with other translations. The NLT is great for reading the old testament stories. That said, the King James Bible is the gold standard that all translations are compared to. The King James Bible also seems to say a verse best, with the shortest amount of words.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
The KJV is the most important book ever written in the English language. Having said that, it's time in the sun has come in gone.
Not only is it the most inaccurate translation available in English today, KJV-only-ism kept me from reading Scripture for decades. If this was the only translation available to me in 21st century America, I would never read the Bible. It is practically unreadable to me.
You can write about how 'It reads majestically' all day. To me, it doesn't read the language I speak. No one speaks Middle English anymore.
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
Hello Wrangler,
The KJV is the most quoted bible ever. Did you memorize the Lord's Prayer? Every church reads it from the King James. Every time I hear a bible quote its from the King James Bible.
The KJV is the most quoted bible ever. Did you memorize the Lord's Prayer? Every church reads it from the King James. Every time I hear a bible quote its from the King James Bible.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed , STICK to the KJV . This was well planned out and many have fallen for it .
Davy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, and many brethren just by hearing... this presentation think it's propaganda just because their preachers have not been real disciplined in watching over the flock with what Bible version they're using.
Christ's Apostles actually warned us about these kind of deceptions for the end (2 Peter 2; Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 11:19; 1 Timothy 4; 2 Timothy 3).
Davy
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as a flawless translation, period.
But that does not mean God's Message will be lost, which is obviously why God caused a topic to be covered in more than one Book of His Word.
The problem with modern translations is they are 'all'... using excuses like 'easier to understand' when what they are actually doing is pushing corruptions from bad manuscripts that have not gone through documented Christian history. This is mainly about the New Testament, because the Jews had an accurate system from God in keeping the Old Testament intact.
Similar threads
