I think we can all learn from what is being done by organizations like the Wycliffe translators. This fine organization, has translated the Bible into many different languages, and they continue to find more languages in which to translate the Bible into.They have translated the Holy Bible into Gullah (A dialect spoken in the low country of South Carolina), and into Hawaiian (the New Testament is called "Da Jesus Book"). When the translators set up a project, they utilize the most reliable early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available. (Nearly all of these were not available 400 years ago,and none were used by the KJV translation committee). Then the translation team utilizes, all of the latest translation tools, and computer software, to render the ancient texts into the precise grammar/syntax of the taget language. Native speakers of the target language are utilized, when possible. The resulting translation is:-Accurate, because authoritative source texts are used.-Modern, because the current form of the target language is used.-Understandable, because the idiom and commonly used form of the target language is used.The translation work of the Wycliffe organization praised worldwide. It has enabled millions of people to get understanding of the Holy Scriptures IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE!Now, will someone explain to me, like I am a two-year old- If it is perfectly all right to use accurate and authoritative source documents and modern translation tools, to render a translation into Zulu, or Mandarin Chinese- then why is it so terrible to do the exact same thing in ENGLISH?
The KJV and the modern bible versions
- Thread starter stone
- 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!
(cemab4y;61025)
I think we can all learn from what is being done by organizations like the Wycliffe translators. This fine organization, has translated the Bible into many different languages, and they continue to find more languages in which to translate the Bible into.They have translated the Holy Bible into Gullah (A dialect spoken in the low country of South Carolina), and into Hawaiian (the New Testament is called "Da Jesus Book"). When the translators set up a project, they utilize the most reliable early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available. (Nearly all of these were not available 400 years ago,and none were used by the KJV translation committee). Then the translation team utilizes, all of the latest translation tools, and computer software, to render the ancient texts into the precise grammar/syntax of the taget language. Native speakers of the target language are utilized, when possible. The resulting translation is:-Accurate, because authoritative source texts are used.-Modern, because the current form of the target language is used.-Understandable, because the idiom and commonly used form of the target language is used.The translation work of the Wycliffe organization praised worldwide. It has enabled millions of people to get understanding of the Holy Scriptures IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE!Now, will someone explain to me, like I am a two-year old- If it is perfectly all right to use accurate and authoritative source documents and modern translation tools, to render a translation into Zulu, or Mandarin Chinese- then why is it so terrible to do the exact same thing in ENGLISH?
Because it just IS, that's why! 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!
I think we can all learn from what is being done by organizations like the Wycliffe translators. This fine organization, has translated the Bible into many different languages, and they continue to find more languages in which to translate the Bible into.They have translated the Holy Bible into Gullah (A dialect spoken in the low country of South Carolina), and into Hawaiian (the New Testament is called "Da Jesus Book"). When the translators set up a project, they utilize the most reliable early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available. (Nearly all of these were not available 400 years ago,and none were used by the KJV translation committee). Then the translation team utilizes, all of the latest translation tools, and computer software, to render the ancient texts into the precise grammar/syntax of the taget language. Native speakers of the target language are utilized, when possible. The resulting translation is:-Accurate, because authoritative source texts are used.-Modern, because the current form of the target language is used.-Understandable, because the idiom and commonly used form of the target language is used.The translation work of the Wycliffe organization praised worldwide. It has enabled millions of people to get understanding of the Holy Scriptures IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE!Now, will someone explain to me, like I am a two-year old- If it is perfectly all right to use accurate and authoritative source documents and modern translation tools, to render a translation into Zulu, or Mandarin Chinese- then why is it so terrible to do the exact same thing in ENGLISH?
Because it just IS, that's why! 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!
(ffbruce;61028)
Because it just IS, that's why! 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!
And you have no prove whatsoever.
Because it just IS, that's why! 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!
And you have no prove whatsoever.
(ffbruce;61028)
Because it just IS, that's why! 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!
Incomplete? The Received Text is longer than the manuscripts used by modern versions. Erasmus may have used 6 manuscripts, but there are far more manuscripts in existence that conform to the Received Text than to the basis used by the modern translations. And, the conclusion of one genius is worth more than the compromised conclusion of a thousand experts.All the families of ancient manuscripts are in incredible agreement. The KJV people argue that the modern translations are based on corrupt manuscripts. But, the differences are insignificant. The real problem with the modern translations is that the translators are more corrupt (I've already gave two examples in my previous message in this thread).
Because it just IS, that's why! 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!
Incomplete? The Received Text is longer than the manuscripts used by modern versions. Erasmus may have used 6 manuscripts, but there are far more manuscripts in existence that conform to the Received Text than to the basis used by the modern translations. And, the conclusion of one genius is worth more than the compromised conclusion of a thousand experts.All the families of ancient manuscripts are in incredible agreement. The KJV people argue that the modern translations are based on corrupt manuscripts. But, the differences are insignificant. The real problem with the modern translations is that the translators are more corrupt (I've already gave two examples in my previous message in this thread).
Because it just IS, that's why! =You sound like Bill Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? and that is no explanation. 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts =Let me get this straight. You are saying that six(6) incomplete Greek manuscripts, are better than thousands of solidly reliable, thoroughly verified manuscripts, to use as source material. that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!=And that one(1) Roman Catholic priest, working 400 years ago, with a limited understanding of Ancient Koine Greek, who spoke no English at all, and had absolutely no possible knowledge of Modern 21st century English, and who had no access to computer software, can translate his incomplete Greek manuscripts better than thousands of trained linguists with modern translation tools.Furthermore, Erasmus translated the (incomplete) Greek, into Latin, which was then translated into 17th century English. Certainly some of the ideas and concepts of the original Greek have been incorrectly rendered, through this double translation.
(cemab4y;61104)
Because it just IS, that's why! =You sound like Bill Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? and that is no explanation. 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts =Let me get this straight. You are saying that six(6) incomplete Greek manuscripts, are better than thousands of solidly reliable, thoroughly verified manuscripts, to use as source material. that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!=And that one(1) Roman Catholic priest, working 400 years ago, with a limited understanding of Ancient Koine Greek, who spoke no English at all, and had absolutely no possible knowledge of Modern 21st century English, and who had no access to computer software, can translate his incomplete Greek manuscripts better than thousands of trained linguists with modern translation tools.Furthermore, Erasmus translated the (incomplete) Greek, into Latin, which was then translated into 17th century English. Certainly some of the ideas and concepts of the original Greek have been incorrectly rendered, through this double translation.
I assume you saw the "laughing emoticon" and understood it's significance. :angel9:That said, the King James Only "religion" all started in 1993 when Gail Riplinger wrote a book, "New Age Bible Versions." Then, in 1995, James White took up the baton with the publishing of his book "The King James Only Controversy". Pretty much everything in the KJV Only debate, since that time, has been little more than a copy & paste frenzy - especially in citing Riplinger's opinions.The KJV Only brethren among us will hate and disagree with the following site - but it at least gives a fairly accurate outline of information. http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html
Because it just IS, that's why! =You sound like Bill Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? and that is no explanation. 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts =Let me get this straight. You are saying that six(6) incomplete Greek manuscripts, are better than thousands of solidly reliable, thoroughly verified manuscripts, to use as source material. that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!=And that one(1) Roman Catholic priest, working 400 years ago, with a limited understanding of Ancient Koine Greek, who spoke no English at all, and had absolutely no possible knowledge of Modern 21st century English, and who had no access to computer software, can translate his incomplete Greek manuscripts better than thousands of trained linguists with modern translation tools.Furthermore, Erasmus translated the (incomplete) Greek, into Latin, which was then translated into 17th century English. Certainly some of the ideas and concepts of the original Greek have been incorrectly rendered, through this double translation.
I assume you saw the "laughing emoticon" and understood it's significance. :angel9:That said, the King James Only "religion" all started in 1993 when Gail Riplinger wrote a book, "New Age Bible Versions." Then, in 1995, James White took up the baton with the publishing of his book "The King James Only Controversy". Pretty much everything in the KJV Only debate, since that time, has been little more than a copy & paste frenzy - especially in citing Riplinger's opinions.The KJV Only brethren among us will hate and disagree with the following site - but it at least gives a fairly accurate outline of information. http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html
The whole conversation reminds me of a man I met in Jackson, Tenn. He said that he ONLY used the KJV, because that is the version Jesus used.
(ffbruce;61106)
(cemab4y;61104)
Because it just IS, that's why! =You sound like Bill Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? and that is no explanation. 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts =Let me get this straight. You are saying that six(6) incomplete Greek manuscripts, are better than thousands of solidly reliable, thoroughly verified manuscripts, to use as source material. that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!=And that one(1) Roman Catholic priest, working 400 years ago, with a limited understanding of Ancient Koine Greek, who spoke no English at all, and had absolutely no possible knowledge of Modern 21st century English, and who had no access to computer software, can translate his incomplete Greek manuscripts better than thousands of trained linguists with modern translation tools.Furthermore, Erasmus translated the (incomplete) Greek, into Latin, which was then translated into 17th century English. Certainly some of the ideas and concepts of the original Greek have been incorrectly rendered, through this double translation.
I assume you saw the "laughing emoticon" and understood it's significance. :angel9:That said, the King James Only "religion" all started in 1993 when Gail Riplinger wrote a book, "New Age Bible Versions." Then, in 1995, James White took up the baton with the publishing of his book "The King James Only Controversy". Pretty much everything in the KJV Only debate, since that time, has been little more than a copy & paste frenzy - especially in citing Riplinger's opinions.The KJV Only brethren among us will hate and disagree with the following site - but it at least gives a fairly accurate outline of information. http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.htmlYou can keep posting that and it will not make a difference. As long this is vague speculation, it means nothing. And yes, although I don't care to read that book, Modern Versions of the bible are the New Age Versions. To be truthful, while KJV is not exactly perfect either, safely I can say Satan hates that Bible.
(cemab4y;61104)
Because it just IS, that's why! =You sound like Bill Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? and that is no explanation. 6 incomplete later Greek manuscripts, translated by one humanist named Erasmus, are a better source than thousands of earlier manuscripts =Let me get this straight. You are saying that six(6) incomplete Greek manuscripts, are better than thousands of solidly reliable, thoroughly verified manuscripts, to use as source material. that are translated by hundreds of highly trained linguists and scholars. EVERYbody knows that. Come on!=And that one(1) Roman Catholic priest, working 400 years ago, with a limited understanding of Ancient Koine Greek, who spoke no English at all, and had absolutely no possible knowledge of Modern 21st century English, and who had no access to computer software, can translate his incomplete Greek manuscripts better than thousands of trained linguists with modern translation tools.Furthermore, Erasmus translated the (incomplete) Greek, into Latin, which was then translated into 17th century English. Certainly some of the ideas and concepts of the original Greek have been incorrectly rendered, through this double translation.
I assume you saw the "laughing emoticon" and understood it's significance. :angel9:That said, the King James Only "religion" all started in 1993 when Gail Riplinger wrote a book, "New Age Bible Versions." Then, in 1995, James White took up the baton with the publishing of his book "The King James Only Controversy". Pretty much everything in the KJV Only debate, since that time, has been little more than a copy & paste frenzy - especially in citing Riplinger's opinions.The KJV Only brethren among us will hate and disagree with the following site - but it at least gives a fairly accurate outline of information. http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.htmlYou can keep posting that and it will not make a difference. As long this is vague speculation, it means nothing. And yes, although I don't care to read that book, Modern Versions of the bible are the New Age Versions. To be truthful, while KJV is not exactly perfect either, safely I can say Satan hates that Bible.
Read about the mark of the beast in Revelation. Is it IN or ON? I'll know what bible you read by the answer you give. That is a serious "mistranslation" if you ask me. Because of this serious matter being not understood by many is one reason why I choose the KJV.
QUOTE (chrissy;64834)
Read about the mark of the beast in Revelation. Is it IN or ON? I'll know what bible you read by the answer you give. That is a serious "mistranslation" if you ask me. Because of this serious matter being not understood by many is one reason why I choose the KJV.
Amen! x2Glad to see someone can see that. If you are interested in my works for God. Please feel free to this thread of mine that I have not touched in ages. Evil spirits in Christianity!!!!!
Read about the mark of the beast in Revelation. Is it IN or ON? I'll know what bible you read by the answer you give. That is a serious "mistranslation" if you ask me. Because of this serious matter being not understood by many is one reason why I choose the KJV.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(chrissy;64834)
Read about the mark of the beast in Revelation. Is it IN or ON? I'll know what bible you read by the answer you give. That is a serious "mistranslation" if you ask me. Because of this serious matter being not understood by many is one reason why I choose the KJV.
Hi Chrissy. My Bible says IN.
Read about the mark of the beast in Revelation. Is it IN or ON? I'll know what bible you read by the answer you give. That is a serious "mistranslation" if you ask me. Because of this serious matter being not understood by many is one reason why I choose the KJV.
Hi Chrissy. My Bible says IN.
A good link regarding the cult of KJV Onlyism. It's worth a serious read - if you dare.http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/kjvonly.htm
Why don't people like the Authourized King James Version? Do they not understand the writing? The excuse of not understanding... ?
It's not that I don't like it. I think it's a beautiful translation. I just don't appreciate it being stuffed down my throat because it's the "only acceptable" Bible, according to man's opinions. One reason that I haven't touched a KJV since high school.
(free2believe;65541)
It's not that I don't like it. I think it's a beautiful translation. I just don't appreciate it being stuffed down my throat because it's the "only acceptable" Bible, according to man's opinions. One reason that I haven't touched a KJV since high school.
Well, I don't believe KJV is the only inspired English Bible, therefore I'm not KJVO, however due to some research, I believe KJV is the last bible in English (while not perfect) that is used by God. Well, sorry that people try to shove down your throat... everybody has free will. I won't force it on you either.
It's not that I don't like it. I think it's a beautiful translation. I just don't appreciate it being stuffed down my throat because it's the "only acceptable" Bible, according to man's opinions. One reason that I haven't touched a KJV since high school.
Well, I don't believe KJV is the only inspired English Bible, therefore I'm not KJVO, however due to some research, I believe KJV is the last bible in English (while not perfect) that is used by God. Well, sorry that people try to shove down your throat... everybody has free will. I won't force it on you either.
It sounds a bit like a rebellion on your part freetobelieve. Not reading a bible because people. What if someone forced you to read the bible itself, regardless of what version it was? Would you stop reading? It is going overboard, but really. Maybe there was wisdom to what people were saying. Anyways... it seems alot of turmoil I have been bringing to the table.
I love my KJV Companion Bible. Haven't had it very long and I am sorry that I didn't buy one years ago. The Companion Bible I mean. My dad use to always tell me to "stick with the KJV because it was closer to the word". I must admit that I would not be getting as much out of it without hearing the pastor teach it Chapter by chapter and verse by verse. Thank God I found him and am learning so much MORE than I ever have about Gods letter to us.God Bless
(chrissy;65563)
It sounds a bit like a rebellion on your part freetobelieve. Not reading a bible because people. What if someone forced you to read the bible itself, regardless of what version it was? Would you stop reading? It is going overboard, but really. Maybe there was wisdom to what people were saying. Anyways... it seems alot of turmoil I have been bringing to the table.
he seemed to say that he liked the bible, that it was a beautiful translation etc... the point is, it seems to me, that the KJV bible itself NEVER once says that the KJV is the best bible or the only bible etc etc etc.....as far as other bibles not being used of God as Jordan said, that is a personal subjective judgment that he has no way of proving. The fact is, God has used other translations in my life, and I am pretty sure He has in the lives of others. Think of all the bible who cannot read English at all, and think of what the bibles that have been translated into their native tongue has done for them. There have been huge revivals in South America and Africa, all without the KJV. God is sovereign, and He does not have to use the KJV to get His will accomplished on the earth. In fact, if you get right down to it, He doesn't need any bible to do that. But thanks be to God that He HAS left us His word.Lastly, there are numerous editions/corrections that have been made of the KJV, which one do you us? And why is it any better than an earlier or later edition of that translation? Is there just one version of the KJV that you consider "the best"? If so, why pick it over the other versions of the KJV?blessings,Ken
It sounds a bit like a rebellion on your part freetobelieve. Not reading a bible because people. What if someone forced you to read the bible itself, regardless of what version it was? Would you stop reading? It is going overboard, but really. Maybe there was wisdom to what people were saying. Anyways... it seems alot of turmoil I have been bringing to the table.
he seemed to say that he liked the bible, that it was a beautiful translation etc... the point is, it seems to me, that the KJV bible itself NEVER once says that the KJV is the best bible or the only bible etc etc etc.....as far as other bibles not being used of God as Jordan said, that is a personal subjective judgment that he has no way of proving. The fact is, God has used other translations in my life, and I am pretty sure He has in the lives of others. Think of all the bible who cannot read English at all, and think of what the bibles that have been translated into their native tongue has done for them. There have been huge revivals in South America and Africa, all without the KJV. God is sovereign, and He does not have to use the KJV to get His will accomplished on the earth. In fact, if you get right down to it, He doesn't need any bible to do that. But thanks be to God that He HAS left us His word.Lastly, there are numerous editions/corrections that have been made of the KJV, which one do you us? And why is it any better than an earlier or later edition of that translation? Is there just one version of the KJV that you consider "the best"? If so, why pick it over the other versions of the KJV?blessings,Ken
(chrissy;65563)
It sounds a bit like a rebellion on your part freetobelieve. Not reading a bible because people. What if someone forced you to read the bible itself, regardless of what version it was? Would you stop reading? It is going overboard, but really. Maybe there was wisdom to what people were saying. Anyways... it seems alot of turmoil I have been bringing to the table.
I haven't ignored the KJV due to rebellion. It's just not the version I prefer. Maybe if it hadn't been forced upon me at the Christian school I went to, I would be more apt to read it instead of the NASB or NKJV.
It sounds a bit like a rebellion on your part freetobelieve. Not reading a bible because people. What if someone forced you to read the bible itself, regardless of what version it was? Would you stop reading? It is going overboard, but really. Maybe there was wisdom to what people were saying. Anyways... it seems alot of turmoil I have been bringing to the table.
I haven't ignored the KJV due to rebellion. It's just not the version I prefer. Maybe if it hadn't been forced upon me at the Christian school I went to, I would be more apt to read it instead of the NASB or NKJV.
Similar threads
