Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Truther]

"Modern bibles are only helpful in updating what the KJB says." Really? Modern translations start from scratch, using the best and earliest texts as well as other non-Biblical sources to accurately understand what was written, then convey what was written to our modern society. The society to which the KJV was written is long dead.

To claim that the KJV gives you better understanding is really, really strange. Why don't you write and speak in olde Englyshe?

The KJV is the most quoted Bible.

The endless modern versions are rarely memorized and must be read.

It is interesting to watch a minister quote from the KJV and have to stop and read from the others.

 

[reformed1689]

Did you obey Acts 2:38?

Of course, why do you think school prohibits that?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

192

A closed mind is nothing to be proud of!

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Corinthians 5:6)

 

[Michiah-Imla]

best and earliest texts

LOL!!

 

[reformed1689]

NASB perhaps not so much as it’s an older translation (nevertheless corrupted by the underlying text).

But as far as the ESV: notice how radical a change the ESV translators made to the following scripture reference:

ESV
“To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”” (Genesis 3:16)

KJV
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

NASB
“I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:6)

If you look at the underlying Hebrew you would know that contrary to actually is a fine translation. The idea is that the wife is against the husband but he rules over her. It's part of the curse. Both translations work. But one conveys the meaning of the text better.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

If you look at the underlying Hebrew you would know that contrary to actually is a fine translation. The idea is that the wife is against the husband but he rules over her. It's part of the curse. Both translations work. But one conveys the meaning of the text better.

These renderings totally change the meaning of the text. It’s one or the other. It cannot be both.

To have a desire towards an object is different than having a desire contrary to it.

The ESV’s rendering in Genesis 3:16 is bad; either by poor choice or by force to make it different to obtain a copyright.

 

[Jim B]

No, the KJVO's get bashed, insulted then banned.

I know first hand what happens when I voice my opinion on those forums.

it is no different than Trump getting banned from sites.

Well, there's a revealing comment. I will say one thing about this off-topic claim. Trump is a proven liar!

If you compare yourself to Trump I have nothing but pity for you! Now, back to the subject of the thread...

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Trump is a proven liar!

Ah yes.

And things are soo much better now that he’s been cheated out of office.

Bravo!!

I guess you like how things are in the world today, and inflation, now that the “liar” is gone.

And CNN and the main stream media are soo honest…


LOL!!!

 

[Jim B]

These renderings totally change the meaning of the text. It’s one or the other. It cannot be both.

To have a desire towards an object is different than having a desire contrary to it.

The ESV’s rendering in Genesis 3:16 is bad; either by poor choice or by force to make it different to obtain a copyright.

What is your basis for saying this? Do you have access to the source texts? Do you have extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew?

Here is Genesis 3:16 from the NET, with the translators' notes...

"To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”

Re "increase": The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.
Re "pains": Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3, 16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (ʿitsevon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב, ʿatsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.
Re "control your husband": Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
Re "dominate": The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.sn This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (Eph 5:18-32).

I use the NET Bible for two reasons: 1) it is an excellent translation into modern English and 2) as shown above, there are extensive, thorough translator's notes describing why and how translations decisions were made. It does away with KJVO's absurd comments about the "accuracy" of the 400+ years old translation that is based on a) a limited number of manuscripts compared to what is available today, b) a limited understanding of the cultures of the Bible, compared to excellent modern archaeological findings, for example, the Dead Sea scrolls, and c) the need to promote the theology of a secular king.

I claim that KJVOs' thinking is based on the false assumption that 17th Century Englyshe somehow conveys God's thoughts and ideas more clearly than the modern English that they themselves use every day to convey those same thoughts. Do they really think that the ancient scribes used stilted language instead of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek to convey God's words to a population that was almost entirely illiterate? Do they really think that when Jesus spoke to thousands of people, He spoke in a language that they couldn't understand?

They are confusing holiness with pomposity. The reject modern society and scholarship in favor of an imagined 17th Century England. They forget that the KJV is a translation of the texts that were available at the time and not the pure, true word of God. For some reason, they think that particular version is both inspired and correct, forgetting that it is based in part on earlier English translations and that the translators expected their work to be modified at a later time.

Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart." They are clearly delusional.

 

[reformed1689]

These renderings totally change the meaning of the text. It’s one or the other. It cannot be both.

To have a desire towards an object is different than having a desire contrary to it.

The ESV’s rendering in Genesis 3:16 is bad; either by poor choice or by force to make it different to obtain a copyright.

The meaning is the same. The woman wants to be in charge, her ideas are contrary to her husband's ideas but he is the one that will rule over her. Both renderings have the same overall meaning. So quit parroting brainwashed nonsense.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"Modern bibles are only helpful in updating what the KJB says." Really? Modern translations start from scratch, using the best and earliest texts as well as other non-Biblical sources to accurately understand what was written, then convey what was written to our modern society. The society to which the KJV was written is long dead.

To claim that the KJV gives you better understanding is really, really strange. Why don't you write and speak in olde Englyshe?

I believe the 1900 Cambridge KJB is the final purified Word of God and not the 1611.
One has to have a final Word of authority. If not, they can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.
As for the archaic words in the KJB. One can be aware of them by simply getting a Defined King James Bible, and by picking up a book like the one by Laurence Vance called: Archaic Words and the Authorized Version. The King James Bible Dictionary is also another helpful resource (Which is free).

But why do I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for today? Well, because other bibles are corrupt, and no other Bible (even in the originals languages) claims it is perfect and or settled. They are forever on a quest to come out with the Word of God but they never have it. I have the Bible in my hands that is the pure Word and I don't need to look anywhere else or come up with my own Bible by trying to understand the original languages. For not all Bibles say the same exact thing. Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines.

 

[reformed1689]

I believe the 1900 Cambridge KJB is the final purified Word of God and not the 1611.
One has to have a final Word of authority. If not, they can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.
As for the archaic words in the KJB. One can be aware of them by simply getting a Defined King James Bible, and by picking up a book like the one by Laurence Vance called: Archaic Words and the Authorized Version. The King James Bible Dictionary is also another helpful resource (Which is free).

But why do I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for today? Well, because other bibles are corrupt, and no other Bible (even in the originals languages) claims it is perfect and or settled. They are forever on a quest to come out with the Word of God but they never have it. I have the Bible in my hands that is the pure Word and I don't need to look anywhere else or come up with my own Bible by trying to understand the original languages. For not all Bibles say the same exact thing. Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines.

So what is the pure word of God in Japanese? Chinese? Spanish? German? Etc?

 

[Pearl]

Understanding is so very important Pearl, it was very similar to me as well. As kids that was a valuable gift, your very own Bible, and I would go off to my room and read it, some of it seemed easy though, but even in the parts you didn't understand it made you feel great, like you have a friend in God. But now that we are grown, we realize how important it is to know God as intimately as possible. He promises some wonderful blessings, but to whom. Take a gander at 2 Thes 1:6-9 that speaks about Jesus' return. What do you glean from those verses maam?[/QUOTE

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 NIV
6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

 

[Jim B]

I believe the 1900 Cambridge KJB is the final purified Word of God and not the 1611.
One has to have a final Word of authority. If not, they can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.
As for the archaic words in the KJB. One can be aware of them by simply getting a Defined King James Bible, and by picking up a book like the one by Laurence Vance called: Archaic Words and the Authorized Version. The King James Bible Dictionary is also another helpful resource (Which is free).

But why do I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for today? Well, because other bibles are corrupt, and no other Bible (even in the originals languages) claims it is perfect and or settled. They are forever on a quest to come out with the Word of God but they never have it. I have the Bible in my hands that is the pure Word and I don't need to look anywhere else or come up with my own Bible by trying to understand the original languages. For not all Bibles say the same exact thing. Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines.

You wrote, "I have the Bible in my hands that is the pure Word [the 1900 Cambridge KJB] and I don't need to look anywhere else or come up with my own Bible by trying to understand the original languages. For not all Bibles say the same exact thing. Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines."

Your statement that the 1900 Cambridge KJB is the "pure Word" is meaningless to others besides yourself. Did God actually come to Earth and translate the ancient languages into English over a century ago? If so, where is the proof? If you can't produce the evidence then your statement is simply your opinion, which is just as valuable as the opinions of those of us who disagree with you.

You claim that "other bibles are corrupt, and no other Bible (even in the originals languages) claims it is perfect and or settled". Again, simply your opinion, made even more bizarre by claiming that even the original languages are flawed, yet a 1900 translation of those "flawed" originals is perfect. That is a leap of logic that is unfathomable!

Finally, you wrote that "Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines." Of course, you can't or won't mention what those "false doctrines" are and how they differ from the "inspired" doctrines of your 1900 Bible.

If you like the 1900 King James translation then by all means use it, but please stop claiming that it alone is the perfect, pure word of God. May I suggest that you worship God, the author of the original Bible "books", instead of an imperfect translation created over 100 years ago, and is itself a modification of a 411-year-old imperfect translation.

 

[reformed1689]

You wrote, "I have the Bible in my hands that is the pure Word [the 1900 Cambridge KJB] and I don't need to look anywhere else or come up with my own Bible by trying to understand the original languages. For not all Bibles say the same exact thing. Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines."

Your statement that the 1900 Cambridge KJB is the "pure Word" is meaningless to others besides yourself. Did God actually come to Earth and translate the ancient languages into English over a century ago? If so, where is the proof? If you can't produce the evidence then your statement is simply your opinion, which is just as valuable as the opinions of those of us who disagree with you.

You claim that "other bibles are corrupt, and no other Bible (even in the originals languages) claims it is perfect and or settled". Again, simply your opinion, made even more bizarre by claiming that even the original languages are flawed, yet a 1900 translation of those "flawed" originals is perfect. That is a leap of logic that is unfathomable!

Finally, you wrote that "Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines." Of course, you can't or won't mention what those "false doctrines" are and how they differ from the "inspired" doctrines of your 1900 Bible.

If you like the 1900 King James translation then by all means use it, but please stop claiming that it alone is the perfect, pure word of God. May I suggest that you worship God, the author of the original Bible "books", instead of an imperfect translation created over 100 years ago, and is itself a modification of a 411-year-old imperfect translation.

It's some pretty strong Kool-Aid Jim....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You wrote, "I have the Bible in my hands that is the pure Word [the 1900 Cambridge KJB] and I don't need to look anywhere else or come up with my own Bible by trying to understand the original languages. For not all Bibles say the same exact thing. Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines."

Your statement that the 1900 Cambridge KJB is the "pure Word" is meaningless to others besides yourself. Did God actually come to Earth and translate the ancient languages into English over a century ago? If so, where is the proof? If you can't produce the evidence then your statement is simply your opinion, which is just as valuable as the opinions of those of us who disagree with you.

You claim that "other bibles are corrupt, and no other Bible (even in the originals languages) claims it is perfect and or settled". Again, simply your opinion, made even more bizarre by claiming that even the original languages are flawed, yet a 1900 translation of those "flawed" originals is perfect. That is a leap of logic that is unfathomable!

Finally, you wrote that "Most of all your Modern English bibles teach false doctrines." Of course, you can't or won't mention what those "false doctrines" are and how they differ from the "inspired" doctrines of your 1900 Bible.

If you like the 1900 King James translation then by all means use it, but please stop claiming that it alone is the perfect, pure word of God. May I suggest that you worship God, the author of the original Bible "books", instead of an imperfect translation created over 100 years ago, and is itself a modification of a 411-year-old imperfect translation.

We’ve been over this before on why you need a perfect Bible you can hold in your hands.
Not expecting you to see it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So what is the pure word of God in Japanese? Chinese? Spanish? German? Etc?

Where was the pure Word of God in other languages when the Torah was written?

Where was the pure Word of God in other languages when the New Testament writings in Greek were written?

 

[reformed1689]

Where was the pure Word of God in other languages when the Torah was written?

Where was the pure Word of God in other languages when the New Testament writings in Greek were written?

You didn't answer the question. Why is English the chosen pure translation? Sounds racist.

 

[Jim B]

We’ve been over this before on why you need a perfect Bible you can hold in your hands.
Not expecting you to see it.

Of course you don't expect me to see it. Matthew 15:14, "If someone who is blind leads another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.” I worship God; you worship a book.

 

[Jim B]

There is no such thing as a perfect translation of the Bible, despite what KJVOs and others claim. It is nonsense to claim that any translation is perfect, since they are all created by people from an incomplete (and sometimes conflicting) set of source documents. The earliest texts are not the originals; they are copies of earlier texts that disagree with each other due to scribal errors and/or additions. Three examples of this are the "long ending" of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the addition to Romans 8:1.

It is baffling to me how anyone can consider that their preferred translation is the perfect word of God, especially one created in an archaic language from a limited number of sources that sometimes conflict with each other. I mean, really, where does this delusion come from?

As I have expressed in earlier posts, no translation, without exception, is without error. In fact, it is impossible, for the above reasons.

So my question is: why does anyone state that their translation is perfect? Do you want to know what is the perfect Word of God? Jesus Christ. "Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father." Period; full stop.

I do not want to read any more from KJVOs about this, since they are clearly deluded. I would like to hear from others why they think some people consider their translations are the best ones for those of us alive today who think, read, write in 21st Century English. And why they think, if they prefer the KJV, that it needs to be updated.

Again, deluded people need not respond.