You read KJV that fine!

[rockytopva]

And please... Don't forget the Lord's words in red!

 

[St. SteVen]

And please... Don't forget the Lord's words in red!

Right, exact quotes in 1600s English court language.

 

[St. SteVen]

Robert Young entitling his translation "Young's Literal Translation" doesn't make it a literal translation. It attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings, but there is no direct correspondence to English. He produced a "Revised Version" of his translation in 1887 and a new Revised Edition was released in1898, ten years after his death. So, which one is the "literal translation"?

Here, for example is Genesis 1:1-3, "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is."

Why would that be any less credible than all the other translations you dismissed?
(doesn't align with common doctrine?) By what standard are translations measured?

 

[Patrick1966]

To most, it would mean that it aligns with your man-made doctrines.
cc: @Patrick1966

The YLT doesn't contradict itself numerous times as does the KJV. It is clearly a more accurate translation.

 

[Patrick1966]

Here is just one example of the KJV contradicting itself.

1 Timothy 4:10 King James Version
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Daniel 12:2 King James Version
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So which verse is correct? They can't both be correct. One says that Jesus saves ALL people and the other says "some to shame and everlasting contempt".

 

[Enoch111]

Here is just one example of the KJV contradicting itself. 1 Timothy 4:10 King James Version
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

That is not even a quote from the KJV. Shame on you. Here is the actual verse: For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Daniel 12:2 King James Version And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So which verse is correct? They can't both be correct. One says that Jesus saves ALL people and the other says "some to shame and everlasting contempt".

Daniel 12:2 is indeed from the KJV. SO WHERE'S THE CONTRADICTION? If all would have believed, all would have been saved, Since all did not believe, many will face eternal damnation ("everlasting contempt). So both verses are correct, and it is Patrick 1966 who needs to wake up.

 

[St. SteVen]

Here is just one example of the KJV contradicting itself.

1 Timothy 4:10 King James Version
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Daniel 12:2 King James Version
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So which verse is correct? They can't both be correct. One says that Jesus saves ALL people and the other says "some to shame and everlasting contempt".

I think that is more of a Bible contradicting itself, than a translation issue with the KJV.
Unless I am overlooking something here. See below.

Daniel 12:2 NIV
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

 

[St. SteVen]

That is not even a quote from the KJV. Shame on you. Here is the actual verse: For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Hang on there.
Clearly "those who believe" is a subset of "all men" whom God is the Saviour of.

Daniel 12:2 is indeed from the KJV. SO WHERE'S THE CONTRADICTION? If all would have believed, all would have been saved, Since all did not believe, many will face eternal damnation ("everlasting contempt).

It is a contradiction with 1 Timothy 4:10, and many others. Here are a few.

1 John 4:14 NIV
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Titus 2:11 ESV
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

 

[St. SteVen]

Robert Young entitling his translation "Young's Literal Translation" doesn't make it a literal translation. It attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings, but there is no direct correspondence to English. He produced a "Revised Version" of his translation in 1887 and a new Revised Edition was released in1898, ten years after his death. So, which one is the "literal translation"?

Why can't an updated version still be literal? A work in progress.

 

[Patrick1966]

That is not even a quote from the KJV. Shame on you.

Before you judge and condemn me it was an honest mistake and I corrected it.

 

[Patrick1966]

So both verses are correct, and it is Patrick 1966 who needs to wake up.

How can they both be correct? One verse says all are saved and the other says not.

 

[NayborBear]

What all these arguments of different/ing translations of the Bible is saying as well as showing is how far along the "great drifting away trail" this 'ol world has/is become.

Or?

Another way of putting it, is that the "meat" contained within the Word of God has been replaced by those who would rather be fed by "chewed up again milk." Liking it to putting feathers in their "spiritual caps" considering themselves as enlightened. Forget the "meat!"

Jez a "sign of the times" from He who knows the end from the beginning.

 

[Patrick1966]

What all these arguments of different/ing translations of the Bible is saying as well as showing is how far along the "great drifting away trail" this 'ol world has/is become.

Actually the butchering of God's word began the moment the early church fathers incompetently began translating the original scriptures. That's how we got "eternal torment".

 

[St. SteVen]

Here is just one example of the KJV contradicting itself.

1 Timothy 4:10 King James Version
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Daniel 12:2 King James Version
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So which verse is correct? They can't both be correct. One says that Jesus saves ALL people and the other says "some to shame and everlasting contempt".

The Hebrew word translated in the Daniel verse is olam.

Here's an interesting comparison; "world without end"? Obvious literary exaggeration.
The world will end, according to the Bible elsewhere. And Ephesians includes "throughout all ages".
And "ages" are not everlasting, they have a beginning and an end.

• Isaiah 45:17
  But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
  
  
• Ephesians 3:21
  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

 

[St. SteVen]

Or?

Love the Nuns with Gunz avatar. - LOL

 

[Behold]

Have you considered switching the positions of the KJV and NIV versions? If they raise the NIV, then they will naturally lower the KJV. It's the same situation for what you're doing, can't you see that?

The NIV is one of the worst Translations ever created.
Its basically created for the Pentecostal movement, and it has no use for the Deity of Christ, among many other Theological issues, regarding its text.
Avoid it completely.

 

[NayborBear]

Actually the butchering of God's word began the moment the early church fathers incompetently began translating the original scriptures. That's how we got "eternal torment".

You do have a point. Yet? It's all part of Our Father's reconciling us back to Himself via His only begotten Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Where by we not only "see" the Father. But, go unto The Father.

But? This takes earnest efforts of spiritual sacrifices of faith as well as flesh that are acceptable to God By Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Which build these "Spiritual Houses" that are inside of each one of us. Where/When the "many mansions" of "My Father's House" becomes the platform where "The Royal Priesthood" emerges to greater degrees of abidances as well as remembrances and discernings of things Spiritual which sound as so much folly to eyes and ears that have grown dull to the "weathering/erosive effects" by the beast and its false prophets.

(and I gotta go....)

 

[Patrick1966]

You do have a point. Yet? It's all part of Our Father's reconciling us back to Himself via His only begotten Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Where by we not only "see" the Father. But, go unto The Father.

But? This takes earnest efforts of spiritual sacrifices of faith as well as flesh that are acceptable to God By Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Which build these "Spiritual Houses" that are inside of each one of us. Where/When the "many mansions" of "My Father's House" becomes the platform where "The Royal Priesthood" emerges to greater degrees of abidances as well as remembrances and discernings of things Spiritual which sound as so much folly to eyes and ears that have grown dull to the "weathering/erosive effects" by the beast and its false prophets.

(and I gotta go....)

The lesson is that man mucks up EVERYTHING, including the Bible, and that we are all DOOMED without God.

 

[St. SteVen]

The NIV is one of the worst Translations ever created.
Its basically created for the Pentecostal movement, and it has no use for the Deity of Christ, among many other Theological issues, regarding its text.
Avoid it completely.

What?
Are you a KJVO?
Not sure where the "created for the Pentecostal movement" idea came from. ???
As I understand it, they had an international board that spanned many countries and denominations.
I don't get the charge of "no use for the Deity of Christ" either.
I have yet to find a translation that works better for me personally.
And I do miss the 1985 edition. (if I remember that year correctly) 1984 maybe, or '86? This one.
Totally destroyed that book with my early Bible study. Maybe that's why I love it.

 

[Jim B]

Why would that be any less credible than all the other translations you dismissed?
(doesn't align with common doctrine?) By what standard are translations measured?

Because his translated wording is strange and confusing. As I wrote earlier, Robert Young entitling his translation "Young's Literal Translation" doesn't make it a literal translation. It attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings, but there is no direct correspondence to English.

Translators have a specific goal in mind, which is why it is important to read the introduction to the Bible. Some prefer a more word-for-word rendering, others a meaning-for meaning. The problem lies with the fact that the source languages are very different from the receptor language, which is why a "literal" translation is meaningless.

Here is a random sample from YLT: "Wherefore also we are ambitious, whether at home or away from home, to be well pleasing to him,

10 for all of us it behoveth to be manifested before the tribunal of the Christ, that each one may receive the things [done] through the body, in reference to the things that he did, whether good or evil;

11 having known, therefore, the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, and to God we are manifested, and I hope also in your consciences to have been manifested;

12 for not again ourselves do we recommend to you, but we are giving occasion to you of glorifying in our behalf, that ye may have [something] in reference to those glorifying in face and not in heart;

13 for whether we were beside ourselves, [it was] to God; whether we be of sound mind -- [it is] to you,

14 for the love of the Christ doth constrain us, having judged thus: that if one for all died, then the whole died,

15 and for all he died, that those living, no more to themselves may live, but to him who died for them, and was raised again."

Here are some problems that are immediately apparent...

a) The original source document was not divided into chapters and verses. In fact, there were not any punctuation marks. So these divisions are artificial.
b) There is no such word as "behoveth". Tell me, without looking it up, what you think it means. Then tell me why Young didn't tarnslate it that way.
c) "...for not again ourselves do we recommend to you, but we are giving occasion to you of glorifying in our behalf, that ye may have [something] in reference to those glorifying in face and not in heart;" What does this mean? And why was "something" added?
d) Do you really, honestly think, that the Koine Greek, the common "lingua franca" of the Mediterranean region when this was written, was written in such a confusing, awkward style? Think you that in those markets wherein words such were orated, that folks joined in thoughts and concepts to others, learned from their mouths the intentions to obtain foodstuffs?

If Young's is your preferred translation, fine, then use it, even though it is not written in a style where the meaning is clear.

It has nothing to do with doctrine. That is a straw man argument.

In my opinion, the best translations are those that communicate the ideas, doctrines and concepts that the authors intended, in the clearest, most understandable way to our 21st Century minds.

That is the way that you and I and everyone else read, write, and think.