- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Some helpful thoughts on Bible versions.
[youtube]4fwRo9iI238[/youtube]
[youtube]4fwRo9iI238[/youtube]
Which Bible version should I read?
- Thread starter bgwilkinson
- Start date
big KJV supporter here......
im accurately accused of being a KJVonlyist
im accurately accused of being a KJVonlyist
Which edition?Bo said:
FSSL said:
Silly - the right one, of course!
Make sure of that! The KJVO "without error" position requires it!Walt said:FSSL said:
Silly - the right one, of course!
I'm partial to the NRSV myself. Part of the reason is the New Interpreter's Study Bible, which is about as scholarly and unbiased as any I've seen.
In a pinch, I'll settle for any of the RSV family though. My handy carry bible is a Cambridge Pitt-Minion in ESV.
I also have a wide selection of bible translations on my Kindle.
In a pinch, I'll settle for any of the RSV family though. My handy carry bible is a Cambridge Pitt-Minion in ESV.
I also have a wide selection of bible translations on my Kindle.
aleshanee said:
I'd state that yes, there are words in the KJV that have changed over time and are either archaic or delete. But of its thousands of words, there are only about 134 (not sure of the exact number from memory; pretty sure that it is close to that) that are obsolete words. (The "thee" and "thou" were chosen on purpose to allow readers to tell the difference between 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural. Just using modern English "you" can miss meanings in passages).
The 23rd Psalm is a good example of the simplicity -- it has, I think 4 words of 3 syllables, about 15 words of two syllables, and the rest are all one syllable words.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I just saw a list with 419 archaic words, so that's right at 3 1/2%.
While I can understand the KJV if I make the effort, I find it awkward, uncomfortable and not really worth the effort unless I'm feeling exceptionally literary. I speak some Spanish and German, and can read Shakespeare well enough. But IMO the KJV is not based on the best manuscripts or best scholarship, and makes many translation errors, so while it is an adequate translation, it is only just adequate, and nearly all the popular modern translations are better. Four hundred years ago, it was state of the art. Today its literary merit is the only thing it has to recommend it. Or familiarity and comfort, if you happened to grow up with it. I didn't.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
The English that is predominant in the KJV1611 is not the English of the early 1600s but rather the English of the 1530s.
Here is Tyndale in 1530s English.
Luke 9:40 Whosoever is not against you, is on your parte. ex parte is Latin "on the one side only"
In this verse people familiar with Latin would read parte as meaning side, is on our side. Parte with this meaning never made it into the English language.
Here is KJV1611
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
It's the "on our (your) part" phrase that is not understandable by people living today and that came from Tyndale.
ASV fixes the problem in 1901.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is for us.
Now that is understandable to most today.
Here is Tyndale in 1530s English.
Luke 9:40 Whosoever is not against you, is on your parte. ex parte is Latin "on the one side only"
In this verse people familiar with Latin would read parte as meaning side, is on our side. Parte with this meaning never made it into the English language.
Here is KJV1611
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
It's the "on our (your) part" phrase that is not understandable by people living today and that came from Tyndale.
ASV fixes the problem in 1901.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is for us.
Now that is understandable to most today.
Uh huh. and I don't say the KJV shouldn't be used. For those who are used to it and like it, it's perfectly adequate, if flawed in places. Sometime I get in the mind for its literary flow and like it myself.
For ordinary use BY ME, I prefer the NRSV, or any of the RSV family (RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV, ESV)
For in-depth study, the extensive translation notes of the NET are terrific,
And for the New Testament, I really like N.T. Wright's Kingdom New Testament..
For ordinary use BY ME, I prefer the NRSV, or any of the RSV family (RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV, ESV)
For in-depth study, the extensive translation notes of the NET are terrific,
And for the New Testament, I really like N.T. Wright's Kingdom New Testament..
aleshanee said:
I like to refer back to Psalms 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
and
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
If we pray and ask....He will let us understand them......but that is the only way....other men trying to take His word and sum it up with their own wisdom will certainly bring forth error
I prefer KJV 1611
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Bo said:
So, this is what you read?
This is my favorite edition and the standard of the version.
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
Bo said:
That's good practice when reading any translation.
Izdaari said:
While there can be a discussion about whether the KJV is made from the "best manuscripts", I'd say that the scholars who translated the KJV have not been equaled by another group when their piety and ability is compared.
Of course, if you just mean that they didn't take account of modern, critical textual scholarship, I agree.
bgwilkinson said:
Of course, there is a balance here... one of the main goals should be to convey precisely what God said... at the same time, being accurate, but not understandable is not very helpful. But one can also make too many changes to make something understandable that no longer accurately reflects what God had said.
Personally, I have never had any trouble understanding For he that is not against us is is on our part - from the context, the meaning is clear.
But the phrase in question is "huper hemon estin" -- more or less literally "on the side of us is". IMO, the ASV version is fine here; I'd prefer "is on our side" to merely "is for us".
In addition, the KJV usage of "conversation" is confusing to modern readers; this word has changed in meaning.
But overall, I still like the KJV best.
Bo said:
I prefer the KJV after they standardized the spelling and fonts... the 1611 is pretty hard to read (I have a 1611 facsimile copy)
Walt said:
Yep. My Old Scofield is a really nice KJV... when I'm feeling literary enough, or want to laugh at the silly notes.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
aleshanee said:bgwilkinson said:Bo said:
So, this is what you read?
This is my favorite edition and the standard of the version.
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
that;s the same one i have...... same picture.. same fonts..... same alternate vowel and consonant usages in spelling...... and it even has the apocrypha ... (except for enoch)... inserted between the old and new testaments....
no...it;s not the bible i would hand to someone that i was trying to explain the bible too....... (unless that person time warped from the 15th century)..... but i still enjoy reading it and never found it all that hard to understand...... there are other written languages still used today that use alternate pronunciation of certain vowels and consonants in the same way the 1611 king james does... ..... and as it happens some of those written languages were developed only a few centuries ago with the assistance of christian missionaries who had 1611 king james bibles... (as well as other early english works)... in their personal libraries.....
This is my favorite KJV. It's a bit large but the soft red leather is exquisite and feels so good to hold in ones hands.
[youtube]UPAvUclkagg[/youtube]