Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today
FSSL said:
Agree. Both are potentially valuable.
T
thethinkingrebel
Guest
One point I read recently, was that the KJV keeps many preachers in a job, as it allows them to simply take a verse, explain what it means for an hour then call it a sermon.
I use the New English Bible, its definitely a dynamic bible, but its also similar to the KJV in that it tends to be poetic. It even has archaic words, but nothing near as bad as the KJV. They tend to be used where no modern word could carry the meaning.
Its my favourite translation, if preachers used it they may find themselves at a loss without anything to talk about. How often do you find KJV preachers having to take a word and claim that God used it, then twist it to prove their point? Modern translations take that away. Think of the theories laid atop of the KJV, when a modern translation comes along it demolishes the theory.
That tends to be why the KJV is so vehemently defended. If the NIV had been used since 1611 it would be defended the same.
I use the New English Bible, its definitely a dynamic bible, but its also similar to the KJV in that it tends to be poetic. It even has archaic words, but nothing near as bad as the KJV. They tend to be used where no modern word could carry the meaning.
Its my favourite translation, if preachers used it they may find themselves at a loss without anything to talk about. How often do you find KJV preachers having to take a word and claim that God used it, then twist it to prove their point? Modern translations take that away. Think of the theories laid atop of the KJV, when a modern translation comes along it demolishes the theory.
That tends to be why the KJV is so vehemently defended. If the NIV had been used since 1611 it would be defended the same.
thethinkingrebel said:
I heard the same thing years ago. Our duty, as expositors of God's word is to understand the original author's intent, NOT the understandings of Anglicans in the 1600s.
FSSL Our duty, as expositors of God's word is to understand the original author's intent, NOT the understandings of Anglicans in the 1600s.
Bob H And that's from a formal equivalent translation. I'm glad you see things my way now.
Problem... a formal equivalent translation does not always give the original author's intent... Consider the following example from the NASB
We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Col 1:3
In the originals, the word "always" does modify the word "praying." The word-for-word translation makes it appear that "always" goes with "praying" because the two are in close proximity to each other.
The problem is that in Koine Greek, an adverb generally follows the verb it modifies. The NIV gets it right:
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you...
This is just one example of the weakness of a formal, word-for-word translation...
Bob H And that's from a formal equivalent translation. I'm glad you see things my way now.
Problem... a formal equivalent translation does not always give the original author's intent... Consider the following example from the NASB
We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Col 1:3
In the originals, the word "always" does modify the word "praying." The word-for-word translation makes it appear that "always" goes with "praying" because the two are in close proximity to each other.
The problem is that in Koine Greek, an adverb generally follows the verb it modifies. The NIV gets it right:
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you...
This is just one example of the weakness of a formal, word-for-word translation...
FSSL said:FSSL Our duty, as expositors of God's word is to understand the original author's intent, NOT the understandings of Anglicans in the 1600s.
Bob H And that's from a formal equivalent translation. I'm glad you see things my way now.
Problem... a formal equivalent translation does not always give the original author's intent... Consider the following example from the NASB
We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Col 1:3
In the originals, the word "always" does modify the word "praying." The word-for-word translation makes it appear that "always" goes with "praying" because the two are in close proximity to each other.
The problem is that in Koine Greek, an adverb generally follows the verb it modifies. The NIV gets it right:
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you...
This is just one example of the weakness of a formal, word-for-word translation...
Considering that they {the KJV & NASB} use different underlying greek texts there's gonna some minor differences. Opinions are split on which greek text is superior. I'm only a layman but if I were preaching on that text it wouldn't be worth mentioning. But what do I know?
There is no textual difference here. The Greek texts are the same.
The word4word NASB and KJV are interpreting Col 1:3. A formal equivalent does interpret and does not prevent biases.
It is certainly worth mentioning. The meanings are not the same. Paul is not saying he always prayed for them. Yet, when he dis pray for them there was always an occasion of rejoicing. The focus is not on Paul's continued praying but on the steadfast character of the Colossians. A salient point that would be missed.
The word4word NASB and KJV are interpreting Col 1:3. A formal equivalent does interpret and does not prevent biases.
It is certainly worth mentioning. The meanings are not the same. Paul is not saying he always prayed for them. Yet, when he dis pray for them there was always an occasion of rejoicing. The focus is not on Paul's continued praying but on the steadfast character of the Colossians. A salient point that would be missed.
Bob H said:FSSL said:
My bad. You mentioned the NASB and the NIV, not the KJ. Reading is my friend
LOL! I misquoted John 3:16 yesterday... so your bad still looks pretty good
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Winston said:
There have been more than three revisions of the KJV. The exact number would depend upon how many changes are considered necessary for an edition to be considered a revision.
There was a 1616 small folio edition of the KJV that is considered a revision.
There was the 1629 Cambridge edition of the KJV that is considered a revision.
There was the 1638 Cambridge edition of the KJV that is considered a revision.
There was the 1660 London edition of the KJV that was a revision, largely unknown but likely used in the later important 1743 Cambridge revision.
There was the 1743 Cambridge edition of the KJV that was a revision. This 1743 edition introduced many and likely even most of the changes that are credited to the 1762 Cambridge edition.
There was the 1762 Cambridge edition that is considered a revision.
There was the 1769 Oxford edition by Benjamin Blayney that was a revision.
There were several later Oxford and Cambridge editions that made a good number of changes to the 1769 Oxford and some of them could be considered revisions. The 1829 Oxford edition introduced a good number of changes.
There was the 1817 Cambridge edition that was a revision.
There was the 1852 American Bible Society revision of the KJV.
There was the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener that was a revision.
There was the 2005 Cambridge edition by David Norton that was a revision.
L
Lisa Ruby
Guest
FSSL said:Bob H said:
Then why state it? If your position is for all practical purposes different than the KJVO position, it would be very clear and you would not need to begin with this caveat. But, with that in mind... I will not accuse you of being a KJVO, just a defender of their particular tradition.
I'm a FETO {Formal equivalent translation only}..................which leaves out most of them
To make this claim means that you have never translated from the Greek and Hebrew. If you have, you know very well that translating (formally or functionally), you will need to interpret. ALL Bibles have interpretations including the KJV and ESV.
The word of God has never been intended to become obscure in a language that the people no longer use. Even the KJV translators recognized this.
I highly recommend the ESV... The preface to the ESV states: "Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts."
Since the ESV is more consistent in its formal equivalent approach than the KJV, then "God forbid" why defend the KJV?
To suggest that we are to stay with the KJV in 2012 means that you are given to a tradition, rather than bringing the word of God to current usage and making the much needed significant corrections.
Why do you like the ESV so much? It removes key words. In Psalm 109:6 "Satan" is removed. One can't assume the reader will go all over the Bible and keep reading until they find out that Satan is also called the accuser (of the brethren.)
A real Bible doesn't hold back the truth in a verse in the hopes that the reader will figure out the full meaning only after they read all 66 books.
Psalm 109:6 KJ: "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let
SATAN stand at his right hand."
ESV: "Appoint a wicked man against him; let an
accuser stand at his right hand."
L
Lisa Ruby
Guest
logos1560 said:
Lisa Ruby said:
The KJV removed the politically incorrect terms "tyrant" and "tyranny" in its day. Disagreeing with the modern, man-made KJV-only theory does not indicate any hatred for the KJV as you falsely accuse.
Is it possible that King James I did not want believers to read how strongly God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did King James think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? Alexander McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,395
- Reaction score
- 2,408
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Why do you like the ESV so much? It removes key words. In Psalm 109:6 "Satan" is removed.
Quit lying, Ruby. It wasn't "removed." It was translated literally, and appropriately for its context. The "accuser" of 6b parallels the "wicked man" of 6a. The psalmist is essentially saying that there is no more fitting retribution than for a wicked man and a liar to to be judged by one just like himself. The "accuser" could be Satan, but there's no reason he has to be (except to prop up a silly prejudice against a translation of the Word of God that happens not to be the one you pretend to worship and obey).
Quit lying, Ruby. It wasn't "removed." It was translated literally, and appropriately for its context. The "accuser" of 6b parallels the "wicked man" of 6a. The psalmist is essentially saying that there is no more fitting retribution than for a wicked man and a liar to to be judged by one just like himself. The "accuser" could be Satan, but there's no reason he has to be (except to prop up a silly prejudice against a translation of the Word of God that happens not to be the one you pretend to worship and obey).
J
jimmudcatgrant
Guest
Ransom said:
Strongs makes a good case for Satan here:
Hebrew Strong's Number: 7854
Hebrew Word: שָׂטָן
Transliteration: śāṭān
Phonetic Pronunciation:saw-tawn'
Root: from <H7853>, Greek <G4566>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 2252a
Part of Speech: n m
Vine's Words: Satan
Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:
Satan 19
adversary 7
withstand 1
[Total Count: 27]
from <H7853> (satan); an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch-enemy of good :- adversary, Satan, withstand.
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
Clarke takes a different view:
Psalms 109:6
Let Satan stand at his right hand - As the word שטן satan means an adversary simply, though sometimes it is used to express the evil spirit Satan, I think it best to preserve here its grammatical meaning:
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=Lisa Ruby] Actually what many object to in the King James Bible is not "archaic" terms, although that is the excuse to abandon it.[/quote]
Again: if you believe that, then you're self-deluded.
No, it's the many mistakes the 400-year-old vocabulary, and the difficult sentence construction.
The KJV's poor translation of this term occurs in Deut 23:17:
17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
This is one place where a knowledge of Hebrew would have prevented you from embarrassing yourself. The word used in Deut 23:17 for "whore" and "sodomite" is actually the same word; it's just the male and female form of the same word. Those words are qdshe (female) and qdsh (male). These two words are from the Hebrew root word qadash, which means to make holy, sanctify, hallow, dedicate, etc. It is, in fact, the same root word from which we get all of the following words and phrases:
"Holy Spirit"
(ruach qodesh),
Ex 20:8 to keep the sabbath holy,
zkur ath-ium e
Again: if you believe that, then you're self-deluded.
No, it's the many mistakes the 400-year-old vocabulary, and the difficult sentence construction.
The KJV's poor translation of this term occurs in Deut 23:17:
17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
This is one place where a knowledge of Hebrew would have prevented you from embarrassing yourself. The word used in Deut 23:17 for "whore" and "sodomite" is actually the same word; it's just the male and female form of the same word. Those words are qdshe (female) and qdsh (male). These two words are from the Hebrew root word qadash, which means to make holy, sanctify, hallow, dedicate, etc. It is, in fact, the same root word from which we get all of the following words and phrases:
"Holy Spirit"
(ruach qodesh),
Ex 20:8 to keep the sabbath holy,
zkur ath-ium e
T
thethinkingrebel
Guest
Lisa Ruby said:
Aside from what redgreen explained about the Hebrew roots, "sodomite" is still a misnomer. It's popularly thought to refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah for which they were destroyed, right? Well, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel all talk about the reasons those cities were destroyed... and surprise, they hardly even mention any kind of sexual sin! Instead they focus on social injustice and corruption, lack of hospitality to strangers, lack of charity to the poor, etc. Well, I guess those things are the real sins of Sodom! Because if you can't believe the three greatest prophets of the OT, who can you believe?