Reading the Bible

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 12, 2015 at 10:00pm

Yeah. I'm still working on that myself. I sometimes check the reverse translation so I can see word for word if anything is different. Granted, those are translations too, but without the added fluff.

Permalink Reply by Tammy on November 13, 2015 at 6:32pm

Right. I go to the Greek & Hebrew but you've seen those definitions. HUGE

Permalink Reply by Ananda Welikala on November 19, 2015 at 5:33am

All Bibles in the English language except the KJV completely obliterate the AWESOMENESS and the GRANDEUR  of the words.   Pl. compare "Thou art"  with "you are."  The former is like falling on your knees in prayer; the latter like sitting down comfortably in a chair  in prayer.

To those who say that the KJV is difficult to understand,  pl tell me how about 200 yrs ago simple, hardly educated people like farmers, cobblers, laborers, tailor, soldiers etc in the UK and USA etc learned to read and understand the KJV as it was the only version available in those days to common people.  In 1611 King James got the KJV written, produced and distributed.  In that time that;s all those commoners had.   With that in mind, I don't know why people are "griping" about the KJV.  

Nothing is easy for most people when it comes to learning.  So is the KJV.  Pl recite the 23rd Psalm in the NIV and then in the NIV.  

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 19, 2015 at 6:38am

It is harder for some people to understand because it was written itself in an ancient language, the old English.  The way they spoke in 1611 isn't the way we use the English language today.  Thee and Thou and art.  Just this morning I was listening to John.  Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.  The first thing popped in my head was "crowed".  ;-)

I have not been able to find anything online, but maybe someone here knows.  Is there a literal word-for-word translation of the KJV?  Something that changes words like crew to crowed, or has definitions in the margins to make it more understandable?

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 19, 2015 at 5:14pm

There are a couple of newer version, and in fact most people today do not read the 1611 version but rather one revised around 1880. Where these newer versions are not exactly what you are asking, but an attempt to translate from the original and adjust from the original and adjust the KJV (to the exception of the 1880ish version that was an update of the language) at the same time. At the same time we have newer translations that have attempted to stay true to the Word of God as they brought forth their translation. The closest word-for-word IMO is the NASB. Again, here you will find various editions with certain revisions taking place through the years. It is almost laughable when we find a view that ONLY THE KJV is acceptable. it was translated almost 1600 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus, we cannot say that since they lived nearer to the time in which He lived they would have understood the culture better. We also know that it was authorized by a person who really wasn't all that good of a person. We now know that there are older manuscripts that what they had to work with and some of the newer versions have chosen to translate from the older manuscripts. Is the KJV a good version? Yes, but that does nto mean all others are wrong or inferior. God has used the KJV over the years, that cannot be denied, but is it supreme? Some think so, I think it serves its purpose, but so do many others today.

I reiterate something I said before. In the area of doctrine when we look at the totality of Scripture we do not find a difference between the KJV, the NIV of the NASB. They all acknowledge Jesus, teach that He died ont he cross and rose again. They teach that His blood being shed was necessary for the remissions of sin. They teach that it is by grace we are saved through faith, and this not of works ...

We need to be careful. We appreciate the Word of God and recognize its great value to us, but we do not worship the Bible or any of the translations. The purpose of the Word is to draw us to Jesus by revealing Him to us and not to simply draw us to the Word.

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 19, 2015 at 6:00pm

But there are plenty of admonishments though about changing what the Word says, and being wise and discerning. I see so many subtle changes that I wonder what happens when they keep updating it to where it in no way resembles Scripture anymore. I'd find it better if they translated from the original Greek/Hebrew rather than translate off the KJV. Everything loses something in the translation. And if we translate off something already translated, it keeps diluting it. I can't understand why, if they were translating, why they chose to only translate parts. IE: The NIV leaves a chunk out of the Lord's prayer. If it's insignificant then it wouldn't have been a big deal to leave it in would it?

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 19, 2015 at 6:14pm

It is not left out by the translators. It is translated and foot noted that many of the manuscripts do not have these words included. They felt that to include these words (which they foot noted) was in jeopardy of adding to the Word of God. Which in essence is what the KJV is doing by adding the text if in fact the older manuscripts are the more accurate ones.

Remember that a true translation is not translating from a previous translation, but working with the same documents previously used to bring forth a translation, or in many cases today using older manuscripts that were found after the KJV was translated. If one were to only use the argument that the closer to the origin date the purer the message then one would have to conclude that the KJV would be inferior because it uses newer, thus farther away from the events, manuscripts. I am not making that argument, but pointing out some facts to be pondered. I am not anti KJV, just not in the camp of KJV only ... not even close.

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 20, 2015 at 3:24am

And you just proved a point of what I was asking. I've never heard of KJV adding to the Word until you said it. And it prompted me to see if that was correct. I pulled up the Matthew 6:13 in Mounce. And a word for word translation does not include the last sentence that the KJV has. So there's one verse where NIV stays true to the original.

But I don't understand what you mean by the KJV using newer language. Being written in the 1600s isn't closer to the date of the original than later versions?

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 20, 2015 at 3:46am

There are basically two sets of manuscripts (to keep this short). One set was available in 1611 when the KJV was finished. After that time another set was found which is considerably older (thus closer to the time of Christ). The NIV and some other versions have been translated from the older manuscripts which were found after the completion of the KJV 1611.

I am not advocating for one over the other, but point out that if one is going to argue (as many do) that the KJV is better because it is older then we have to question that because the NIV is translated from manuscripts that are older than what the 1611 KJV used.

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 20, 2015 at 5:30pm

Now I'm curious as to why there were two sets of manuscripts. Was there already a translation that they translated from?

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 20, 2015 at 5:57pm

There are over 5000 manuscripts and far more pieces of manuscripts available. Thus, to really call them two sets is not really accurate, but an attempt on my part to simplify the point. What we do know is that at the time the KJV was translated there were "X" number available. After 1611 and the completion of the KJV translation more manuscripts have been discovered. Many of these discovered manuscripts are older than the ones used for the KJV and reveal the likely hood that some of the newer manuscripts had been altered by making subtle changes or even adding extra lines here and there. So, basically my reference to two sets is to identify what was available before 1611 and differentiate that from what is available after 1611. 

Again, the variances do not alter basic doctrine nor change the heart of the Biblical message.

Going back to the word-for-word for a moment. It is impossible to do a strict word-for-word translation that would be readable. The syntax in various languages is different and if the syntax is not followed can change the root meaning. Also there are times a word will be inserted in order to fill out the thought and to attempt to be grammatically correct.

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 20, 2015 at 9:02pm

The syntax in various languages is different and if the syntax is not followed can change the root meaning. Also there are times a word will be inserted in order to fill out the thought and to attempt to be grammatically correct.

I know how that one works. I've had Spanish and some things are stated opposite.

I know I've heard explanations that "the" and conjunctions were added so it's more readable.

And then other versions came and changed the old English thee and thou to current usage.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page