|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:59 pm
Of all editions of the Bible, the King James Version is probably my least favourite. Why? Well, it sounds absolutely wonderful - the language is so grand, so beautiful - but it is probably one of the worst translations of the Bible ever published.
I recently got into a debate with a fellow who considered the KJV to be the only legitimate edition of the Bible. Including the original Hebrew and Greek. I pointed out that there have been several editions of the KJV published since 1611, and that its translation is inaccurate and spotty at best. However, he insisted that the King James Bible, in English, is the sole legitimate Word of God over even translations from the Hebrew and Greek by modern scholars with a more thorough understanding of the languages than Tyndale and his cohorts, even over the original Hebrew and Greek. The kata Loukan euangelion, according to him, is more legitimate when translated into English by medieval scholars than in its original Greek, and to even consider the Word of God in another language is heresy.
I did a little digging, and discovered something called the King James Only movement, which strikes me as particularly and willfully ignorant. What is the reasoning behind this? Can anyone illuminate such thinking for me?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:17 pm
I'm not a KJV only individual too me it seems to be a baptist thing but please do share what english version you consider to be the most correct...
From what i understand the hebrew is so complex that english can not trully form every detail.(i willl not play the the know-it since im not savey in hebrew or in greek)
As far as the Greek i have my own thoughts and even though they are i still doubt them.
BTW I was reading David Flynn and he made a interesting point about the word comonly used for "congregation" being switched to church in many passages/ and that King James was doing this to push his own agenda.
These are just things i reference through but honestly i dont think much of the NIV either i recommend a good "Strongs" or Internet bible /e-sword, Logo's software
I Agree with Chuck Missler that the Word of God was created in a way that it can not be destroyed in its whole so even if a bible is badly translated if you study with half a brain you will find a contridiction and seek to resolve .. in this process i believe you will go back to the root of the language
This may be long and sound retarded but its 11:16pm here and im headed to bed and please dont rail on my spelling thank you
Much Love heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:33 pm
I personally prefer the King James Version of the Bible out of all the many, many versions out there. I love the Old English that it's written in. I have read throughout my research that the King James is about as accurate as any other translation out there. I think it's impossible to find a 100% accurate translation of the Bible though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:01 am
I don't think there's any one best translation of the Bible, but I prefer the New International Standard Bible with the apocrypha. My Greek teacher says that when it comes to the New Testament, at least, then most modern Bibles get more right than older editions.
@Shadows: The King James Version isn't written in Old English; it's written in Early Modern English. The reason why I consider it more fit for prayer services than study is the fact that it was badly mistranslated; the people who worked on it translated the Hebrew and Greek directly into Latin, then from Latin directly into English, and priority was given to officious and impressive language rather than syntactical purity and semantic and contextual accuracy. Not to mention it was rather heavily influenced by the biases of King James.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
