niv

[Joulre2abba]

Just now, KiwiChristian said:

You honestly don't see?

 

Do you think homosexuals are prostitutes?

Do you really think that engaging in sex orgies in a pagan temple would mean that they would limit themselves to hetero sex?

[KiwiChristian]

15 minutes ago, Joulre2abba said:

Do you really think that engaging in sex orgies in a pagan temple would mean that they would limit themselves to hetero sex?

Answer the question.

 

Is a homosexual the same as a prostitute?

 

[warrior12]

7 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

"difficult to grasp without a dictionary of those words of sort."

 

WHICH words?

 

Does no-one know of a thing called "Google" ?

 

"updated versions" ?

 

Define "updated" ?

 

We are not talking about word-changes when the words mean the SAME thing, but word-changes that CHANGE the meaning, and words removed.

 

 

Viewing the original 1611 KJV with archaic English spelling.
Click to switch to the Standard KJV.

 

1In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

2And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.

5And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Hope you get my point.  The KJV you read online is not the original grammar and the standard ones that we read today off course was updated to modern english .  see above example.   

type the following in the youtube search box and you will find a 3 hour debate on the transalators of the modern versions of bibles. "kjv only debate".

[Still Alive]

8 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Also, i find the language of the KJV beautiful. 

This is a sentiment I've never understood. But I didn't become a Christian until I was 27. I just saw it as old language. I don't like Shakespeare either. It's almost like a foreign language. I started with the NIV and have a few other versions as well. My cell phone bible was KJV and I hated using it, and avoid it when possible. 

[LadyKay]

9 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

I never even MENTIONED the KJV.

 

Yes, there IS a reason to "bash" other translations if those translations are FALSE

 

What texts did your "holman study bible" use to translate the Word of God?

 

And, please dont say "the Greek" or "the Hebrew". WHICH?

 

Wow, MANS opinions offered in side-notes? The Bible speaks for itself.

Show me a passage in the KJV that you find hard to understand.

I don't have time for all of this. But if I can find the time I will take a look at how my Holman Study Bible was translated. I am not sure what you mean as side-notes. As for understanding the KJV, I personally do not have too much of an issue understanding it. But I do not speak for others.  There is indeed a reason to bash false translations this is true. But the NIV is not a false translation. 

[warrior12]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

This is a sentiment I've never understood. But I didn't become a Christian until I was 27. I just saw it as old language. I don't like Shakespeare either. It's almost like a foreign language. I started with the NIV and have a few other versions as well. My cell phone bible was KJV and I hated using it, and avoid it when possible. 

A quick review of the modern version of the KJV , with modern 2oth century english grammar. Why is this 1900 version so foreign to you.    Get acquainted with the history of the KJV  and  i find it no more difficult to read than any other Bible translation.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/King-James-Bible-English/

  

King James Bible English Spelling

Does the King James Bible contain spelling errors?

The 1611 King James Bible was writen more than four hundred years ago when the English language was different. The original 1611 A.D. text, written in Early Modern English, shows the language with its Latin influence. Spelling was in Jacobean style which was not entirely standardized, but could be read phonetically. The original typeface was in Gothic style. Although both the typestyle and the older language of the 1611 version may be considered difficult to read by some 21st Century English readers, the translators produced an accurate translation known for its beauty, cadence, and poetic feel. 


 

1611 English Language Differences for John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

(1) The 1611 original (with Gothic type): (see entire chapter)





(2) A 1833 copy of a 1617 version (with Roman folio letters):

 



(3) A 1900-1970 Cambridge Edition of King James Bible (based on 1769 version):


 

[Still Alive]

11 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

A quick review of the modern version of the KJV , with modern 2oth century english grammar. Why is this 1900 version so foreign to you.    Get acquainted with the history of the KJV  and  i find it no more difficult to read than any other Bible translation.

 

I would if I felt the need. However, time is short and I also feel no reason to do that. I have plenty of versions both in hard and soft copy, as well as plenty of lexicons at my fingertips. The KJV is just another version. I use it for comparison as I do the others. 

Honestly, suggesting that I could learn to understand it just like my native language is, to me, a bit like telling me that I should be driving a manual transmission and it is better than an automatic. But driving is a "tool" it is an ends to a mean, not an end in itself. The KJV is just another example of sincere people taking a stab at the original text, and they seem to do a good job.

Most people do not have a need to be able to drive a stick, and the same is true of learning the language of the KJV. If all we have is cars with sticks, and all we have is the KJV, then obviously my position on both would be different.

[BeyondET]

15 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Having a doctorate and being the "head chair" of a few colleges mean nothing.

What texts did he used?

I mentioned it, he translated the Syriac peshito to English, no it doesn't that why he walked away from all that, a one verse example below

matt 5

28 But I say to you, That whoever gazeth on a woman with concupiscence, at once committeth adultery with her in his heart.

[warrior12]

4 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Honestly, suggesting that I could learn to understand it just like my native language is, to me, a bit like telling me that I should be driving a manual transmission and it is better than an automatic. But driving is a "tool" it is an ends to a mean, not an end in itself. The KJV is just another example of sincere people taking a stab at the original text, and they seem to do a good job.

 

6 hours ago, Still Alive said:

My cell phone bible was KJV and I hated using it, and avoid it when possible. 

I did not make any suggestion for you to learn anything, rather i just pointed out that you review the grammatical changes that has be made to the KJV from the 16th century up to the 19th century, since in your own words, you HATED using the KJV.  That is strong language for the word.  I can use my understanding and see that it is not the "word" per say that you hate, but the grammar that is used to convey it.  So you have to remember, that on a forum, people would scrutinize on how you present your thoughts, especially here and the boots would come at you as you have seen already.   At the end of the day, you have choice as we are still in a democracy for now. 

A lot of controversy surrounding the language and grammar of the KJV is as a result of the 1611 archaic  versions used in the very early editions and the newest editions are quite readable as any of today's translation.  When it comes to the claim that it is the only true translation, then that's a whole different topic.  This topic can be vast and become hot, as it has been for years and prudence has to be taken with communication and dialogue. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by warrior12

[Still Alive]

33 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

 

I did not make any suggestion for you to learn anything, rather i just pointed out that you review the grammatical changes that has be made to the KJV from the 16th century up to the 19th century, since in your own words, you HATED using the KJV.  That is strong language for the word.  I can use my understanding and see that it is not the "word" per say that you hate, but the grammar that is used to convey it.  So you have to remember, that on a forum, people would scrutinize on how you present your thoughts, especially here and the boots would come at you as you have seen already.   At the end of the day, you have choice as we are still in a democracy for now. 

A lot of controversy surrounding the language and grammar of the KJV is as a result of the 1611 archaic  versions used in the very early editions and the newest editions are quite readable as any of today's translation.  When it comes to the claim that it is the only true translation, then that's a whole different topic.  This topic can be vast and become hot, as it has been for years and prudence has to be taken with communication and dialogue. 

I was incorrectly paraphrasing your comment about "get aquainted". 

I have to confess that I have a minor mental challenge. I'm a VERY binary thinker and have syntax errors all the time, almost like a computer program. One outcome is that I emotionally bristle every time I see words like "thee" and "thou" and "eth" added to the end of words. I feel so strongly about it that I will literally sing old hymns and replace "Thou" with "you" as I sing. 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Still Alive