Translations.

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

I have read many posts about the King James translation and why some people prefer it to others.  This is the best one that I have read on the subject!  Most of the time it's KJVOs saying that the King James Bible is the word of God.

I prefer modern translations for several reasons...

1) They are written in the language that you and I and virtually every other English-speaking/reading person understands most clearly.  IMHO, it is the understanding of Scripture that is paramount.

2) They are based on the most extensive source evidence, including non-Scriptural sources that illuminate the meaning within the culture in which the Biblical texts were written.

3) Because of the differences in word meaning, verb tenses, idioms, etc. the idea of a "word-for-word" translation is impossible.  Idioms particularly are a problem.  For example, if I said "it's raining cats and dogs" to someone not familiar with English, they would consider me insane.  The same principle holds true for the Bible source language cultures.

4) I'm sure you're aware that translations are created to be understood within specific cultures.  For example, recently I have been reading the "First Nations Version" of the NT, which translates the Biblical concepts into Native American thought patterns.  I also have friends that translated the Bible into the language and thought patterns of New Guinea tribespeople.  Our English translations were created to be understood within our culture but, and this is important, the culture of early 17th Century England no longer exists.  As you correctly state, the KJV pronouns may be more precise, but we no longer use plowshares or pruning hooks, nor de we understand the strength of a unicorn.

5) For these reasons, I prefer modern translations, created for me, in my language, to be understood by my culture.  I also rely extensively on translator's notes, which is one reason I especially like the NET Bible, which has more than 60,000 notes to accompany the (modern English) text.

Shalom, JimmyB.

That's fine. As I said, the best translation for anyone is the one he or she will read!

For me, whatever version I use AT THE TIME is the one that most closely mirrors the Greek and Hebrew for that contest. And, for me, that usually means the KJV. On the other hand, I'm working toward a "SKY" version, that will be truer to the actual wording of the original languages than modern translations do.

[Alive]

6 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Okay, what is the difference to you between a translation and a version?  I have my own idea what you mean but I would appreciate some clarification.

Those that are paraphrased, such as the Living Bible that was popular in the 70’s. I had a parallel bible that included it, so I am familiar with it.

[ayin jade]

The archaic language of the kjv limits my daily reading so I use other translations. Often (since I use the bible online for the most part because of limitations to my hands) I find myself comparing verses to other versions no matter which version I am reading at the time. 

There is one aspect of the kjv that irritates me though. It is the use of 2 words: unicorn and corn. Unicorn is a medieval symbol that is not the correct translation of the word in hebrew. Corn is a new world plant and not one that was in ancient middle east. It was known to the kjv translators though. I cannot read those few passages in the kjv without seeing it as a mistranslation. Minor and doesnt affect any important doctrinal things, but it gets in the way of my concentration. 

Typically I use the nasb, the mkjv, the nkjv and when I compare verses, I add the kjv. I have strong's in both nasb and kjv.

[Alive]

3 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

The archaic language of the kjv limits my daily reading so I use other translations. Often (since I use the bible online for the most part because of limitations to my hands) I find myself comparing verses to other versions no matter which version I am reading at the time. 

There is one aspect of the kjv that irritates me though. It is the use of 2 words: unicorn and corn. Unicorn is a medieval symbol that is not the correct translation of the word in hebrew. Corn is a new world plant and not one that was in ancient middle east. It was known to the kjv translators though. I cannot read those few passages in the kjv without seeing it as a mistranslation. Minor and doesnt affect any important doctrinal things, but it gets in the way of my concentration. 

Typically I use the nasb, the mkjv, the nkjv and when I compare verses, I add the kjv. I have strong's in both nasb and kjv.

Yup….my biggest problem with the kjv is the use of the word hell in the OT. That influence likely came from Roman influence.

For the most part, I think it is a good franslation.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 hours ago, ayin jade said:

There is one aspect of the kjv that irritates me though. It is the use of 2 words: unicorn and corn. Unicorn is a medieval symbol that is not the correct translation of the word in hebrew. Corn is a new world plant and not one that was in ancient middle east. It was known to the kjv translators though. I cannot read those few passages in the kjv without seeing it as a mistranslation.

Mentioning Easter, does that for me!

[Starise]

I just ordered a John MacArthur Bible. I am not strictly reformed but I think he has probably done an excellent job of compiling study notes.

[Retrobyter]

25 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Here's one example: the CT reading for Luke 3:33.  Who is "Arni" and is he really a Terminator?

Luke 3:33 (ESV) the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

Yes, it is useful and interesting to know about mistranslations, especially if they change the meaning of something important.

Shalom, David1701.

One should ALWAYS check one language against another!

Luke 3:33 (ESV) the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

versus

1 Chronicles 2:1-11 (KJV)

1 These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, 2 Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

3 The sons of Judah (Hebrew: Yhuwdaah); Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. 4 And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez (Hebrew: Perets) and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.

5 The sons of Pharez; Hezron (Hebrew: Hetsrown), and Hamul. 6 And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all. 7 And the sons of Carmi; Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed. 8 And the sons of Ethan; Azariah.

9 The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram (Hebrew: Raam), and Chelubai. 10 And Ram begat Amminadab (Hebrew: `AmmiynaadaaV); and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; 11 And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz, 12 And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse,

So, the actual list is: `AmmiynaadaaV, Raam, Hetsrown, Perets, Yhuwdaah.

This can be confirmed with Genesis 46:12; and Ruth 4:18, 19.

Furthermore, there are several different Greek versions that are out there:

Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) says that Luke 3:33 should be ...

τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, τοῦ Ἀράμ, τοῦ Ἑσρώμ, τοῦ Φαρές, τοῦ Ἰούδα,

Transliterated into English lettering this is ...

tou Aminadab, tou Aram, tou Hesroom, tou Fares, tou Iouda,

Translated into English, this is ...

of-the Aminadab, of-the Aram, of-the Hesrom, of the Fares, of-the Juda,

and the King James Version renders it ...

Luke 3:33 (KJV)

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

[Retrobyter]

6 hours ago, ayin jade said:

The archaic language of the kjv limits my daily reading so I use other translations. Often (since I use the bible online for the most part because of limitations to my hands) I find myself comparing verses to other versions no matter which version I am reading at the time. 

There is one aspect of the kjv that irritates me though. It is the use of 2 words: unicorn and corn. Unicorn is a medieval symbol that is not the correct translation of the word in hebrew. Corn is a new world plant and not one that was in ancient middle east. It was known to the kjv translators though. I cannot read those few passages in the kjv without seeing it as a mistranslation. Minor and doesnt affect any important doctrinal things, but it gets in the way of my concentration. 

Typically I use the nasb, the mkjv, the nkjv and when I compare verses, I add the kjv. I have strong's in both nasb and kjv.

Shalom, ayin jade.

There are a few words that are "archaic," like "wot" and "trow"; however, for the most part it's a more pure form of English than we have today. The 1611 English, which was the contemporary English of William Shakespeare, has case as well as gender and number, like many European languages. Modern English had degenerated into its current form and has LOST so much information in the process. There are legitimate reasons for the various endings of the verbs in 1611 English. It's not just the "thee's" and "thou's"; it's also the verb endings that go along with them, verbs that end with "-est" and "-eth" have their place, too, just as much as "-ed" and "-ing." We should be striving to understand the older forms of English as much as we should understand Greek or Hebrew.

The New American Standard Bible is as a good word-for-word translation as the King James Version. However, one should also note that the NEW American Standard Version is as different from the American Standard Version as the New King James Version is different from the KJV.

The meaning of the word "unicorn" is "one-horn"; it was a word commonly used for the rhinoceros.

The meaning of the word "corn" is found in the fact that it comes from the same root as "kernal." It is also related to the "Old English, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch koren and German Korn," and "kernal" is from the "Old English cyrnel, diminutive of corn." It's ...

"a softer, usually edible part of a nut, seed, or fruit stone contained within its hard shell."

So, don't be misled by the current definitions of words used in the 1600s to translate the Scriptures. A few things have changed since then.

Sometimes, we tend to think that the OLD is archaic and the New is more "sophisticated." But, actually, it's more like the NEW is more degenerate and decayed than the more pure OLD. Our English language has devolved into what it is today.

[ayin jade]

I do not like having to translate archaic english just to read the bible. I see no reason to read the bible in a foreign language. 

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, Starise said:

I just ordered a John MacArthur Bible. I am not strictly reformed but I think he has probably done an excellent job of compiling study notes.

Shalom, Starise.

Just be aware that ANY "study Bible" includes notes that are written by HUMAN AUTHORS and are susceptible to the same flaws as in any commentary.