Preferred Bible translation

[JimmyB]

25 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JimmyB.

I've said this before, but there is MUCH information that was lost when we went to modern English, whether Brittish English or American English.

People today don't even KNOW that they have been deprived of this information! There was a REASON for the "thee's" and "thou's" in the KJV. They show the singular as opposed to the plurals of "ye's" and "you's."

One might think that the context would show the difference between the two, when all we have left is the "you" form, but that is not always the case! In fact, I can SHOW you instances where it makes a HUGE difference!

Here's an example:

Luke 17:20-21 (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,

"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, 'Lo here!' or, 'lo there!' for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

The word "you" here is PLURAL! It is NOT the word "thee." This is reflecting the Greek of the verses:

20 Ἐπερωτηθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν Φαρισαίων, πότε ἔρχεται ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν,

"Οὐκ ἔρχεται ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ παρατηρήσεως· 21 οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν, 'Ἰδοὺ ὧδε,' ἤ, 'Ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ.' ἰδοὺ γάρ, ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν."

Transliterated, this is ...

20 Eperooteetheis de hupo toon Farisaioon, pote erchetai hee basileia tou Theou, apekrithee autois kai eipen,

"Ouk erchetai hee basileia tou Theou meta parateereeseoos; 21 oude erousin, Idou hoode, ee, Idou ekei, idou gar, hee basileia tou Theou entos humoon estin."

It is not the word "sou" in this verse but "humoon." "Humoon" is the plural, 2nd-person, pronoun in Greek. So, what was Yeeshuwa` saying? He was telling these P'rushiym ("Pharisees," "Farisaioon") that they didn't need to be looking with some "careful observation" ("parateereeseoos") for God's Kingdom; HE WAS ALREADY THERE AMONG THEM! He IS the "Kingdom of God," because He brings the Kingdom WITH HIM!

Luke 19:11-15ff (KJV)

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore,

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them,

"'Occupy till I come.' 

14 "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying,

"'We will not have this man to reign over us!'

15 "And it came to pass, that WHEN HE WAS RETURNED, HAVING RECEIVED THE KINGDOM, THEN HE COMMANDED these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. ..."

Notice the order! We also read this:

Matthew 25:31 (KJV)

31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, THEN SHALL HE SIT UPON THE THRONE of his glory:" 

The Greek preposition "entos" CAN means "within," but with a plural noun or pronoun, it can also mean "AMONG!" And, He was right there AMONG the P'rushiym!

He was certainly NOT saying that the "Kingdom of God was within" THEM!

This is just your opinion. 

There is no comparison between the gain of use of pronouns, which are clearly understandable in context, and the loss of meaning of archaic words.  Say hello to your unicorn when you're done with your ploughshare.

P.S. What exactly is "Brittish English" (your words)?

Edited June 13, 2023 by JimmyB

[Retrobyter]

7 hours ago, JimmyB said:

This is just your opinion. 

There is no comparison between the gain of use of pronouns, which are clearly understandable in context, and the loss of meaning of archaic words.  Say hello to your unicorn when you're done with your ploughshare.

Shalom, JimmyB.

Can't you just drop all the animosity against the version? Why such hatred for ONE EXAMPLE of God's Word so richly used by God? Are you kicking against the version or against God's Word? And, while I'm on the subject, what version do YOU prefer?

Again, I don't own a rhinoceros (a "unicorn" or "one-horned" animal). As far as a ploughshare, I'm not so old that I haven't heard that word used in normal conversation. One just has to be in a farming community, and I grew up in rural Wisconsin, which became a suburb while I was growing up.

"Ploughshare" is the Brittish way of saying  a "plow" in American, cut-back version. "Plough" is the Brittish way of spelling "plow," and a "share" is a thing that "cleaves" or "divides!"

7 hours ago, JimmyB said:

P.S. What exactly is "Brittish English" (your words)?

Brittish English is the English that they speak in Great Brittain today, including its colloquialisms. The every-day speech of someone heard in London, England, TODAY.

It's different than American English, Canadian English, and Australian English, and elsewhere English is used as the common tongue.

[Retrobyter]

7 hours ago, JimmyB said:

This is just your opinion. 

There is no comparison between the gain of use of pronouns, which are clearly understandable in context, and the loss of meaning of archaic words.  Say hello to your unicorn when you're done with your ploughshare.

P.S. What exactly is "Brittish English" (your words)?

Shalom, again.

You riled me up; so, I forgot to give you the meat of the post.

It's NOT just my opinion! We have actually LOST the pronouns in the English language! How many (outside of the Amish communities) have you heard use the words "thee" or "thou?" And, when one DOES use one of these words, people think of Iron Man making fun of Thor in the first Avengers movie! "Doth mother knoweth thou weareth her drapes?" (Poorly said, I might add, for the verbs should reflect the part of speech. Go back and read Shakespeare to see the correct way of choosing verbs to reflect the subject, predicate, or object nouns.) It wasn't just "flare"; the words signified the singular as opposed to the plural, or third-person versus first-person or second-person! This is from the time when English had CASES and NUMBER, much as other languages in Europe had and often still have!

It's NOT just about "the gain (or loss) of use of pronouns." There is MUCH more involved than that! One should take a course on how the English language has changed, particularly in the "Colonies." Isolation causes the languages to grow apart.

[JimmyB]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JimmyB.

Can't you just drop all the animosity against the version? Why such hatred for ONE EXAMPLE of God's Word so richly used by God? Are you kicking against the version or against God's Word? And, while I'm on the subject, what version do YOU prefer?

Again, I don't own a rhinoceros (a "unicorn" or "one-horned" animal). As far as a ploughshare, I'm not so old that I haven't heard that word used in normal conversation. One just has to be in a farming community, and I grew up in rural Wisconsin, which became a suburb while I was growing up.

"Ploughshare" is the Brittish way of saying  a "plow" in American, cut-back version. "Plough" is the Brittish way of spelling "plow," and a "share" is a thing that "cleaves" or "divides!"

Brittish English is the English that they speak in Great Brittain today, including its colloquialisms. The every-day speech of someone heard in London, England, TODAY.

It's different than American English, Canadian English, and Australian English, and elsewhere English is used as the common tongue.

I do not have animosity against the KJV version.  I do not have hatred for ONE EXAMPLE of God's Word.

Am I kicking against the version or against God's Word?  Neither.  I am not kicking against anything; that is just your (mis)interpretation.  I could as easily ask why you worship a book instead of worshipping Christ.

My problem is not so much with the King James translation as it is with those who consider it the perfect word of God.  It is not!  It is a single translation, created from now-inferior sources, and written in a now-dead language.  In my opinion, it is a translation that has "had its day", just like the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Latin Vulgate, and others.

Which version do I prefer?  I have three that I read regularly: the NRSVue, the NIV, and the NET.  They are all carefully-translated, well-written scholarly works, written in the language that I have used my entire life.

[JimmyB]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, again.

You riled me up; so, I forgot to give you the meat of the post.

It's NOT just my opinion! We have actually LOST the pronouns in the English language! How many (outside of the Amish communities) have you heard use the words "thee" or "thou?" And, when one DOES use one of these words, people think of Iron Man making fun of Thor in the first Avengers movie! "Doth mother knoweth thou weareth her drapes?" (Poorly said, I might add, for the verbs should reflect the part of speech. Go back and read Shakespeare to see the correct way of choosing verbs to reflect the subject, predicate, or object nouns.) It wasn't just "flare"; the words signified the singular as opposed to the plural, or third-person versus first-person or second-person! This is from the time when English had CASES and NUMBER, much as other languages in Europe had and often still have!

It's NOT just about "the gain (or loss) of use of pronouns." There is MUCH more involved than that! One should take a course on how the English language has changed, particularly in the "Colonies." Isolation causes the languages to grow apart.

The pronouns you reference are no longer in use for a very simple reason: they are not needed.  For example, you wrote "How many (outside of the Amish communities) have you heard use the words "thee" or "thou?"  Now, I clearly know to whom you are referring.  If these pronouns are so important, a) why did they vanish and b) why don't you use them?

There is no need to take a course on how the English language has changed, particularly in the "Colonies", unless you (singular) are interested in that subject.  It has nothing to do with reading and understanding the Bible. 

Actually, I believe that you (obviously singular) justify the use of these obsolete pronouns, not because they are necessary but because they sound "holy" or "lofty".  They are not part of the modern English language; you don't use them, I don't use them, and neither does anyone else on this forum. 

[farouk]

On 5/20/2023 at 10:11 AM, OneLight said:

I thought this image would be good to understand a little more of how the translators translated.

@OneLight Anyway I do myself strongly prefer the King James........

[farouk]

On 6/4/2023 at 10:38 PM, LiveWire said:

Nowhere in the Bible confirms this.  This is merely an opinion without proof.  But still, the Septuagint, consisted of many Torah/Tanakh Scriptures, it just also contained many Non Biblical Esoteric Writings as well.

 

Could you imagine making a Doctrine, based off Esoteric Writings, thinking it was the Legit Word of God?

@LiveWire It's interesting that in NT the Lord Jesus quoted from the Septuagint ...

(This shows the Lord's sovereignty....)

[farouk]

On 6/5/2023 at 5:28 PM, NConly said:

In order for me to list deciding factors I would have to list specifics I do not like in other bibles.

@NConly Various other versions in English do have their shortcomings.

As an all round version, I do appreciate the King James.

[JimmyB]

I prefer the NIV and the NRSVue.  I also like the NLT, especially for the OT stories.  I like the Geneva Bible for historical reference.

[Solus Christus]

Was major NLT man for a long time. Started enjoying the NIV more lately. I often read KJV too.