RGR Posted April 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted April 11, 2006 It is not correct what someone said about its basis being the Dohrey Rheims version. The KJV comes directly from the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus. It is not a catholic version. It is true english from the original. We don't speak proper English today. It is good to read the bible not in slang, but proper english. I doth not believeth that-who art thou to tell my person what wouldest be proper English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted April 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Ayin Jade: I wouldn't trade my 1611 KJV or my Geneva Bible for anything in the world! I still crack up when I read in the Geneva Bible: "Now Solomon loved many outlandish wives....." I keep picturing Solomon 'placing his order' from his harem: "Bring me my 80 year old, 300 lb, hunch-backed, one-eyed Albanian dwarf....you know; the one with club feet!" That's pretty outlandish!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted April 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2006 With all due respect to the supporters of the KJV, it is generally regarded that the translators of the NIV had access to the oldest, most reliable MSS. And in the realm of translation, the older the MSS the better. My Greek is shaky, but my Hebrew is pretty good, and I can tell you for sure that with exceptions, the NIV is far more accurate with the OT than the KJV, although both are as reliable as a translation can be. If you don't know the original languages, the best thing to do is use multiple versions for serious study. I was fortunate enough to meet one of the translators of the NIV at a conference last year, John Kohlenburger, and was really impressed by his respect and love for the original text. He explained the painstaking process of translation and I am more than satisfied with the integrity of the NIV. But I hasten to add, any translation is done by men who are not perfect and falible, therefore their work is not perfect, either. To their credit, though, the NIV has been revised and overhauled several times since it's initial printing in the late '70's. Revisions are made, not because of mistakes, but because of new MSS discoveries or more information concerning the usage of different Greek or Hebrew words or expressions based on recent achaeological finds. This is a a very informative site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGR Posted April 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Regardless, I will continue to put my trust in the KJV only. Great! I'll continue to put my trust in God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittylover0991 Posted April 11, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 490 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 2,726 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/06/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1990 Share Posted April 11, 2006 It is not correct what someone said about its basis being the Dohrey Rheims version. The KJV comes directly from the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus. It is not a catholic version. It is true english from the original. We don't speak proper English today. It is good to read the bible not in slang, but proper english. I doth not believeth that-who art thou to tell my person what wouldest be proper English? oh lookies... it's "trouble" Honestly, Ronald.. I kinda take some form of offense to that even though I think you are joking... To me, that is mocking God's Word... I strongly believe in the KJV and the bible is much less confusing than that.... I'm sorry Ronald... Crystal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGR Posted April 12, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted April 12, 2006 It is not correct what someone said about its basis being the Dohrey Rheims version. The KJV comes directly from the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus. It is not a catholic version. It is true english from the original. We don't speak proper English today. It is good to read the bible not in slang, but proper english. I doth not believeth that-who art thou to tell my person what wouldest be proper English? oh lookies... it's "trouble" Honestly, Ronald.. I kinda take some form of offense to that even though I think you are joking... To me, that is mocking God's Word... I strongly believe in the KJV and the bible is much less confusing than that.... I'm sorry Ronald... Crystal Crystal, My intention was not to mock the KJV, honestly! I love the KJV very much. I just thought it was funny the statement as to how we don't speak proper English today. While that is true, my idea of proper English is much different from "thee and thou" to be perfectly honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cag7800 Posted April 12, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 277 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/06/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/18/1956 Share Posted April 12, 2006 i read THE EXPOSITOR'S STUDY BIBLE....it is a bible i just got from Jimmy Swaggart ministrys..it is the king james version.....it has notes for every verse..it helps me understand a lot better..he has alredy done the research for me so i can read the kj and have the translations already done for me.example ( ) is the expositor's notes.matthew 25,1-4....1.Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be likened unto ten(the number 10 in the bible speaks of perfection) virgins(represents those who belong to the Lord),which took their lamps (represents the light of Christ in all Believers) and went forth to meet the bridegroom(Christ).2.And five of them were wise,and five were foolish(indicative of the modern church)3. They who were foolish took their lamps,and took no oil with them(began to live outside the domain of the Holy Spirit)4. But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps(a constant flow of the Spirit within their hearts and lives,which can only come about and be maintained,by one's Faith in Christ and the Cross)(ref.romans 8,1-2,11) ....this is just an example..it helps alot with the old testment..where the old laws and such are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGR Posted April 12, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted April 12, 2006 i read THE EXPOSITOR'S STUDY BIBLE....it is a bible i just got from Jimmy Swaggart ministrys..it is the king james version.....it has notes for every verse..it helps me understand a lot better..he has alredy done the research for me so i can read the kj and have the translations already done for me.example ( ) is the expositor's notes.matthew 25,1-4....1.Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be likened unto ten(the number 10 in the bible speaks of perfection) virgins(represents those who belong to the Lord),which took their lamps (represents the light of Christ in all Believers) and went forth to meet the bridegroom(Christ).2.And five of them were wise,and five were foolish(indicative of the modern church)3. They who were foolish took their lamps,and took no oil with them(began to live outside the domain of the Holy Spirit)4. But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps(a constant flow of the Spirit within their hearts and lives,which can only come about and be maintained,by one's Faith in Christ and the Cross)(ref.romans 8,1-2,11) ....this is just an example..it helps alot with the old testment..where the old laws and such are Yeah, I saw that in The Messenger this month! It looks like that is something akin to the Amplified Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebrews_beauty Posted April 12, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 232 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/14/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 Thanks for all the responses. I don't have time to read them all, but I skimmed over some of them. First, I wasn't trying to say salvation depended upon translation used. My point was simply, I want to be clear if I'm communicating God's message of salvation to someone. IMO, the KJV would be a tough translation to choose for this task. If someone doesn't understand the language they are hearing, what good is that? The Holy Spirit can do His work regardless of us, but I think it's important that as "vessels" we seek to be clear and honest. Second, I realize no translation is perfect. But I do think some are more clear or more accurate than others. I think translations like the ESV, NRSV, & NIV, for example, tend to be more clear and accurate than the KJV. But it's only my opinion, I suppose. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David from New Bern Posted April 14, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 527 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/21/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted April 14, 2006 (edited) Several years ago I switched from using KJV to a New King James Version in my writing and public speaking. There is a beauty to the KJV verbage and flow. It fact it has become so identified as special and worshipful that people are very tempted and often succomb to praying in Old English. It has a holy sound they think. It changes the way the preachers pronounces words when they speak. It is eloquent. The reason I switch to the New King James, was because of my familiarity with the old the other translations just seemed to loose and it wasn't the way I had memorized it. So bottom line, I like the compromise I have made because the NKJV eliminates some of the awkward language and the overabundance of "thee" and "thou" and "shew" and "verily, verily". But the sentence structure pretty much stays in place. That is my practical answer Here is my intellectual issues regarding version preference. The KJV is not the oldest translation, Paul didn't carry one. Jesus didn't speak "old English." A lot of people are going to be dissapointed when they get to Heaven and Jesus doesn't have an English accent. That was one aspect of the movie "The Passion" that was refreshing, we freed Jesus from the European trappings of previous dramatizations. I believe the original manuscripts are without error and not necessarily the authorized King James Version. Just because the NIV (not one of my favorites) left out some verses and the KJV included them does automatically mean that the KJV is right. You will notice the verses in questions are the ones we tangle with the most in trying to determine where they fit it hermaneutically. Shoot because of these verses we've got some people introducing rattle snakes to worship Edited April 14, 2006 by David from New Bern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts