Poster | Thread |
narrowpath Member
Joined: 2005/1/9 Posts: 1522 Germany NRW
| Re: KJV Only | | I am not a native English speaker, but when it comes to English, the KJV is my favorite study bible. For our family devotions I use the NKJV which is easier for my wife and kids. As for German, there are at least 3 good literal translation that are based on the textus receptus. In Chinese the best available version is translated from the KJV rather than the textus receptus. A good bible translation should be based on the textus receptus and employs a literal (word for word) translation an only use a measure of interpretation when a literal translation is not possible in the translated language. |
|
2015/4/14 16:39 | Profile |
dolfan Member
Joined: 2011/8/23 Posts: 1727 Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama
| Re: | | One thing KJV publishers OUGHT to do is abandon column printing and print the KJV in paragraph form. As much as any change in bible publishing, and as much as any aid in bible comprehension, paragraph printing would do wonders in KJV reading. Punctuation is an issue there, I know. _________________ Tim
|
|
2015/4/14 21:25 | Profile |
turn Member
Joined: 2011/4/27 Posts: 177 USA
| Re: | | Whatever English Bible translation we choose, we do well to master it.
We do well to choose a Bible translation that doesn't cut corners and remove any of the message but that enables us to receive God's message in a pure, accurate and complete manner.
Changing Bible translations causes at least a temporary delay in the pursuit of mastery.
Every Christian ought to seek to be a soul-winner. The great piece of equipment to be used in the winsome winning of souls is the "sword of the Spirit" which is the Word of God.
"It is the solemn obligation of every Christian worker to master the Bible so that Christ in His fullness may be presented to lost souls". |
|
2015/4/14 23:56 | Profile |
JFW Member
Joined: 2011/10/21 Posts: 2009 Dothan, Alabama
| Re: KJV Only | | James 4:5 is a scripture that has two totally different meanings in KJV and any other version that I've found so far. One has to be correct and we would do well to search it out as good bereans. If taken in context along with chapter 3 (noting the verb tenses, object, etc...) the KJV will produce a different conclusion than the other translations. Also what verse is James referring to? Depending on the translation you use you will come to dif conclusions that are in opposition to one another... _________________ Fletcher
|
|
2015/4/15 9:36 | Profile |
turn Member
Joined: 2011/4/27 Posts: 177 USA
| Re: | | Bible statistics...The Bible contains:
..66 Books ..1189 Chapters ..31102 Verses
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible
Q. Is the KJV the best translation for every one(1) of its 31,102 verses?
A. Absolutely not. But, I still like its overall qualities and it has been my primary translation for over 30 years. :-)
|
|
2015/4/15 20:50 | Profile |
proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: KJV Only | | JHerndon asked RE: /// what basis do people use to justify that you should only read the King James Version. I see no reason for people to think that.///
The basis is faith.
The issue is not about translation, it is about what we believe about inspiration.
Do we Believe in the inspiration of the minute detail of the Scriptures as what Jesus did ?
The common view of inspiration : I find to both be lacking Scripturally as well as logically : It is the view that inspiration only extends to the Original autoghraphs that no longer exist.
As with Bro Keith Daniels I believe that there is a special anointing on the KJV that is not found with modern translations.
This special anointing is manifested in many forms : I will breifly touch on a few.
1.) Unlike the Modern versions which all seek to conform to the modern language, The King James Bible along with its predecessors shaped and perfected the English Language. (It is also note worthy to point out that its Catholic rival the Douai-Riems flopped in this area.) Along with its predecessors begaining with Tyndale When an English equivalent word did not exist they "actually invented new English words to reproduce the very words of the Hebrew and Greek original-..1. p.28"
2.) Its Literary excellence : The King James Bible is considered the noblest monument of English prose. "Alister McGrath writes : Yet there is no evidence that the Translators of the King James Bible had any great interest in matters of literature or linguistic development. Their concern was primarily to provide an accurate translation of the Bible, on the assumption that accuracy was itself the most aesthetic of qualities to be desired. Paradoxically, the kings translators achieved literary distinction precisely because they were not pursuing it. Aiming at truth, they achieved what later generations recognized as beauty and elegance. Where later translations deliberately and self-consciously sought after literary merit, the kings translators achieved it unintentionally, by focusing on what, to them, was a greater goal. Paradoxically, elegance was achieved by accident, rather than design. 2. 254"
Athiest believe in "accident, rather than design" Christians believe in the Hand of God.
".later translations deliberately and self-consciously sought after literary merit" arm of the flesh ?
3.) Theory of translation. While modern translators debate between "literal translation philosophy and dynamic equivalence" We need to first understand that the "King James version was not a new or unique translation of its day but the culmination of a tradition of nearly a century of English Bible translating. 3 p.21" " The KJV was a revision of previous outstanding translations, cheifly of William Tyndale 3 p.23" "Fully ninety percent of the King James New Testament is Tyndales wording. 3 p.13" William Tyndale "had very few technical helps, such as grammars, Lexicons, and other scholary works.3 p.11" So what did Tyndale rely on ? In defence of the Translation "William Tyndale wrote from prison to his friend, John Frith, "I call God to record against the day we shall appear before the Lord Jesus, that I never altered one syllable of Gods Word against my conscience, nor would I do so this day if all that is in earth, whether it be honor, pleasure, or riches might be given to me. 4 p.133" Tyndales philosophy of translation was not one of trying to side between 'formal vs dynamic' but instead he brought every syllable to his conscience for confirmation.
4.) The Very Name "King James" "On October 6, 1536, in the town of Vilvorde in the Netherlands, William Tyndale, Gods first translator of the New Testament into English, was brought to a place of execution, tied to a stake, strangled by the hangman to the point of death, and then burned in fire for doing Gods Work As he met the Lord, Tyndale cried with a loud voice, "Lord! Open the king of Englands eyes! 4 p.133" It is not just coincidental that in less than a century after Crying out this Prayer, That a revision of Tyndales Translation Would bare the King of Englands name. The King James Bible is a confirmation that Tyndales Prayer was heard and granted.
5.) Fruit
Modern translations all claim that there main purpose has been to make the Bible easer to understand and comprehend for the modern reader, but the reality is that no matter how sincear there intentions might have been they have produced the opposite effect, Some of these modern translators even admitt this reality :
NKJV Radmacher and Hodges admitt: "It is thus clear that in modern America there is a subtle and complex interrelationship between the abundance of biblical translations and growing biblical illiteracy all around us. 5 p.15"
Leland Ryken of the ESV also admitts : "Claims by modern translators and bible scholars that the Christian public is fortunate to have been delivered from the archaisms and occasional inaccuracies of the KJV turn out to be hollow. If Bible knowledge in our day has declined across the board, where is the alleged gain from modern translations? The very proliferation of translations has discouraged the Christian public from seeking to know what the Bible actually says. 1 p.230"
Statistically speaking those whom are buying Bibles are buying NIVs they have a strong marketing plan but those whom read there Bibles are reading the KJV : http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=51860&forum=48&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=1
resources
1. The Legacy of the King James Bible : Leland Ryken : crossway 2011 2. In the Beginning : Alister McGrath : Anchor books 2001 3. The New King James Version: in the great tradition : Dr. Arthur L Farstad and Dr G. Michael Cocoris 4. The New Foxes Book of Martyrs : Harold j. Chadwick: Bridge-Logos 2001 5. The NIV Reconsidered : Earl Radmacher and Zane Hodges : Kerugma,inc 1990
|
|
2015/7/26 17:42 | Profile |
| Re: | | There are so many scripture songs that work really well with the KJV that so few people know about today. There is something special and powerful about singing the Word. The KJV rhymes better and is more poetic.
I remember in the 80's when you said turn to Psalm 16 and lets sing these scriptures that most people could because they had the same version. I have been thinking of creating an audio of all the scripture songs that I know. Of course, I would have someone sing them if I want anyone to listen.
|
|
2015/7/26 21:03 | |
Lysa Member
Joined: 2008/10/25 Posts: 3699 East TN for now!
| Re: | | Quote:
narrowpath wrote: A good bible translation should be based on the textus receptus and employs a literal (word for word) translation an only use a measure of interpretation when a literal translation is not possible in the translated language.
I don't have a dog in this fight but you peaked my interest when you said, "a good bible translation..." I found out that there are a LOT of translations that come from the textus receptus.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
English translations of the Textus Receptus--
Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530 Miles Coverdale's Bible 1535 Matthew's Bible 1537 The Great Bible 1539 Geneva Bible 1560-1644 The Bishops' Bible 1568 King James Version 1611, 1679 Webster Bible 1833 Youngs Literal Version 1862 Darby Bible 1884,1890 (not so sure, please double check and give a reference) New King James Version 1982 [28] The 21st Century King James Version 1994 Literal Translation of the Bible 1995 Third Millennium Bible 1998 [29] Modern King James Version 1999 Analytical Literal Translation 1999 [30] Updated King James Version 2000 King James Version Easy Reader 2010 Modern English Version 2014 [31] <-- I use this too
_________________ Lisa
|
|
2015/7/26 21:12 | Profile |
TMK Member
Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | So what happens when KJV is translated to every other language under the sun? Or do all non-old Kings English speaking peoples have to learn KJ English first before reaping its benefits?
Please folks. The original manuscripts were not in English. We would be much better off learning Greek and Hebrew than debating this age old topic. _________________ Todd
|
|
2015/7/26 21:30 | Profile |
savedtoserve Member
Joined: 2011/4/7 Posts: 255
| Re: | | To the original poster,
If you want to find all the reasons (some have already been mentioned here) behind the bull-dogmatic "-ology" of KJV-onlyism, you can buy books and read all about it... there's lots of interesting info out there! Most of the radical KJV-ers have been chased off or silenced on this forum because it's such a divisive topic. :)
|
|
2015/7/26 21:30 | Profile |