Demand a HCSB/KJV Parallel Bible!

[CSICop]

I am writing every major publisher that has anything to do with either the HCSB or the KJV, and asking for a new parallel version, coupling the HCSB & KJV. I grew up on the KJV and have since enjoyed the easier reading of the HCSB.

I also understand that the NIV is widely used, but if you add 3 or 4 versions into a parallel, you wind up with some 5 pound book and 3k pages. Perhaps a KJV/NIV/Amp/HCSB for study at home, but for church, I'd really like a KJV/HCSB so I can get the archaic old English as well as modern English interpretations.

 

[Blazin Bones]

My suggestion would rather be an ESV/KJV Parallel. This is because the HCSB is translated in the same manor the NIV was, and so it is not as literal as others. However, I think an HCSB/KJV would be interesting as well.

Speaking of parallels from two different angles, I have an NASB/Message Parallel. If those two can be put side by side, I'm sure the KJV and HCSB can be.

 

[TheUnworthyServant]

I can not (in good conscience) suggest that the KJV be combined with anything. It stands alone as the greatest version of Gods Holy Word ever created.

 

[samuel]

I can not not (in good conscience) suggest that the KJV be combined with anything. It stands alone as the greatest version of Gods Holy Word ever created.

Agreed.

 

[jasoncran]

I can not not (in good conscience) suggest that the KJV be combined with anything. It stands alone as the greatest version of Gods Holy Word ever created.

Agreed.

what if one doesnt know english very well? old english is a little hard on those that dont speak english as a primarily language and want to improve their skills. i have a kjv, but i use the niv for the spanish verse of the day(nuevo internacional version).

The Lord isnt limited to old archaic english, though I do like the kjv.

 

[CDF]

I can not not (in good conscience) suggest that the KJV be combined with anything. It stands alone as the greatest version of Gods Holy Word ever created.

It was finished in 1611 for the Church of England, which had broken away from the Roman Catholic Church. It also uses controversial texts for its sources, many of which conflict with the critical texts that come from thousands of documents recovered since the time of the 1611 KJV.

A great literary piece of work, yes. I grew up on it.

Prior to the texts that we have today to help translate with greater accuracy, the texts from 400 years back were corrupt in many ways. Some intentional, some accidental.

It's better to keep an open mind and look at things in a broader spectrum rather than stay narrow minded.

 

[TheUnworthyServant]

jasoncran: Old english is a little hard on those that dont speak english as a primarily language and want to improve their skills.

Many maintain that the KJV uses archaic language. Is this objection justified? Pause and consider this well known fact. Every department of human learning uses language peculiar to that particular discipline. Language which novices could easily refer to as being archaic. Biology, botany, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, music, medicine, law etc, all use strange sounding words, phrases and expressions which a novice will find difficult to understand. The study of the Word of God is similar in this respect. It also uses words and expressions which a new believer will find hard to comprehend. Words like sin, repentance, baptism, atonement, sanctification, justification, resurrection etc. These words often baffle a new believer. But he or she must learn them in order to progress spiritually. Because they are explicit Biblical terms, which uniquely express vital spiritual concepts and processes. They are not archaic words and we dare not get rid of them or simplify them to such a degree that the Word of God becomes a paraphrase or commentary. Can you imagine a novice biology, science or law student objecting to the strange sounding words or old-fashioned expressions in his or her text books?

In his book: The King James Version Defended Edward F Hills writes: " Not only modernists but also many conservatives are now saying that the King James Version ought to be abandoned because it is not contemporary. The Apostles, they insist, used contemporary language in their preaching and writing and we too must have a Bible in the language of today. But more and more it is being recognized that the language of the New Testament was biblical rather than contemporary. It was the Greek of the Septuagint, which in its turn was modeled after the Old Testament Hebrew. Any biblical translator therefore, who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a version which God will bless. Must take care to use language which is above the level of daily speech, language which is not only intelligible but also biblical and venerable. Hence in language as well as in text the King James Version is still by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible. "

jasoncran: The Lord isnt limited to old archaic english, though I do like the kjv.

Excuse me but it was God that created all languages when He confused the language at Babel. So you're are right, The created of the Universe is not limited.

 

[TheUnworthyServant]

I can not not (in good conscience) suggest that the KJV be combined with anything. It stands alone as the greatest version of Gods Holy Word ever created.

It was finished in 1611 for the Church of England, which had broken away from the Roman Catholic Church. It also uses controversial texts for its sources, many of which conflict with the critical texts that come from thousands of documents recovered since the time of the 1611 KJV.

A great literary piece of work, yes. I grew up on it.

Prior to the texts that we have today to help translate with greater accuracy, the texts from 400 years back were corrupt in many ways. Some intentional, some accidental.

It's better to keep an open mind and look at things in a broader spectrum rather than stay narrow minded.

I respectfully disagree. When it comes to the things of God. I am going to stay very narrow minded. I have researched this in depth and (in my opinion) the KJV is the only Bible I will ever recognize as Gods Holy word. You don't agree? Fine, that is your opinion.

 

[jasoncran]

How many languages are you proffieceint in? I learned the kjv when i got saved and still do, what about a six yr old, rather hard for them, unless someone explains it to them.

some spanish versions use archaic spanish. I dont as i'm learning spanish (improving my skills).
some words not known to a spanish speaking mexican born friend of mine.
tieneblas it may mean darkness
i asked him what the word darkness is in Spanish.Its obscuro. So either I'm wrong in the interpretation/translation of the word tieneblas(he didnt know it). or it's an old Spanish word.

if one really wants to know what the original bible intent is then learn koine greek/hebrew and araimiac.

Did you know that the kjv has on word that wasnt translated from koine greek to english, it was just transliterated the word we call baptism is from the greek baptismo meaning to immerse. That was done deliberatley as the scholars knew that King james was a catholic who was into the sprinkling baptisms.

That makes the kjv no better then the others, we need to look at other versions as well, no one is perfect.

 

[CDF]

I still use the KJV, along with others. I grew up and am still a Southern Baptist. However, in the last 400 years there have been thousands of documents recovered, among those some 900 constituting the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS largely agree with the Greek Septuagint, which are the 2 oldest documents available to us.

The same scholars that used to argue about religion and who was right or wrong also believed the earth was flat, and that you could fall off the edges. Furthermore, it's where the "4 corners of the earth" came from (ie belief of a square shaped earth).

This theory was proven to be incorrect, which we all know this day and age. The same thing applies to Biblical history. As divinely inspired as it may have been, it is still history, and thus subject to interpretation, documentation, and discovery.

Hypothetical: If documents were ever found that stated how the ancient Jews intentionally corrupted translations and falsified texts, in order to corrupt and bring down the Christian church (which they resented because for them Jesus was NOT the Messiah) then the whole KJV would be turned upside down.

For many, this hypothetical situation is not far from the mark.

 

[Andrew0002]

I would also like to see a KJV/HCSB Parallel bible. I have been reading from the HCSB for a few months now, but I still like to compare it to the KJV. All I have been able to find are KJV/NIV, KJV/The Message, and so on. The closest thing I have found was this: ISBN-13: 9780195281774 - Which has 8 different translations including the HCSB, but it's only the New Testament.

I use Olive Tree Bible Reader on my iPod Touch, which allows me to vew these two texts side by side - but nothing beats having a printed copy of the bible.

 

[ctbcvp]

My suggestion would rather be an ESV/KJV Parallel. This is because the HCSB is translated in the same manor the NIV was, and so it is not as literal as others. However, I think an HCSB/KJV would be interesting as well.

Speaking of parallels from two different angles, I have an NASB/Message Parallel. If those two can be put side by side, I'm sure the KJV and HCSB can be.

+

Actually the HCSB bible was translated in using Optimum Equivalence which falls in between Dynamic Equivalence (NIV) and Formal Equivalence (NASB and ESV) but leans more towards Formal.