What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

KJV

Oats

Oats

Member
Why do some people swear by this translation?

I like NKJV ..and NIV

whats the difference
 
Alabaster said:
Hopefully just improved vernacular.
Click to expand...

i recently learned while buying my new study bible that the kjv is written in poetic form and also that the koine greek is soo easy to mistranslate as it has many forms that buy a simple missread can mean something else.

koine greek is dead and therefore its amazing that the word is preserved.
 
The poetic feeling of the text is most likely due to the English which was used. I like it, always did. Compare it to something like Young's Literal Translation. You'll see it's not that different. That's because both translations come from the Textus Receptus/Byzantine family of Greek with some of it's translations coming from Jerome's early Latin translations.

NKJV, MKJV and several others are based in majority from the same family of MMSs.

But not all modern translation are created equal, IMHO.

We sometimes refer to the NIV as the Nearly Inspired Version. :lol
 
The KJV is not in poetic form. The language used at that time seems poetic to us, but the form includes all forms of literature.

It isn't superior to any other translation. In fact, as much as I and my generation grew up with it, and learned of Christ by it, I wouldn't use it today in reaching people for Christ. Those who are ignorant of spiritual things would never grasp the simple truths within the bible if we used the KJV. It only further confuses them.

I love people, and want them to know the truth of the gospel, so I use a modern English translation.
 
Alabaster said:
The KJV is not in poetic form. The language used at that time seems poetic to us, but the form includes all forms of literature.
Click to expand...

read the book by thomas paine called common sense written in the same time period, and you will see.

and that book is written in the same time frame as the revised kjv(1768) all kjv we see most of the time is the 1768 version not the original 1611.
 
jasoncran said:
read the book by thomas paine called common sense written in the same time period, and you will see.

and that book is written in the same time frame as the revised kjv(1768) all kjv we see most of the time is the 1768 version not the original 1611.
Click to expand...

What will I see?
 
Oats said:
Why do some people swear by this translation?

I like NKJV ..and NIV

whats the difference
Click to expand...

NIV Noninspired version

Anyways, while I prefer to the a sacred names rendition of the KJV, because more often than not it IS the better translation. I use lexicons when I study the word. I also use a cross section of various versions; as many as 14 or so.

Youngs liteal translation and world English Bible and English Revised rarely get the attention they deserve and are all better than NIV.

In the end, the only pure Bible is quilted in Hebrew, Aramaic, and probably Greek. You wont find a translation that holds idioms and so fourth intact. If you can understand the olde english, and obsolete English lexicon, then KJV is usually the best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most people can't even write a sentence in today's English without a misuse or misspelling of a word today. Why is the old language so sacrosanct?

It isn't. What is sacred is the message.

I don't think that Spaniards or Croatians are having these discussions about their translations.

Aren't we just spoiled brats?
 
If you are sincerely asking what the difference between the translations is, that has to be taken on a verse by verse basis.

Ceck these two links out. They are just two different verses in comparison with the various versions. If you don't know which is the better translation in a given verse, refer to the lexicon.

Colossians 2:14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
 
Alabaster said:
Most people can't even write a sentence without a misuse or misspelling of a word today. Why is the old language so sacrosanct?

It isn't. What is sacred is the message.
Click to expand...

The future version of the English Bible if the LORD permits the Earth to remain in it's natural course for a few more centuries might read like this:

And he axed him, What is yo' name be? And he answered, and he say, My name is be Legion: for we is many. -Mark 5:9
Click to expand...
 
Alabaster said:
Most people can't even write a sentence in today's English without a misuse or misspelling of a word today. Why is the old language so sacrosanct?

It isn't. What is sacred is the message.

I don't think that Spaniards or Croatians are having these discussions about their translations.

Aren't we just spoiled brats?
Click to expand...

to me its just preference. thats all.
 
NIV Noninspired translation
Click to expand...
:biglol At least I was a bit nicer about it; I said Nearly, not Non. ;)

But anyway, lets not argure over this, rather, lets give Oats sincere answers to what I believe is a sincere question.


It isn't superior to any other translation. In fact, as much as I and my generation grew up with it, and learned of Christ by it, I wouldn't use it today in reaching people for Christ. Those who are ignorant of spiritual things would never grasp the simple truths within the bible if we used the KJV. It only further confuses them.
Click to expand...
Reluctantly, I would have to agree with most of that. I'd go for the NKJV or the MKJV or maybe even the LITV. :yes

For me. it's all about whether or not a particular translation is word for word or thought for thought. Most translators who used the Textus Receptus as their base go for a word for word translation. I prefer the translator not decide for me what the original author meant to convey.
 
If you read the NIV long enough and really pay attention, you will notice how bits and pieces are missing or added to key verses which alter the meanings. Thats my "beef" with it.
 
Alabaster said:
Most people can't even write a sentence in today's English without a misuse or misspelling of a word today. Why is the old language so sacrosanct?

It isn't. What is sacred is the message.

I don't think that Spaniards or Croatians are having these discussions about their translations.

Aren't we just spoiled brats?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because they are less driven by capitalism then the USA. Every new translation that comes out means $$$ for the publishers and translators.
 
Ashua said:
The future version of the English Bible if the LORD permits the Earth to remain in it's natural course for a few more centuries might read like this:

And he axed him, What is yo' name be? And he answered, and he say, My name is be Legion: for we is many. -Mark 5:9
Click to expand...


Haha0.gif
 
Ashua said:
The future version of the English Bible if the LORD permits the Earth to remain in it's natural course for a few more centuries might read like this:



And he axed him, What is yo' name be? And he answered, and he say, My name is be Legion: for we is many. -Mark 5:9
Click to expand...

LOL. How true!

Actually, someone showed me a current version of the New Testament called the "Sea Island Version" that is similar, but much worse than this!:)

Here's an example of the well known John 3:16:

Cause God lob all de people een de wol sommuch dat e gii we e onliest Son. God sen we um so dat ebrybody wa bleebe pon um ain gwine dead. Dey gwine lib faebamo
Click to expand...

I guess this is considered a dialect of English!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top