Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[Free]

Great post! I admire your perseverance in sticking with those who don't know the facts about the KJV and the principles of Bible translation.

Thanks. It is rather telling that none have responded to the videos I provided, although, they are an hour each. However, if one is serious about understanding the issues, and everyone in this thread should be since they have made rather strong arguments for the KJV and against modern translations, then those videos really should be watched. Of course, there are numerous books and online articles out there by experts in relevant fields that show the same things. That is if one truly wants to know just how legitimate their claims are, which, as Christians, should always be a concern.

 

[D-D-W]

So wrong again.
You’ve shot yourself in the foot here.

Actually the KJV is copyrighted by the Crown of England, King Charles. But that is only applicable to the UK and its commonwealth.

 

[jaybo]

Thanks. It is rather telling that none have responded to the videos I provided, although, they are an hour each. However, if one is serious about understanding the issues, and everyone in this thread should be since they have made rather strong arguments for the KJV and against modern translations, then those videos really should be watched. Of course, there are numerous books and online articles out there by experts in relevant fields that show the same things. That is if one truly wants to know just how legitimate their claims are, which, as Christians, should always be a concern.

I think that people who prefer the King James translation do so for either of two reasons: 1) when they read early 17th century Englyshe, it makes them feel "religious" and/or "holy". Of course, they forget that Jesus was a rural carpenter who spoke the Aramaic dialect or 2) they feel that since the King James translation was considered to be the Bible, they think that anything that has appeared as a "modern translation" cannot be a true translation.

Regarding the latter, they disregard, of course, that many new Biblical and non-Biblical ancient documents been discovered in the last 400+ years, the art/science of translation has improved over time, and perhaps most importantly, the information is understood through the culture that people live in. Quite obviously, we do not live in early 17th Century England, so we process vocabulary and information very differently than they did in King James' time.

I am thankful that we have so many excellent English translations available to us today. One can choose whichever transmits the thoughts and words of God to our 21st Century minds most clearly. Personally, I currently read several translations at different times. My preferred translations are the NET (with its excellent translator's notes), the NRSVue, a new update of the excellent NRSV, and the NIV, especially in the study Bible versions. Each translation communicates slightly differently, which I value.

 

[jaybo]

Actually the KJV is copyrighted by the Crown of England, King Charles. But that is only applicable to the UK and its commonwealth.

sojourner4Christ is "full of hot air".

 

[WIP]

Read whatever works for you. Just read the Bible.

Ask 10 people and get different answers. Just steer away from obviously distorted versions (i.e. New World Translation, Passion Translation, etc.)

I read the Bible in my native language, as well as the ESV and KJV. (NKJV for the audio Bible I listen to in the morning)

I agree but this does bring up a question. How does one know that a translation is obviously distorted? I don't read the ancient languages and even if I did, I do not have access to the transcripts or know where to find them if they are available so I have to trust the translations I use.

 

[WIP]

I think that people who prefer the King James translation do so for either of two reasons: 1) when they read early 17th century Englyshe, it makes them feel "religious" and/or "holy". Of course, they forget that Jesus was a rural carpenter who spoke the Aramaic dialect or 2) they feel that since the King James translation was considered to be the Bible, they think that anything that has appeared as a "modern translation" cannot be a true translation.

Regarding the latter, they disregard, of course, that many new Biblical and non-Biblical ancient documents been discovered in the last 400+ years, the art/science of translation has improved over time, and perhaps most importantly, the information is understood through the culture that people live in. Quite obviously, we do not live in early 17th Century England, so we process vocabulary and information very differently than they did in King James' time.

I am thankful that we have so many excellent English translations available to us today. One can choose whichever transmits the thoughts and words of God to our 21st Century minds most clearly. Personally, I currently read several translations at different times. My preferred translations are the NET (with its excellent translator's notes), the NRSVue, a new update of the excellent NRSV, and the NIV, especially in the study Bible versions. Each translation communicates slightly differently, which I value.

Essentially, the King James Version is written in a different language/dialect and therefore has to be translated into modern language to be fully understood, does it not?

 

[jaybo]

I agree but this does bring up a question. How does one know that a translation is obviously distorted? I don't read the ancient languages and even if I did, I do not have access to the transcripts or know where to find them if they are available so I have to trust the translations I use.

Of course everyone should trust the translation that they use providing it has essentially the same meaning as other accepted translations. Some translations do not agree with others because of obvious doctrinal distortions, a prime example being the New World Translation of the Jehovah's witnesses.

 

[jaybo]

Essentially, the King James Version is written in a different language/dialect and therefore has to be translated into modern language to be fully understood, does it not?

It does indeed. I haven't seen a unicorn recently and have never beaten my sword (even if I owned one) into a ploughshare. Added to this are questionable additions such as the words added to Romans 8:1 and the "long ending" of Marks' gospel. Also, the chopping up of the text into separate verses seriously distorts the coherence of the thoughts and ideas.

 

[WIP]

Of course everyone should trust the translation that they use providing it has essentially the same meaning as other accepted translations. Some translations do not agree with others because of obvious doctrinal distortions, a prime example being the New World Translation of the Jehovah's witnesses.

But herein lies my question. Obvious to whom? If I have never read any other translation until the day I pick up a Jehovah's Witness bible, how could I possibly recognize that it is a fraud?

 

[jaybo]

But herein lies my question. Obvious to whom? If I have never read any other translation until the day I pick up a Jehovah's Witness bible, how could I possibly recognize that it is a fraud?

This is really hypothetical, but if the person is familiar with the concept of the Trinity and acknowledges that Jesus is part of the Godhead, then it quickly becomes apparent that something is amiss.

Again, everyone should trust the translation that they use providing it has essentially the same meaning as other accepted translations.

 

[WIP]

This is really hypothetical, but if the person is familiar with the concept of the Trinity and acknowledges that Jesus is part of the Godhead, then it quickly becomes apparent that something is amiss.

Again, everyone should trust the translation that they use providing it has essentially the same meaning as other accepted translations.

I know it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse but for the sake of someone reading this that does not know, isn't the JW bible accepted? It is accepted by JWs after all. How does a non-Christian that has never been introduced to the Bible before, know that he/she is reading truth and not some distorted form of it? How can we help them here in this discussion? I don't know the answer and that is partly why I'm asking.

 

[jaybo]

I know it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse but for the sake of someone reading this that does not know, isn't the JW bible accepted? It is accepted by JWs after all. How does a non-Christian that has never been introduced to the Bible before, know that he/she is reading truth and not some distorted form of it? How can we help them here in this discussion? I don't know the answer and that is partly why I'm asking.

Of course one can't be 100% sure, since believing is by faith. JWs believe what they believe, as do other sects and religions. Nobody knows the absolute truth.

Personally, I was born a Jew and was Bar Mitzvah at age 13. Since I was very, very unhappy -- I had a nervous breakdown at age 20 -- I became a serious atheist. At age 34 I was very sick in the hospital with asthma and the doctors couldn't break the spasm. A pastor came to my room, read some scripture, then prayed "Jesus, heal this man". I was immediately healed and filled with an incredible feeling of love and joy. That is how I came to know that Jesus and the Christian faith are real.

 

[D-D-W]

I think that people who prefer the King James translation do so for either of two reasons: 1) when they read early 17th century Englyshe, it makes them feel "religious" and/or "holy". Of course, they forget that Jesus was a rural carpenter who spoke the Aramaic dialect or 2) they feel that since the King James translation was considered to be the Bible, they think that anything that has appeared as a "modern translation" cannot be a true translation.

Regarding the latter, they disregard, of course, that many new Biblical and non-Biblical ancient documents been discovered in the last 400+ years, the art/science of translation has improved over time, and perhaps most importantly, the information is understood through the culture that people live in. Quite obviously, we do not live in early 17th Century England, so we process vocabulary and information very differently than they did in King James' time.

Jaybo: I came across someone on line a few years back when I was researching the KJV only crowd. (I grew up in such a congregation) In a "college" website that has since disappeared, the "professor" of said bible college maintained that since there were so many competing manuscripts of the Greek scriptures it was a confused mess, so God decided to "re-inspire the whole bible via the 1611 KJV translators. That thusly INVALIDATED everything that came before it, even the original autographs should they ever be found.

I replied that I wanted to see a biblical text (chapter and verse) that would allow such a thing to happen. Never heard back and then the site went dark.

 

[jaybo]

Jaybo: I came across someone on line a few years back when I was researching the KJV only crowd. (I grew up in such a congregation) In a "college" website that has since disappeared, the "professor" of said bible college maintained that since there were so many competing manuscripts of the Greek scriptures it was a confused mess, so God decided to "re-inspire the whole bible via the 1611 KJV translators. That thusly INVALIDATED everything that came before it, even the original autographs should they ever be found.

I replied that I wanted to see a biblical text (chapter and verse) that would allow such a thing to happen. Never heard back and then the site went dark.

Thanks for writing this. Some people worship the King James translation, as though God Himself dictated the words. They remind me of the Pharisees and Sadducees who knew the very word of God so perfectly that they missed the Messiah.

It's unfortunate that there are some people who are clearly deluded, trapped by their own egos into believing the scenario you describe, that they come up with all kinds of absurdities to justify their erroneous thinking. They will never accept that the King James Bible is a translation, and that the early manuscripts were written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, plain languages.

Jesus spoke Aramaic! Can you imagine Him saying to them, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." and "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Their reaction would have undoubtedly been "why does this man speak so strangely? Why does He say things like "...when men shall revile you"? and "say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake" and "ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" And what exactly are a "jot" and a "tittle"?

This, of course, is just one example of how the King James version might have meant something clearer to people four centuries ago, but nobody on earth uses words like that today. Modern translations retain the meaning of Jesus words (and the rest of Scripture) and convey that meaning to our 21st Century minds much more clearly. That of course is the intention of modern translators, people who have devoted their lives to giving us the wonderful Bibles that we have today.

 

[jaybo]

If you own a King James translation, have a look at they copyright page. You will see a notice of copyright. For example, my Thompson Chain Reference Bible has this notice: Copyright 1964 by B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co, Inc. ... Previous editions Copyright 1908, 1917, 1929, 1934, 1957 by FRANK CHARLES THOMPSON ... All Rights Reserved Throughout the World.

Of course, the Bible text itself is not copyrighted under modern US law, but everything else -- the design, notes, charts, maps, etc. are protected under copyright law.

No publisher would permit their Bible(s) to be duplicated, even in part, by others. To do so is a clear violation of the copyright laws.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

My advice is that you learn to read the Bible in a timeline, chronological order so that you can understand the Story of God, aka, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Each time you read the entire Bible in this manner, read it again but with a different translation. It's a great way to collect Bible, but an even better way to discover new things through each read that may be hidden because of the language in an alternate translation.

Have fun with this!

 

[St. Helens]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

I would recommend NKJV. I have not noticed the translation doing the things the NIV does.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think that people who prefer the King James translation do so for either of two reasons: 1) when they read early 17th century Englyshe, it makes them feel "religious" and/or "holy". Of course, they forget that Jesus was a rural carpenter who spoke the Aramaic dialect or 2) they feel that since the King James translation was considered to be the Bible, they think that anything that has appeared as a "modern translation" cannot be a true translation.

Regarding the latter, they disregard, of course, that many new Biblical and non-Biblical ancient documents been discovered in the last 400+ years, the art/science of translation has improved over time, and perhaps most importantly, the information is understood through the culture that people live in. Quite obviously, we do not live in early 17th Century England, so we process vocabulary and information very differently than they did in King James' time.

I am thankful that we have so many excellent English translations available to us today. One can choose whichever transmits the thoughts and words of God to our 21st Century minds most clearly. Personally, I currently read several translations at different times. My preferred translations are the NET (with its excellent translator's notes), the NRSVue, a new update of the excellent NRSV, and the NIV, especially in the study Bible versions. Each translation communicates slightly differently, which I value.

I read the KJV among other versions and for NONE of the insulting reasons you claim. I read it because it contains verses, phrases and words that better explain a matter. The modern translations sometimes make no sense.

A classic example is the “this kind comes only out by prayer” trying to answer the disciples’ question as to why they prayed and couldn’t cast it out. Jesus’ answer makes no sense except in the KJv where he says “this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting” which is what they hadn’t done, of course. That’s only one example where practical and reasonable explanations what been rendered void or even nonsense if not of doubtful character descriptions in modern verses.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In the end, it will be interesting to see if the English Bible version used had an impact on the degree of ability to follow what Jesus actually said. Did modern versions produce watered down or “adjusted to the current level” of christians or was the degree of obedience to the Word of God unaffected by translation?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think that people who prefer the King James translation do so for either of two reasons: 1) when they read early 17th century Englyshe, it makes them feel "religious" and/or "holy". Of course, they forget that Jesus was a rural carpenter who spoke the Aramaic dialect or 2) they feel that since the King James translation was considered to be the Bible, they think that anything that has appeared as a "modern translation" cannot be a true translation.

Regarding the latter, they disregard, of course, that many new Biblical and non-Biblical ancient documents been discovered in the last 400+ years, the art/science of translation has improved over time, and perhaps most importantly, the information is understood through the culture that people live in. Quite obviously, we do not live in early 17th Century England, so we process vocabulary and information very differently than they did in King James' time.

I am thankful that we have so many excellent English translations available to us today. One can choose whichever transmits the thoughts and words of God to our 21st Century minds most clearly. Personally, I currently read several translations at different times. My preferred translations are the NET (with its excellent translator's notes), the NRSVue, a new update of the excellent NRSV, and the NIV, especially in the study Bible versions. Each translation communicates slightly differently, which I value.

One can pick and choose what one would prefer Jesus to have said.