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!

Which Translation is the best.

Free said:
The KJV is not under attack. That is an argument used by KJVOism to justify their sustained attacks against other versions, and this done through some of the most fallacious reasoning one can come across. KJVOism is simply a tool of the devil to divide the Church, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I like, appreciate, and use the King James.

To ask for the facts about its and other translations' history is hardly attacking it.

I'm not King James Only, however.
 
farouk said:
I like, appreciate, and use the King James.

To ask for the facts about its and other translations' history is hardly attacking it.

I'm not King James Only, however.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that KJVOists are merely asking for facts? They assume the facts and then attack other translations based on their assumptions.

I have no problem with those who prefer the King James, whether for right or wrong reasons, but KJVOism's only purpose is to attack other translations. They begin with the argument that the KJV is the only correct version and then point out the "errors"--such as the supposed removal of words--in other versions and then conclude that the other versions are all corrupt. Hence, begging the question. That is precisely what is being argued in the last couple of pages.

It simply is one of the more divisive positions in the Church, and one that is based purely on the most fallacious reasoning one can find anywhere, whether inside or outside of Christianity. It isn't others attacking the KJV so much as it is KJVO proponents attacking everyone else.
 
Free said:
Are you suggesting that KJVOists are merely asking for facts? They assume the facts and then attack other translations based on their assumptions.

I have no problem with those who prefer the King James, whether for right or wrong reasons, but KJVOism's only purpose is to attack other translations. They begin with the argument that the KJV is the only correct version and then point out the "errors"--such as the supposed removal of words--in other versions and then conclude that the other versions are all corrupt. Hence, begging the question. That is precisely what is being argued in the last couple of pages.

It simply is one of the more divisive positions in the Church, and one that is based purely on the most fallacious reasoning one can find anywhere, whether inside or outside of Christianity. It isn't others attacking the KJV so much as it is KJVO proponents attacking everyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. No one is saying the KJV is bad or not to use it. I personally use it the most. The KJVO's on the other hand are literally saying that the KJV is the only version to use(the only inspired "God breathed" version) and the other versions are the devil's new world order bibles.
 
For many years I stuck strictly to the NIV. Last year I converted to the New Living Translation--for about half a year, then like gravity I returned to the NIV. Have your son read the introductions to the Bibles he likes, which usually describe in a reasonable amount of detail the processes used in translation. I would say, after review, go with your gut!
 
PrivateTimm said:
The link you post assumes that the KJV is a correct translation, the others are wrong, and they have an agenda obviously.

Just one example of where they are wrong about the "words removed" is 1 Cor 16:23.

In the original Greek the direct translation is "the grace of the Lord Jesus with you", the NIV & NASB translate it as "the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you". They add the "be" so it makes more sense in English. The KJV translate the passage as "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you".

I don't think the meaning of what Paul is saying is changed in any of the three translations, but the word for "Christ" simply does not appear in the Greek text, the KJV inserted it as well as changing "of the" to "our".
Click to expand...

1 Cor 16:23, KJV; TR
ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθ’ ὑμῶν

1 Cor 16:23, NIV; WH
ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μεθ' ὑμῶν.

Ἰησοῦ = Jesus
Χριστοῦ = Christ.


http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/16-23.htm
Jump to Parallel Greek
Strong'sTransliterationGreekEnglishMorphology
3588 [e]hē --------ἡ..................The---------Art-NFS
5485 [e]charis ----χάρις...........grace-------N-NFS
3588 [e]tou---------τοῦof.......... the----------Art-GMS
2962 [e]kyriou-----κυρίου.........Lord--------N-GMS
2424 [e]Iēsou------Ἰησοῦ.........Jesus-------N-GMS
3326 [e]meth'------μεθ'.............[be] with---Prep
4771 [e]hymōn----ὑμῶν............you.--------PPro-G2P


This is the point the link posted is making. Not all manuscripts are the same. The KJV puts the added necessary for understanding words in italics.
 
Last edited:
How would you go about explaining this to a child?

1 Cor 16:23, KJV; TR
ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθ’ ὑμῶν

1 Cor 16:23, NIV; WH
ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μεθ' ὑμῶν.

Ἰησοῦ = Jesus
Χριστοῦ = Christ.


http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/16-23.htm
Jump to Parallel Greek
Strong'sTransliterationGreekEnglishMorphology
3588 [e]hē --------ἡ..................The---------Art-NFS
5485 [e]charis ----χάρις...........grace-------N-NFS
3588 [e]tou---------τοῦof.......... the----------Art-GMS
2962 [e]kyriou-----κυρίου.........Lord--------N-GMS
2424 [e]Iēsou------Ἰησοῦ.........Jesus-------N-GMS
3326 [e]meth'------μεθ'.............[be] with---Prep
4771 [e]hymōn----ὑμῶν............you.--------PPro-G2P


This discussion is taking on a courtroom atmosphere

Still waiting for those verses..:horse

Thanks..

tob

*edit: lets see what Acts 8 verses 35-39 looks like.. can you copy and paste those verses
 
turnorburn said:
Anything on those verses yet? :horse

tob
Click to expand...
What are you waiting for? I have pointed out that your posts commit the fallacy of begging the question.


And, of course, this is not a debate forum, so really, the discussion about this ends here. But feel free to take it up in Theology and Apologetics.
 
Last edited:
Jean74 said:
Like them all. As really use either the KJV or the NIV! But the Bible is the same. As it has been over 2K years!
Click to expand...

When the NIV appeared, it was widely regarded as rather dynamic, although now it's seen as more formal than some translations, I guess. But I much prefer the King James, anyway.
 
kiwidan said:
I can only understand the easy english to read version, and even thats complicated and not easy. If i read another one the locust suddenly change into curds and the plank in somesones eye is now a mote. :lol. And the is then thy and na i will just keep it simple.
Click to expand...

There is fast reading to get the sense of a narrative.

And then there is careful and serious study of God's inspired Word; for this, a more formal translation is suitable, where one can be more confident that the translators have not taken too many liberties with the text.
 
farouk said:
There is fast reading to get the sense of a narrative.

And then there is careful and serious study of God's inspired Word; for this, a more formal translation is suitable, where one can be more confident that the translators have not taken too many liberties with the text.
Click to expand...
Liberties are taken with all translations, it is unavoidable. So for serious study one should use many translations, both formal and dynamic equivalence.
 
Free said:
Liberties are taken with all translations, it is unavoidable. So for serious study one should use many translations, both formal and dynamic equivalence.
Click to expand...

A bit like George Orwell, I guess: 'All men (translations, etc. ) are equal, but some are more equal than others...'
 
Free said
And, of course, this is not a debate forum, so really, the discussion about this ends here. But feel free to take it up in Theology and Apologetics.
Click to expand...

I thought this subject had been moved, does this mean i can see those verses now? Its not a debatable question..

Thanks..

tob
 
From post #89 Well i was looking for an English version i don't speak another language.. so how would this work, lets see what Acts 8 verses 35-39 looks like.. can you copy and paste those verses

But we need a go ahead first..:)

tob
 
turnorburn said:
Free said

I thought this subject had been moved, does this mean i can see those verses now? Its not a debatable question..

Thanks..

tob
Click to expand...
No, the subject has not been moved. This is the Bible Study forum and debate is not allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top