ECT Why I prefer the KJV.

H

HisServant

New member
Cross Reference said:
. . . .whatever. Which one has had the largest impact on the English speaking world?


You cannot say without knowledge.
Click to expand...

The only reason it had an impact is because King James banned the printing of the over versions. That is the same excuse that people use for being Roman Catholic.

Technically, if you take all the minor translations into consideration, the AV was the TENTH English translation.

Wycliff's Bible 1380
Tyndale Bible 1534
Coverdale Bible 1535
Matthews Bible 1537
Great Bible 1539
Taverner's Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishop's Bible 1568
Douay-Rheims Bible 1568
King James Version 1611

Seriously, if you read the preamble on the origanal 1611 and research the 14 restrictions that King James put on the translators...you would come away with the realization that the AV wasn't even an honest attempt at a translation... and that it was produced purely for political gains.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
turbosixx said:
I'm not seeing your point. NASB reads the same.

56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village. NASB



I agree there are some bad newer versions but not all. The KJV is merely a word for word translation from the original Greek into English but it's not the only one. While I think it's a great version I don't solely rely on it because the Kings English is different than what we use today. There are some that base their version of truth on the KJV because to use a modern version would destroy their “truth”. For example:

2 Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV

15…. accurately handling the word of truth. NASB

Is Paul telling Timothy Christ is divided or study to accurately handle the word?

The Greek word used means to cut straight not divide. There is a Greek word for divide but it’s not used here.
orthotomeó: to cut straight
Original Word: ὀρθοτομέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: orthotomeó
Phonetic Spelling: (or-thot-om-eh'-o)
Short Definition: I cut straight, handle correctly
Definition: I cut straight; met: I handle correctly, teach rightly.
Click to expand...

No, in the context used, the words rightly dividing means exactly accurately handle, same thing.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
HisServant said:
The only reason it had an impact is because King James banned the printing of the over versions. That is the same excuse that people use for being Roman Catholic.

Technically, if you take all the minor translations into consideration, the AV was the TENTH English translation.

Wycliff's Bible 1380
Tyndale Bible 1534
Coverdale Bible 1535
Matthews Bible 1537
Great Bible 1539
Taverner's Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishop's Bible 1568
Douay-Rheims Bible 1568
King James Version 1611

Seriously, if you read the preamble on the origanal 1611 and research the 14 restrictions that King James put on the translators...you would come away with the realization that the AV wasn't even an honest attempt at a translation... and that it was produced purely for political gains.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you aren't getting my drift. Let it go.
 
H

HisServant

New member
Cross Reference said:
Why of course. Why didn't I see that. Thank you for making me aware of my problem . . or maybe it is yours?
Click to expand...

I have no problem.. I believe that the finer details of scriptural translation are always going to be fluid and in flux, but that it does not impact any accepted Christian doctrine in any way shape or form. But if your doctrine is based on a particular version, then you have problems.
 
H

HisServant

New member
Cross Reference said:
LOL! I think Lucifer just may have thought the same thing. Interesting.

G'bye.
Click to expand...

And the most inane thing in this thread is that I bet you aren't Anglican or Episcopalian and you are tauting their translation as being perfect.... If their translation is perfect then you should be one of them.

But the KJV suits your needs... so logic be damned.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
HisServant said:
And the most inane thing in this thread is that I bet you aren't Anglican or Episcopalian and you are tauting their translation as being perfect.... If their translation is perfect then you should be one of them.

But the KJV suits your needs... so logic be damned.
Click to expand...

I am NOT one of them.

I wonder how that all works out for me that I understand God and His ways better from the KJV and you don't?
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
HisServant said:
What commentary? I read it as it is... no commentary needed.
Click to expand...

Which makes you to be your own commentary. That is no insult. How you do it can be.

Are you inferring that all translations are are commentary?
Click to expand...

Aren't they?. The translators set themselves up to interpret what is presented them from the Greek and Hebrew. What else can that be but opinion? Proof? They don't agree among themselves. Whose right?
Click to expand...
 
H

HisServant

New member
Cross Reference said:
HisServant said:
Which makes you to be your own commentary. That is no insult. How you do it can be.



Aren't they?. The translators set themselves up to interpret what is presented them from the Greek and Hebrew. What else can that be but opinion? Proof? They don't agree among themselves. Whose right?
Click to expand...

Words are words and they have meaning.

When people disagree, its usually because they are biased one way or the other. They prefer one family of texts over the other and a lot of times they just lack common sense (the KJV is at fault in both cases here). Greek and Hebrew are pretty static languages and their means rarely change.

The commentary, for the most part comes into play when you try and convey what it meant to the original hearers and their world view as opposed to how we understand things today.
Click to expand...
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
HisServant said:
You research extra-biblical contemporary writings in Greek and Hebrew for the answer... unfortunately the KJV translators did none of that.
Click to expand...

Sorry but, you are all wet. The KJv scholars numbered about 50, to my knowledge, the best in the world. You should reconsider at least their convictions. Try being a little more generous.
 
H

HisServant

New member
Cross Reference said:
Sorry but, you are all wet. The KJv scholars numbered about 50, to my knowledge, the best in the world. You should reconsider at least their convictions. Try being a little more generous.
Click to expand...

They may have been good men, but the restrictions put on them by King James made them unable to do a good job.
 
journey

journey

New member
I give thanks that we have numerous English translations of the Holy Bible that are excellent. I prefer the KJV because I grew up with it and have used it for over 60 years. However, I know that the KJV is not the most accurate word for word translation of the Holy Bible. That distinction would go to the ESV or the NASB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top