Posted on 05/25/2006 7:14:13 PM PDT by Full Court
Very interesting!
I am vexed. I have tried to view this thread with detachment, but find I must vent a little. What kind of weakling considers these words archaic? The English language is a beautiful thing and it exasperates me that the tyranny of ignorance threatens to emasculate it. Perhaps a little food will restore my tranquility. I'm famished.
I agree. And the guy that wrote this has waaaaaaay too much time on his hands. Maybe the authour would benefit from some of the Word Power tests from Readers Digest. Geeze!
His premise is that the "archaic words" claim made against the AV is better suited to be made against the NIV.
Sorry but the "synonyms" in the AV suck. The NIV is clear in it's meaning. My daughter and I just went through them all and laughed at the AV list. The NIV was more understandable and clear in it's meaning. AND more specific. Daughter just said " I can be quite vexed without being grieved". And yearling is specific, fatling is not. And turbulent is waaaaaay past unstable. The list is just petty silliness.
It can't be. It removed over 64,000 words without manuscript evidence and removes WHOLE verses!!!
Also, the KJV is much easier to read.
"Modern versions bave been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB.
The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, sbown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB.
Furthertmore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax."
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/hall-whykjv.html
That's silly. We don't speak that language any more.
"According to the F-K [Flesch-Kincaid] formula 74.3% of the books [in the KJV] are on or below the sixth grade level, and 94% are on or below the seventh grade level! . . . And the FRE [Flesch Reading Ease] rated 97% of the KJV books as Fairly Easy or Easy! These were all first place statistics!" (Ibid, p. 80)
Nah, you'll get the hang of it.
If you want the original, learn Aramaic and Hebrew.
Translations are just that. One opinion of the relative meanings between two languages. As language changes over the years, various opinions on those meanings will happen.
None of the variances of any of the major translations is material, IMHO. The only controversy seems to come from those more interested in sowing discord.
Evidently you only read what backs your opinion.
The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
I'm not a King James fan, of him or his Bible. I'm also not a "computerized document analysis program". Guess that ends the discussion.
Only The 1611 King James Bible is Trustworthy!
It's not my opinion that the NIV removed all those words and verses!!!!
But come back any time!!
Ain't that the truth. If I'd known this was a "my Bible's better than YOUR Bible" thread, I would have avoided it like the plague.
That looks like a cheat sheet for a theology final.
Is it?
Not likely.
Would the deity of Christ be immaterial?
The Catholic liturgy is going back to some of these older words. If I were you -- I would encourage all to keep them. They are wonderful Biblical words.
It's fine to read others to get the translations others place on them, but I'm really old school. It's the KJV, and ya like it! Thee, thou, ye.
Get thee behind me, Satan!
How are you going to make that better? Do we update Shakespeare? Yes, but not usually and not entirely.
What next, crucifixion = owie?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.