That is why I stick only with the King James version of the Bible. All these new versions change the Word. I stick to the original translated from the Greek.
I respect your choice of KJB, the NET and NASB are more accurate translations.
That is why I stick only with the King James version of the Bible. All these new versions change the Word. I stick to the original translated from the Greek.
Absolutely. Me, too.
I’ll stick wit the same Bible Jesus used, the King James!
/s
Ed
“That is why I stick only with the King James version of the Bible. All these new versions change the Word. I stick to the original translated from the Greek.”
Ummm, ALL bible translations are translated from the Greek. If a bible version doesn’t use the Greek it will be called a “paraphrase” (e.g. The Living Bible). The question becomes, from which Greek texts? The King James Version (KJV) used traditional texts received by the Anglican Church as of 1611. It is also called by some proponents the “Authorized Version” even though that just means it was authorized by the homosexual and cowardly English king, James I.
Modern translations tend to use different sets of the ancient Greek (and Hebrew) texts, often weighting the oldest texts most, or, perhaps the greatest number of (”majority”) texts....for dealing with textual differences. An example of a textual difference might be the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt. 6, which has, “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever” in some versions (the received texts of KJV) but does NOT have that phrase in other, older Greek manuscripts (reflected in modern translations).
Is any essential meaning changed? No. Any decent translation too will make a note where the Greek or Hebrew texts differ from each other.
The KJV is an excellent translation—given it’s limited texts, and, given Elizabethan English. Unfortunately most people get tripped up by “thees and thous” today, and there actually are some excellent-—NON-GENDER-BENDING modern translations—that are reliable in modern English. I’d recommend the English Standard Version(ESV) (2004) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) (2003). The New King James Version (1980s(?)) is also considered an excellent, but traditional, translation.
The problem with NIV, is that the translators want to reflect modern English usage, where we often hide gender-distinctives (”I knew a PERSON who had....”) in the name of being polite and inclusive. The Hebrews and Greeks.....like 99% of people throughout the world throughout history, didn’t worry about such niceties (or bending toward animal worshipers either....).
Of course the silly thing is virtually any Church, conservative, liberal, evangelical, traditional, whatever....will have a majority of women. Clearly they don’t feel excluded...while men, actually, tend to be more alienated from Church, across the board. Therefore there really is no need to mess with the literal original meanings... Gender neutrality only makes that PC feeling—and male exclusion worse, IMHO.
would that be the version where many books were deletedbecause the "reformers" did not agree ith their interpretations????perhaps 1,500 to 1,600 years after the Catholic version of the bible was written??????great choice, take a good look at the Koran, just as legitimate
One of its so called original Greek texts was actually reverse engineered from the Latin Vulgate.