Posted on 02/19/2006 9:39:32 PM PST by Creationist
I have always believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have not always believed that one version of the Bible is better until the last 10 years or so. I have always read from the Authorized King James Version. Most likely because the Lord did not want me to get my understanding from any other source.
As I have gotten closer to God over the years I have learned why the KJV is the best of the translations of the original Greek and Hebrew text. Some of the reasons are that the words of the Old English which seam difficult to read and understand at first are really the most descriptive and least confusing to understand as you read. Words like Longsuffering from the KJV have been translated into patience in the NIV. Now the word are pretty similar in the definitions, but the word longsuffering shows an inflection of pain while you endure. Patience does not imply this at all. You may be patient with the guy at the counter of the DMV, but you are long suffering with a loved one while you hope they change their ways. There are many more examples of the pitfalls of the NIV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB to numerous to get into. And if you are not willing to examine and ask the Lord to help you discern the Truth of the matter then my post is falling upon deaf ears.
There is a good book called The Language of the King James Bible , Discover its Hidden Built in Dictionary, by Gail Riplinger. It is very informative on how to understand the Old English of the KJV Bible.
But on to why I posted in the first place if you go to these links you will learn how the publishers of the NIV are also the publisher of the Satanic Bible. Their Teen study Bible is very disturbing and worldly, even mocks the Bible in a hidden way.
Bookmark to read later...
umm...that's like some local hoity toity missionaries I met here in the Philippines. They were discussing how the KJ version is the bible for the people of God...
But a lot of locals can't understand it...because their English is not good enough...so I told them that it was more important to read a bible their people understood...
"The Annointing..." With all due respect, what in the world does that mean? And who did the annointing anyway?
The KJV is a flawed translation, and is written in a language that is 400 years old, halfway to being a dead language (800 years is the approximate period of time for a language to "die").
Because of that, I believe the KJV has been a major source of error, not necessarily in doctrinal teaching, but certainly a grave misunderstanding of the overall message God was seeking to impart to human beings. If you take the time to read a version of the Bible that speaks "your" language, it takes on a tone that is completely different from the KJV.
Reading the Bible in the KJV, compared to any number of other translations, such as the New Living Translation, is like trying to read through a fog.
If you read virtually any KJV, you will find that the passages such as Mark 16:9-20 are in italics, and that is because the authenticity of those passages was questioned by the KJV translators, even back then.
A reliable translation will probably not include those passages in the text, but will, with a footnote, note the exclusion and include the missing passages there.
From the preface of my NKJV: "Italic Type in the text indicates words that the original texts do not contain but which English requires for clarity"
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp
No he wasn't.
***If you read virtually any KJV, you will find that the passages such as Mark 16:9-20 are in italics, ****
Not so in my Cambridge!
Or English Oxford!
Or the old Collins/ World,
Or (modern) World!
Or American Oxford!
Or any other KJV.
Only my old printing of the RSV has them gone, but they are in the footnotes.
***...so I told them that it was more important to read a bible their people understood...***
I agree on this. I use the KJV because I was raised with it and understand it, but I often use a NIV or NASB for tough passages.
"Beowulf" is a great story. The version I own was translated by the Irish poet Seamus Heaney, and is very enjoyable.
You already know that is my wish for you.
I have that version. It's probably the most readable out there. I also have one or two others, and a tape of someone reading bits and pieces of it in old English as he thought the people would have performed it, with some sort of stringed instrument to accompany him. Even only understanding some of it, it was wonderful, particularly the bit where Grendel comes back and eats his last victim "bones and blood."
The one they had in the old Norton Anthology I used in English Lit sucked.
That's because there are 3 standarized texts: The Textus Receptus, which was put together by Erasmus and which the KJV is based on, the Alexandrian Text which is what a lot of modern Bibles are based on, and the Byzantine Majority Text, which not too many translators use, but might be even a better way to go (IMHO).
There's a nice short discussion of standardized texts and why people are unhappy with the Alexandrian text - (biased in favor of the BMT) on this website:
http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/BYZmenu.htm
There is an online text - The WEB bible which is a modernization of the ASV using the BMJ as its reference which is something worth looking at - it's also intentionally been made public domain.
http://www.ebible.org/web/indexfr.htm
You are seriously going to use Jack Chick to support your belief? Why don't you go ahead and use Jim Jones or Fred Phelps?
Jack Chick just made stuff up and passed it off as truth. Him and L. Ron Hubbard have about the same level of trust from me concerning Christian theology.
So was the NIV version of the Bible ok from 1978 to 1988? I only ask because Zondervan started publishing the NIV Bible in 1978 and was bought by HarperCollins in 1988.
Since it seems that your only real complaint about this translation is that the parent company of Zondervan prints the Satanic Bible, I assume that you would be ok with someone using a copy that was published before HarperCollins corrupted the translation by buying Zondervan.
Or did the translators know that HarperCollins would buy Zondervan 10+ years later and corrupt the translation in the 1970's? I leave it to you, are the copies of the NIV from, let's say 1985 (the year I bought mine) ok? Or do they all need to be burned because HarperCollins bought Zondervan in 1988?
I have Robert Fagles' translations of Homer, too. Extremely vivid, and fast-moving, except for all the lists :-).
I'll have to read those. The Oddyssy is one of my most favorite stores. I pull it out and reread it every few years. I must admit, I particularly like the climax.
I liked the Tv-movie with Armand Assante as Odysseus. Que' hombre!
Why would I trust another source more? There are other sources who say he was not homosexual. Why do you want him to have been? Agenda?
No, not agenda, the truth. And the truth is that King James being gay doesn't make the KJV translation any worse that what it is. Just like the fact that Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins doesn't make it a worse translation.
The whole point in bringing it up was to show the ridiculousness of the whole "guilty by association" that so many Christians fall back on rather than any good, clean debate.
King James was gay. He also authorized the KJV Bible. One has nothing to do with the other.
I only got to see some bits of it, but it looked good...I keep meaning to buy it on DVD but haven't done so yet. You could make an object lesson about how the city fathers in Ithaca, by letting their young men sponge off of Penelope, acting like the some of the Democrats thinking it's ok to take what's not yours, long as it's done for the good of their pockets...
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.