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.
Older in which sense?
Would we need one that predates Christ (with regard to the Old Testament)?
Wouldn't we be more interested in the one in use in the time of Christ and the Apostles, and what their thoughts were on it? (Again speaking with regard to the Old Testament).
The Douay-Rheims is a Roman Catholic bible and contains some really bad theology. Do you realize that in Genesis 3:15 that it is a women that is going to crust the head of satan. This redeemer is interpreted in RC circles as Mary.
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel. Genesis 3:15
However in the New American Bible, another RC bible, we have
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at HIS heel. - Genesis 3:15
Notice that it is going to be HE who strikes the head of Satan while Satan strike at HIS heal.
Of the bibles you listed the NASB is considered to be the most literal translation.
The word "suffer" has multiple meanings. In the context of the verse to which you refer, "suffer" is synonymous with "allow" or "permit".
suf·fer
v.tr.
...
"Old English"
It's still "old" to me no matter how you look at it. Perhaps if Old was not capitalized it would help.
In this context, the capital letter is relevant. It would have been accurate to say "old-fashioned English" or even "older English," but not Old English, which is a distinct stage in language development.
To me, the errors (especially the homophonia) make the author seem uneducated and diminish the persuasiveness of his opinions on the KJV.
It often comes down to which standardized text people like behind the Bible, and there are three major ones, but more than that, it has to do with interpretation traditions and traditions in how to translate.
I prefer the old RSV myself for basic reading.
It corrects some of the language archaicness of Early Modern English, while avoiding some of the translation pitfalls of equivalence and the desire for inclusive language that most translators can't resist any more...but for those who don't know much about translations, you cannot avoid some equivalence translating...and there ARE traditions in how a word, phrase or idiom ought to be translated. And those fights can get really interesting to watch from the sidelines.
I have studied huge amounts of Early Modern English texts, and although I like the beauty of some of the KJV passages, I won't study it because I KNOW how much the language has shifted in ways most other people don't (or pretend they don't)
"But I bet you picked up on modern slang pretty quickly, huh?"
"BTW there are 4 verses with "thereunto" in the KJV New Testament and 23 with "hither"."
OK and your point is what?
I personally like the KJV, particularly for reading aloud. It has a poetry that is missing from some of the newer translations. For a study Bible, I use the New King James, with occasional reference to other versions.
The only translations I reject out of hand are the ones which have been substantively changed to be politically correct. TNIV is probably the worst, but you can seen elements of that sneaking into the ESV and some of the other new translations.
I was told to go back to the KJV 'cause that translation HAS THE ANIONTING....none of the others do...
being deaf does not matter when discerning the truth
huh?
Yes, but it isn't Old English - which most of us couldn't read, and which refers to a specific, earlier time period.
If possible, read the OT in Hebrew. It might be interesting to note that it was the letters of the alphabet itself that were used to represent numbers, and this would make it natural to incorporate numerical messages in the text itself, such messages being missing from any translation. Also Latin and Greek used a similar system. BTW, the Roman letters for numbers, I, V, X, etc. up to D, if added, come to 666.
Yes, I have a reputation for that on the "Freeper Foxhole" threads.
I am still waiting for an ebonics version. But in all seriousness, I find it is benefitial to look at multiple versions. The wording of the King James can be confusing at times and other versions clarify what is meant. I have one that has four versions side by side.
The fact that the same folks put out the gender neutral, politically correct TNIV "Bible" is reason enough for me to boycott the company. I used an NIV for about 10 years before switching to the NKJV; each translations has strenghts and weaknesses (even the RSV and the ESV have points to recommend them). But I'm not going to put any more money in their (the NIV publisher's) pockets
Thanks for the post of support on the "Old English" question.
There are more versions than just the NIV. KJV-onlyists love to rail against the supposed defects of the NIV, and ignore the fact that there are many excellent translations like the ESV which can be used instead. I do like the KJV for its poetic language, but making ridiculous claims as to its accuracy and even hinting that it is somehow "inspired" is crossing perilously close to idol worship, IMHO. Is it a good translation? Most definitely! Is it perfect? Nope, it's not.
If Jesus is God but also man, this requires a certain clarification. If Mary is not queen of heaven--and of course she is not the "queen of heaven" you mention here, (That would be Astarte et al.)then Jesus may be king of heaven, and sit at the right hand of the Father, but is he also divine and if so in what sense? AlL Marian doctrines are incidental to Christology; she has been elevated as he has been elevated. As Arius saw the matter Jesus occupied a place in the scheme of things not dissimilar to that which Mary occupies as "queen of heaven."
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.