Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by pops, Oct 28, 2007.
Would someone please quote me Romans 5:20 from your 1611 version.
And not onely so, but wee also ioy in God, through our Lorde Iesus Christ, by whom we haue now receiued the atonement.
C4K, I do not have a 1611 version, but from some versions I do have, that seems much more likely to be Rom. 5:11, than Rom. 5:20. You might check that out, or that could possibly be an accidental transposition or even a misprint, it seems to me.
Whoops - I got the verse and the year mixed up ")
Moreouer, the Lawe entred, that the offence might abound: but where sinne abounded, grace did much more abound.
OK, I didn't know. But that a lot is more like what my versions also say. :thumbs:
An FYI that the following site includes the 1611 KJV in its list of translations available under the "Early Translations" section.
It is also available free with E-sword
Moreouer, the Lawe entred, that the offence might abound: but where sinne abounded, grace did much more abound. (1611 KJV)
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (NASB)
Now I don't know about you but when I was young(er) many people including myself said things like I cant understand the bible so many thees and thous and words like that who speaks like that anyway etc ...
How can you sit with an unbeliever and read to them from your 1611 version and try to explain it - you end up expalining words and not salvation.
As you can see the above quote from the NASB (recognized as a literal translation) is much more readable don't you think?
So I don't understand why all this fuss to go back - I think if the newer versions were all that bad they would have been discredited long ago besides is that how you speak in normal conversation?
Well enough of this.
I doubt too many people are using the 1611 for personal work. At the same time I say that, I have to admit that there are some fruitcakes around who might be doing just that! :laugh:
The fact that the 1611 AV, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc, are fraught with archaic language and are not (imo) useful for personal work, there's no reason to abandon them altogether. I like to look at them now and then and consider the "evolution" of language.
From a literary standpoint, I find the NASB far inferior to the KJV.....it's downright "clunky" in some places. The ESV "reads" better than any other modern language version I know of.
clunky you say ?
I have t agree - "clunky" is a good word for how I see the NASV as well
CLUNKY: gawky, lacking grace in movement or posture.
So you suave linguistic folks please demonstrate how your version is smooth flowing -graceful, easy to understand - not confusing and defintly not clunky.
It would help beautify the lanaguage if some curse
words were removed.
Sorry but HELL is a curse word.
Sorry but certain bodily functions have
curse words associated with them.
The one about making water appears
in 17th Century (1601-1700) versions
of the Bible.
No condemnation or criticism intended here.
Its simky that I, me, personally, just find the NASV clunky in many places.