1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Flesch-Kincaid readability scale

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salty, May 11, 2012.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    think that was mainly addressing the 1977 version of NASB, one I use, that kept tall of the ole KJV thees and thous and ways of expressions...

    Think 1995 version corrected the wooden aspect quite a bit!
     
  2. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,838
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yes, so what. What are you trying to demonstrate. It was mentioned only once in that, I would argue that they are closer to the meaning of the original languages, and it is not a particular difficulty to understand their meaning in that...there are only three of those "thee" "thou" (same meaning for those two) and the "ye". It might be worth learning to distinguish between those in that learning the difference takes roughly 25 seconds.


    True enough...and no one on this particular thread "hollers" about that stuff...take that up with the insanos on some other thread.

    A wonderful platitude...also not inherently germaine to this topic or the particular direction of this thread.

    A comparison between the translational history of the Bible into English and into that of other languages is probably unwarranted, since we are still in the process of translation into many languages wherein the Scriptures are as of yet still unavailable.

    UHH...Yes, it is at least demonstrably true that since 1611 there have been gazillions of different publishing firms wishing to make a quick buck and there have also been numerous genuinely concerned groups who feel a need or desire to update the language of the KJV...It has happened scores of times in the last 130 years. It has happened many more times than is necessary to merely keep current of the natural evolution of language (which un-doubtedly changes over time). It also happens rather slowly.

    That would be accurate to say if it were the case that the KJV translators consistently kept their translation in the modern vulgar/vernacular...they didn't; they even permitted some archaicisms because they felt that they were more accurate renderings.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist

    It has not been demonstrated at all that the KJV translators kept some archaicisms because that they felt that they were more accurate. That may be your opinion, speculation, or assumption, but that does not prove it to be true. You do not speak for the KJV translators and have given no quotations from them that assert that those archaic renderings are more accurate than the more up-to-date language already used in the Geneva Bible.

    The KJV translators may have simply been inconsistent in their updating.
    If they thought those archaicisms were more accurate, why would have they updated their use in other places as has been demonstrated in this thread?

    The KJV translators may not have noticed some of the archaicisms since they were used to reading them in the Bishops' Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible. Some of them may not have been considered actually archaic in 1611 and were only considered archaic later on as the English language changed through the years. The KJV translators could not predict which renderings would later be considered archaic.
     
  4. glazer1972

    glazer1972 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use a NKJV because that is the Bible I was reading/holding in my hands when I was saved.
     
  5. DiamondLady

    DiamondLady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Finally! Someone has a reasonable, succinct, clear-cut reason for reading a modern translation: their version of choice.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have no prob with those who prefer the KJV as a matter of choice. My prob is with those who insist that the KJV (or ANY one version, for that matter) is the ONLY valid English translation out there.

    I believe GOD hs caused/allowed many English translations to be made because of the multiple correct meanings in English of a great many Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases. He wants us to have a broad understanding of His written word. Since he hasn't given us a full understanding of all the subtleties and nuances of the "original" languages of Scripture, He has chosen instead to have different translators make versions from each of their unique points of view.
     
Loading...