KJV only??

Go back and re-read my post. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say anything about the 1611 being the update but that it has been updated since 1611.

1611: "Moreouer brethren, I declare vnto you the Gospel which I preached vnto you, which also you haue receiued, and wherein yee stand."

Current: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

notice how it has the spelling updates to match closer. Besides, this wasn't my point. My point was that the KJV has been updated over the years.

 

Rippon never misses an opportunity to "rip on" the KJV! :tongue3:

 

Could you use the 'report post' button to indicate where he 'ripped' on the KJV please. I missed it and that will not be tolerated.

 

The english language is a living and changing language though!
what passed as being known and understood just 50 years ago has changed, much less 400 years ago!

Also, there can be NO refuting the fact just based upon the greatly superior knowledge that we have today for the customs/history/languages etc of the Biblical eras that the modern versions would benefit from that and would be closer to the original authors in meaning than the KJV...

NOT saying KJV is bad version, its just due to the VAST advances since 1611 in area of Bible, taht modern versions would be better, as they benfit from that!

 

I disagree. I believe that God preserved His word for the English speaking people of 1611 just as faithfully as He has preserved it for us today. I contend that it is a very rare modern version, if any, that is superior to the KJV in quality of translation.

 

I agree completely Jim. The KJV was never updated into current,or contemporary language.

 

I know you were using a figure of speech,but do think that there are no versions at all superior to the KJV?

 

Wouldn't ypu agree though that with all of the advances made in past 400+ years in areas of understanding culture/history/languages, that moderns version are able to use those advancements in order to create a "better" as compared to originals translations?

 

I contend that it is a very rare modern version, if any, that is superior to the KJV in quality of translation.

 

How do we know if it is 'better' unless we have the original manuscripts? All of this ends up being our opinions based on our own study and our own choices. Hopefully/prayerfully we choose our translation after honest and careful study, consideration, and prayer. By doing that we can trust that God will use His word in our lives.

My heart goes out the the millions who don't have any translation to read in their native tongue. I do think that far more work needs to be done there than coming up with yet another English translation. Can you imagine what an impact could be made if the effort spent coming up with more and more English translations was spent on translation into other languages?

 

I don't get your point about the Royal Family, Jim. Are you suggesting that under the Hanoverians, British people spoke German?

By the way, it was the House of Stuart (Just a "Little" point! :laugh: ) that was on the throne in 1611 - the House of Hanover began with George I in 1714, and ended with Queen Victoria in 1901. Then came the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which was changed to Windsor by command of King George V in 1917, because of the War with Germany. But that was only a name-change. I don't see how all this would affect bible translations though. Sorry!

 

Hi David. Here is an interesting quote from the net to describe the complicated linguial history of England:
English is a West Germanic language that originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic invaders from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the Netherlands. Initially, Old English was a diverse group of dialects, reflecting the varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England. One of these dialects, Late West Saxon, eventually came to dominate.
English changed enormously in the Middle Ages. Written Old English of 1000 AD is similar in vocabulary and grammar to other old Germanic languages such as Old High German and Old Norse, and completely unintelligible to modern speakers, while the modern language is already largely recognizable in written Middle English of 1400 AD. This was caused by two further waves of invasion: the first by speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic language family, who conquered and colonized parts of Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries; the second by the French Normans in the 11th century, who spoke Old Norman and ultimately developed an English variety of this called Anglo-Norman. About 60% of the modern English vocabulary comes directly from Old French.[1]
Cohabitation with the Scandinavians resulted in a significant grammatical simplification and lexical enrichment of the Anglo-Frisian core of English. However, this had not reached southwest England by the 9th century AD, where Old English was developed into a full-fledged literary language. This was completely disrupted by the Norman invasion in 1066, and when literary English rose anew in the 13th century, it was based on the speech of London, much closer to the center of Scandinavian settlement. Technical and cultural vocabulary was largely derived from Old French, with heavy influence from Norman French in the courts and government. With the coming of the Renaissance, as with most other developing European languages such as German and Dutch, Latin and Ancient Greek supplanted French as the main source of new words. Thus, English developed into very much a "borrowing" language with an enormously disparate vocabulary.


Yes, the royals did speak German as a common language. The palace did change when Victoria learned English as a youngster.


English varied greatly around the countryside, even as did the dialects of my day, which was up to 1948 when I came to Canada.


Even in public school(private to North Americans) I was taught English, German and Latin from an early age.


It is interesting how English developed over the years, and how much it changed from period to period.


Cheers,


Jim

 

That would depend upon how one defines "quality of translation", wouldn't it?

 

Aye, and therein lies the rub. We cannot make arbitrary statements about. 'better or best' when it comes to our choice of translation. That is why I use words like 'I contend' or 'in my opinion' instead of stating those views as fact.

 

Instead of automatically believing a false report -- you could have simply said that you... "have not found his charge has any basis in fact,but if it [the KJV]is ripped on --moderators should be notified of that as they should also be told of any Bible version demeaned."

And "ripped on" needs to be defined. I have witnessed a lot of phantom charges about the KJV being unnecessarily criticized.

 

What group or individuals (apart from some KJVO advocates) claim their version had translators who were inspired during the translation process? I have never heard such a thing before.

 

The LXX-Only crowd and the Vulgate-Only folk. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Small correction.

It was George I and George II for whom English was a second language (tho' George II spoke it quite well). George III (1760-1820) was a native English speaker.

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was where Queen Victoria's husband Albert came from. It was therefore Edward VII's family name.

Steve

 

All the while trying with some success to kill all the Celtic languages in favor of Her Germanic Magistracy and the new bastardized language.