KJV still good or a modern versions needed?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Zachary, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. Zachary

    Zachary
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some people feel the KJV is becoming "outdated." While others stand firm on it's writings. What do you think?
     
  2. Barnabas H.

    Barnabas H.
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Oldtimer</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2000
    Messages:
    6,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Zachary, we appreciate your initiative but this thread does not belong to the welcome forum. You need to introduce yourself and being welcomed by others in this forum. [​IMG] If you want to discuss a certain subject you need to go down to the other forums. [​IMG]

    This thread is now forwarded to the Bible Versions / Translations forum.
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    KJV--forever good and by far the most beautiful use of the English language.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both ... The KJV is still good, it is just outdated in its language, and manuscript choice. Modern versions are of immense help.
     
  5. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is an excellent translation, but not the only one that is conservative. NKJV, NASB, ESV are just as acceptable.
     
  6. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    agreed [​IMG]
     
  7. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use the KJV almost exclusively. Once in a blue moon, I will whip out my NKJV or NASB. Although I own an NIV, I never take it out--not because I believe it is cursed or demon-possessed, but because I just do not like it.
     
  8. CubeX

    CubeX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, I haven't studied much of the Hebrew (nor Greek for that matter) Old Testament or Tanakh as they call it, but I have been studying the Greek New Testament here lately. I have been using "The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English". It uses the Greek NT, KJV, and NIV versions all parallel to one another. From studying this, I have concluded that the KJV is in fact accurate, as well as the NIV. However, a word of caution here, just because these two follow the actual Greek in a systematic consistency, it does not mean that neither are "correct". They both are translations and the best that could be done from their translators. For the KJV, the translators did their best translating from Greek into their dialect of English (which was actually starting to decline by the time it was completed -- thee and thou were already being replaced with you in common tongue). The NIV, is the same. It was translated to assist modern man in his dialogue of the time. Even so, this does not make the NIV any more accurate than the KJV. In fact, many new translations are coming around to replace the NIV because it uses outdated words for even today's dialect!

    To let everyone in on what I have concluded as of this time is the best, LITERAL translation of the Bible is; I have found it to be the New American Standard, however, some of its wording can be difficult and so I use parallel Bibles now to grasp a full meaning of the passage. I believe that with the want for more "modern" translations, we will begin to see a "stand-up for the NIV" movement, much like what occurred with the KJV.

    But to finish up answering your original question, yes, the KJV is still good, but also we need to realize that the KJV does not contradict most other translations, (for example: NIV, ASB, NASB, NKJV, NLT, etc.) rather they complement one another to reveal a fuller concept of a passage. I would say use several, or even change out Bibles when attending church services, or even use a different translation from the preacher to help you comprehend some thoughts.

    Thanks, God-bless!
    -David
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    "Variety of Translations Is profitable for the Understanding of the Sense of the Scriptures."...(AV translators, To The Reader, preface to the AV 1611)

    The KJV was the best English BV of its time, as the Model-T was the best American car in its time. However, their times are past, and while each is still perfectly valid for their intended respective uses, each has been bypassed by better modern versions.
     
  10. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    With all due respect, I cannot see that the KJV is not modern or that the language is not modern in the KJV. It is not as if we were reading Chaucer in the original or reading ancient Anglo-Saxon.

    The KJV is the most poetic and has the most beautiful use of language (even though Holman has published the Holman Christian Standard Bible recently).
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, CMG, the KJV IS classified as a "modern English" work by linguists. But then the Model-T is classified as a "modern auto" by strict auto historians.

    You know as well as I do that there've been MANY changes in English since the KJV was written. And these could be confusing to many people today. For example, "conversation" is no longer used for "lifestyle", "let" is no longer used for "hinder", and "thee, thy, thou" and the "-eth" endings for verbs have all gone bye-bye.

    Why use an archaic version that much when there are plenty of valid MODERN-LANGUAGE ones around?
     
  12. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    And....

    I am still not convinced that "each have been bypassed by better modern versions."

    Also, if anyone has a Model-T and does not want it, I'll take it.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Williemakeit:And....

    I am still not convinced that "each have been bypassed by better modern versions."

    Also, if anyone has a Model-T and does not want it, I'll take it.


    Willie...

    Have you ever driven a genuine Model-T? If so, would ya wanna drive it every day for common transportation? I once drove one from Portsmouth, OH to Cincinnati, all on 4-lanes, and, believe me, once the novelty wore off after 50 miles or so, it was nothing but WORK.

    And how many sermons from the KJV have you heard, what the preacher hasta take a third of his time translating the archaic language into clear modern Englih?
     
  14. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is a fine translation. If one wants to be a student of the KJV it just requires a little more work in order to correctly understand some of the words that have changed meanings. I would not recommend the KJV to someone who is not interested in studying the archaic words found in the KJV.

    I think that the NKJV, NASB, and ESV are better for today but you can't go wrong with the KJV.
     
  15. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I would definately take a 2005 Suburban in exchange for my 1999 (especially the one with the XR71 package); however, I have always enjoyed working on old cars (currently restoring a 1980 Mazda RX7, hmmmm, does that really count?). I do not equate my bible study with tinkering in the garage, however. My Pastor may spend a second or two translating a word; however, most of us do not have any problems with the thee, thou, sayest, etc. The Defined KJV seems to be one of the favorites among our congregation, and I do not hear any complaining from them. I am just saying that I do not believe that your blanket statement of "each have been bypassed by better modern versions." can be applied across the board.
     
  16. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The textual basis for the KJv is by far more superior than any of the versions after it. The assumption that because its manuscripts are of a later date, they are not as reliable as those based on older manuscripts, is just not the case. I am of the belief that the Lord in His providence ensured that the KJV used texts that were closest to the original manuscripts. Too many of the versions after the KJV are guily of using faulty manuscripts, especially those of the 4th century, which are the products of copies from the heretical Mss. from the third century, tainted by the likes of Origen and Lucian. There can be no doubt also, that when it comes to scholary study, the KJV is still unmatched, but must be used with the original Hebrew and Greek. I am aware of the problems that there are with the KJV, in relation to some of its grammar and word choice.
     
  17. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I think that the automobile comparison fails. I work in a building that is quite old but it was very luxurious when it was built. There are a lot of very new buildings all around but many of them are not as nice and comfortable as the old building that I work in.

    The KJV is more beautiful than any other translation. The 1600s English is perfectly understandable with a little effort. It is not a low-performance antique in the cyberspace of life but may well be the most powerful translation ever. Also, it is the only translation accepted by the cults, so one has to use it in order to evangelize the cults.
     
  18. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fact 1: we have manuscripts from the 4th century
    Fact 2: there were heretics in the 4th century who corrupted manuscripts
    (fact 3: ????)
    Conclusion: the manuscripts we have from the 4th century were corrupted by heretics

    Can you fill in the missing information (fact 3) that makes the conclusion valid, instead of just an unjustified, faulty leap in logic?

    For example:

    Fact 1: I drive a 2001 Ford
    Fact 2: Criminials used a 2001 Ford in a recent bank robbery
    (fact 3: ???)
    Conclusion: My Ford was the vehicle used in the recent bank robbery

    Same leap of logic. :rolleyes:
     
  19. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the KJV is very beautiful, the language poetic. But was original scripture very beautiful and poetic in this way, or was it regular "every day" language? If the original scriptures were not of poetical, beautiful language, then the KJV has added something to scriptures that wasn't there originally, and a "everyday language" version would be closer to the originals in that sense. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent point, Natters. This is something that most people don't even think about because it is so basic, but so very true.
     

Share This Page

Loading...