Most accurate English Translation

BTW, the CLV does use idioms when idioms are present. If it's unclear as to whether it's an idiom or not, it will transliterate in a few places.

I find we often try to apply modern idioms to ancient texts, and fail to apply ancient idioms to them.

 

I read 1611 edition kjv.Some people can,t read it . I did not know how to read till I read this bible.

 

I found that God has done quite a fine job preserving His words in many versions. I also found that God, within Scripture, did not choose to limit Himself to one English translation.

Strangely enough, He chose not to discuss English translations anywhere in His Word.

 

A breath of fresh, sound reasoning, without say too much:thumbs:

 

Quoted by the poster on another topic:
1 Timothy Chapter 2 vers. 15
Notwithstanding she SHALL BE SAVED IN CHILDBEARING,
if they continue in FAITH, and CHARITY and HOLINESS with sobriety.

Sounds more like the KJV1769 Edition (AKA: AUTHORIZED version, from CROSSWALK.COM):
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1 Timothy 2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing,
if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[/FONT]The actual KJV1611 Edition reads like this:
1 Timothy 2:15 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com):
Notwithstanding she shall be saued in child-bearing,
if they continue in faith and charitie, and holinesse, with sobrietie.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT] 1 Corinthians XIIII:18 (KJV1611 Edition):
I thanke my God, I speake with tongues more then you all.

I think my God, I use more KJVs then you all.

 

Don't break your arm, there, while patting yourself on the back. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Even though you actually have a valid point, as I've posted several times about you, in the past, actually quoting the bona-fide 1611 KJV.

Unlike some who make this claim, but actually quote another edition.

Ed

 

Yeppers!

I might also add that He chose NOT to discuss Greek, or Hebrew either but that don't stop SOME folks from claiming THEY are perfect but the English in the KJV ain't!:BangHead:

 

Hoping not to drag this any further into a KJVO debate, but actually God did discuss the Greek and Hebrew. For one of just many examples I could give, see Luke 23:38.

Now back to the OP. I consider the KJV and its derivatives (in particular the NKJV; the Modern KJV and similar ones are somewhat stilted) the most accurate (realizing that one must know 1611 English to understand it correctly sometimes, as in the word "mansion" for example). I have compared most of it (along with the NKJV) to the Greek and find it to be in the grand tradition of previous English Bibles: usually translating literally (but not completely formally), translating idioms properly (either with an equivalent idiom or even literally if the meaning holds true in the receptor language), and setting standards in the English language by it's beautiful phraseology. The KJV literally transformed and re-created the receptor language of its day (and continues to have great influence), as did other great translations in their day: Luther's German Bible, Jerome's Vulgate, etc.

 

Uh, Jim, because of the differences in languages, it is impossible to translate from one language into another with 100% accuracy. Since English is merely a translation of the originals, this applies equally to every English Bible version ever published, including the KJVs.

I'll see you a :BangHead: and raise you a :tonofbricks: .

 

The funny thing is that it's stuff like the "thee" and "thou" that makes the KJV more accurate than modern translations in some places. That doesn't mean the KJV is or was accurate or error-free in other places. But English was less muddy back then. It's a mess now.

 

That's why I like the markings in the CLV. They tell you if the word is middle voice, or something else, without adding an extra sentence or phrase to explain it.

Of course, I think the only way to write a 100% accurate English translation would require the addition of about as many words as we started out with, thereby doubling the size of the Bible, and even then it might need more.

There's no way to get a 100% accurate word-for-word translation, although with the grammar markings, the CLV comes close.

 

So, do you hold to the apocrypha that is found in the 1611? Are those books "inspired" also?

 

Come on folks

Let's not turn this into a single-inspired version only thread. If it does, Dr. Bob, C4K or I will have no problems in shutting it down.

The original thread author has asked for this himself, so let's respect his wishes so his thread is not shut down, please!

 

I wasn't downing the 1611. I was just asking an honest question to a person that said he read the 1611. I honestly wondered if 1611 readers hold all the books in the 1611 being inspired. I grew up on the later KJV's that had only the 66 books. I now read different versions, 20 or so total. My primary is the NASB, Though I have in the last couple of years been reading through different versions of the NT. NLT, ESV, KJV, NIV and NASB being the versions I have been focusing on lately.

 

The Scripture said that God has the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved and provided us the “Bible.” These modern versions omitted this CERTAINTY of God’s Words. We see the difference between the KJV and these modern versions nearly 10K times because the problem is to ask yourself: How would you feel when these modern versions omitted the CERTAINTY of His Words where He preserved? The KJV has more passages or God’s Words than modern versions because of the KJV superiority over modern versions. God bless the KJV.

 

Phillip, looks like somebody's not listening...

 

Hundreds of choices.

There are hundreds of version choices, so which one.

It seems according to the advice on these forums that you will never know which Bible is God’s inspired infallable inherent word, so just pick one. KJV, Niv, Tev or whatever it will be. Hey they are all God's word; there is no one good any one bad translation.
God left it up to popular opinion to find out where his word is.

Just make sure you have 100% confidence in what ever you choose. Remember no two translations are alike and they will always contradict each other. Do not bother about a single standard by which all others are compared too, because it does not exist here. The best one could hope for is that somewhere out there God's word exists. I just wish He was able to let us known where it was.

Remember, when you think you got a version you like a new one will be out in 6 months.

So, happy hunting and remember, opinions are like translations, there are many out their and some stink.

I could tell you where Gods preserved inherent word is, but I do not think that is allowed here, and then again do we really want to know or even care. :sleeping_2:

Hint it was the standard for the past 300 or so years.:thumbs:

Ehud, "Just a Plough Boy" :godisgood:

 

Not a good idea, to just pick one particular Bible version and stick with it. Reading and comparing different versions can give us a better sense of God's true word, His message. God did not promise to preserve English words. He promised to preserve His word. God's inspired word is preserved inerrantly and infallibly for us in English in the various KJVs, in the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB and in several other versions available for us. We should be on our knees thanking God that He has so graciosuly provided His word for us in various English translations suitable for various generations. As language changes, the words of the Bible need to keep abreast of those changes in order to keep the sense of Scripture just as alive today as it was 2000 years ago when it was first written. We don't need to limit God's word to a set of English words current 400 years ago. God didn't limit His word to a particular set of English words, so why should we?

 

Amen to that. I see people misquoting the KJV all the time, not because the KJV is wrong, but because they don't understand the Modern English it uses and therefore have the wrong idea about what the verse means.

You probably know this already, but for the benefit of others, the term Modern English is misleading. The term refers to the English used in the 17th century, not the English we speak today.

 

You're right. A misunderstanding of the English used 400 years ago can cause people to err as far as application of some passages. Many times folks miss the mark when they think the English of 1611 meant the same then as it means now. Yet there are other times when 400-year-old English has not changed in meaning. We need to be able to distinguish the original intent of Scripture, not what it says in misunderstood wording. That is why the MVs can benefit us today as they use today's language to convey the meaning of Scripture as it was written nearly 2000 years ago. When we limit Scripture to a set of English words current 400 years ago then we lose some of the meanings and shades of meanings originally intended by the writers.

I've heard 17th century English referred to as Early Modern English, but not Modern English before. If 17th century English is referred to as Modern English then what do they call today's English? (Not arguing, just asking.)