Is the KJV inferior to you?

First off, my primary study and preaching Bible is my 1945 King James Version (not Bible, but version). I love it.

Having said that, there are legion of archaic words that have completely opposite meaning to-day. There are words that were translated according to the Church of England doctrines. There are certain interpretations of science and historical values which definitely are related to what people commonly understood at the time.

The grammar is fine for the time, but English is a changing language and hence grammatical rules do adjust accordingly. Then, even modern English changes from nation to nation. In Canada we do not spell "nite", but rather "night". There are also some slightly grammatical differences between American grammar and Englist grammar.

When I was teaching, I instructed American students that if they used English spelling where the American spelling differed, I would mark them wrong, and did the same for English students (including Canadians).

When I first came to America, I had a most difficult time with the language differences between England and America. As a sad example, we sat on chesterfields, and Americans smoked them.

If you want the very best book, as an authority, on the English language, one such book is: The King's English by the Fowlers, H.W. and F.G..the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary. It was first published in 1906. The copy I use is 1947 edition.

Remember that SHakespeare died just 5 years after the 1611 KJV. His language was a modernization of Chaucer, who first established a form of English for the common man. We tend to think of biblical (KJV) English as being Elizabethan rather than Shakespearean.

In my opinion, all translations have something to offer, and we are remiss to ignore them whilst using the translation of your choosing as your base Bible, not forgetting Hebrew and Greek, but I assure you that you will have your English in mind as you attempt to translate these two languages...mark my word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Do you also love the way the NASV tells the reader that God can be deceived?

:laugh: The Sunday Comics might well fit into an improvement too.

 

One's reality verses another's reality sometimes conflict each other, it's all dependent upon one's view of that reality. Obviously, mine must be more conservative. Which isn't a bad thing, just more inline with Scripture.

 

Educate me, give me some samples.

 

Never read the NASV, but I'd love to see this example.

 

Which MSS in the original languages do you attribute as being the actual word of God and why can't we have those which do NOT contain corruptions related to us in an English version?


Why "MUST" I know Hebrew and Greek to know anything about the word of God?

I already have the English translation that is proven to be very accurate, why settle for less?

Numbers of people do not an arguement make except to possibly overthrow the concept of another through sheer out-numbering of the opponent. Reference the life of Gideon.

The largest numbers are not ignored. Brother Bob Patenaude and his son matthew are two of those currently that I personally know are translating the Bible into Mandarin. Nice try though, but it won't work here.

And they do that from an English speaking perspective.

If you'll be honest, you'll admit the English language isn't a primordial tongue, but a compilation of many tongues.

Amen!

And yes, John Birch, an independant Baptist Missionary, who was murdered by the Chinese Communists (as were John and Betty Stam), was not a 'political' figure per se, but a Baptist missionary, despite the naming of a 'political' Society in his honor.

BTW, the last sentence here is just FTR.

Ed[/quote]Amen! For that record!:wavey:

 

Psalm 78:36

 

Wrong, the primary reason for modern versions to fit the modern language is the degradation of society in an attempt to nullify the need for literacy.

Your English teacher might put you in detention for spouting that in her class.

Since when is promtoing the graces of literature so evil spoken of by these modern critics?

I, for one, am FOR EDUCATION, not "un-education". If that is "judgemental" by your estimation, blame it on those who teach that we should know more about our language to better express ourselves to any audience.

Prove it.

I can deduce that the more modern the translation the more worldly the readers, generally speaking.

 

Apply that concept to the most recent views concerning morality and you will see a definite downward trend.

If you were to hold to a monogomous heterosexual lifestyle as a mandate in your social studies class today you would very likely fail there too.

Considering the moral laws given in our Bible have never changed, just those who want to change those same laws altered the words of God to express their agenda, it's the primary reason to hold to that which is already established and not to make accomodations for those alterations.

 

1. NASB reads: "But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue"(emphasis mine).


2. KJV reads: "Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues" (emphasis mine).

3. This poetic expression is a classic example of the Hebrew parallelism that make up the Hebrew poetry.

In this parallelism, the second line is repeating the first line:

A. They deceived Him

B. With their mouth.

A. They lied to Him

B. With their tongues.

4. If we go with the KJV, which is the same Hebrew word as the NASB, we have God being flattered? Can anyone really flatter God?

5. Let's respect the Hebrew poetry and pick another battle.

 

(I would say more but I don't want to get worldly.)

 

Forgive me as I have a "not surprised" attack.

 

Here, let me help you with that one, rbell.

*in a high-pitched tone that sounds strangely like Gilbert Gottfried*

Why am I not surprised? I think I could have a heart attack and die, from that surprise.

 

The first statement is a gross exaggeration as TCGreek explained - flattered/deceived - neither is happening to God, it is man's perception.

Did you really just compare God's Word to the Sunday comics.

 

I did, with an A... mutliple times! They don't like the spelling very much, but when I provide proof, they accept and are just happy a college student can spell for a change.

 

Consider the source, Bitsy.

 

I know Keith, but I keep reading these threads and just keep shaking my head when I see things like counterfeit (in another) and comics and not the same Jesus . . .

 

As long as the language is a living language...

Guess that means I'm one of Salamander's "dumbed down" people. I can barely read English.

But I DO understand most of the words in the KJVs.

 

Let's respect the difference between flattery and deception.

God can be flattered, but not to the extent of being deceived by that flattery.

 

IOW, "I know it's true, but I cannot come back with anything coherent."