Most accurate English Translation

You are incorrect. For the majority in AD150 could not read at all therefore they had to be taught to either read for themselves or take someone's word as to the veracity of the message. In addition, folks in AD150 had the added benefit of hearing from second generation disciples of the original twelve. Hence, your refutation falls apart at the outset.
Furthermore; in AD150 though the common language of the empire was Greek, the disciples had been scattered hither and yon into countries in which the commoner did NOT speak Greek and depended on translations , the Old Latin being one of many.

Therefore; they had to be TAUGHT the meanings of words just as we do today. My logic holds true in spite of your weak attempt to refute it. You will have a tough sell convincing any competent teacher that you can present ANY document of the caliber of Scripture to their students which they will NOT have to look up the meaning of some of the words. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to produce any version, valid or no, which is totally understandable by ALL who read it.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Acts 8:30-31 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.



Even God's word itself shoots your assertion in the foot. It is clear that God's word WILL NOT be understood by all who read it or hear it.

Though I agree that Scripture should be understandable (humanly speaking) to any who can read, I can testify to you that it will NOT be, in spite of the BEST efforts of supposed 'godly men'.

This concept that God's word should be so simple that a child can understand it is a perversion of the truth that the GOSPEL IS that simple. For although the GOSPEL is simple enough for a child, even Peter has declared that there are some things (words included) which are hard to understand, hence the NEED for a teacher. Hence the COMMAND of Christ that WE should go and TEACH!

It is just too simple minded to assume that we can dumb down God's word to the level of a preschooleror even a grade school kid. For even the CONCEPTS such as propitiation are struggled with by greater scholars than you or I. Did you know what propitiation was without looking it up or being taught? I didn't think so.

 

I don't think I agree with your statement above. The verse clearly states that the man was reading. IMHO he didn't understand the fufilment of the verse, not the actual words. But hey, what do I know, I'm open to the MVs.

I want to agree with you but for at least (2) issues that come to mind. The first would be us having a frank debate over the differences between different styles of the Greek language, in particular koine vs. classical Greek. The other area has to do with the contention that proponents (on this board) of the MVs are sub-par intellectually. The fact of the matter is the proponents here for MVs seem to me to be using intellectual arguments to make their case. It seems to me that the neo-fundamentalist are the ones who shun scholarship (broad brush, I know), not the old fashoned fundamentalists.

Regarding koine Greek, I remember having a discussion with a friend of a friend who thought the Bible was non-sense. This man was an associate professor of classical literature at Princeton Univ. I showed him a copy of my Greek NT and he could hardly contain his contempt for the koine Greek as he felt himself too sophisticated to bother studying it. I did however get him to look at John 1:1 and he thought that the JWs rendition in the NWT was wrong however he thought the squabble between orthodox Christians and JWs on this doctrine was not any big deal.

 

Perhaps you should have shown him Luke or Hebrews in your Greek NT. Scholars debate over which is actually the best Greek, but both come very close to Classical.

Michael

 

You are right. My error -- typo.

 

My point is:
On the one hand some folks disparage we who trust the English and we even suggest one should learn what certain older words mean in order to understand any given passage. They will say something like you shouldn't have to use a dictionary.
Yet out of the other side of their mouth they will be the very ones who champion the Greek which necessitates extensive study.

To me this is two faced. But of course they will then say it is different. One is the 'original language" while the other is not. I concede that Greek (koine) was the original language of the NT and Hebrew the OT (with some few exceptions). What it boils down to for me is simply this. Be it English OR an ancient DEAD language, one should study to shew yourself approved unto God.

Reading comprehension is what we are talking about here is it not? Reading comprehension takes real work. What a sixth grade kid will comprehend and a high school kid will comprehend are often two vastly different things. This is WHY we should study the ENGLISH. After all, isn't ENGLISH most of our's native language? And I think GOD is fully able to help us understand His word if we lean not on our own understanding.....

And NO I am NOT saying we should lock up the Scriptures so only the "intellectuals" may understand it. How hard is it to understand....."He who hath the Son hath life, he who hath not the Son of God hath not life"? On the other hand I return to the previous word "propitiation". Who among us understood the word upon first seeing it? For that matter, who among us understood the word sacrifice the first time we saw it?

 

Since no one anywhere has ever produced an English translation of the Bible which is easily understandable by any and ALL who read it:

I submit that the KJV is the most accurate. IMO.

 

Jim : " After all , isn't ENGLISH most of our's native language ?"

[unnecessary personal comment deleted]

 

That WAS clunky wasn't it?:laugh:

 

Likewise as I believe the KJV accuracy over modern versions. :thumbs:

 

av1611jim,

Regardless of which version you or I use, there will be times when either of us will have to pick up a dictionary for a definition or diagram an English sentence to determine subject, predicate, verb and so on.

This is not the big problem though. The KJVO movment tells us that it is (the only) inspired word of God and user of MVs are apostate. The users of the MVs state their various reasons for using their versions and among them they list archaic words. This is not the only reason but it is a good enough reason on it's own and you really want to tell me that I'm (we) are lazy or dumb or what ever. Not every MV is written at the 1st grade level and you know it. If you want to call me (or like minded folks) stupid then go at it.

Again, I find that most non-KJVO that hold a high view of scripture read/study/enjoy the KJB. Speaking for myself this is my attitude, however the arguement that the KJB is the only version that contains the Word of God is not convincing by a long shot.

 

I will only say that the KJB does not CONTAIN the words of God, it IS the word of God. The distinction is very important. Others may contain the word of God, the KJB IS the word of God.

BTW: [insult toward those using MVs removed] :thumbs:

 

I think the REB reads at a high level of English . Not only that , it is beautiful English . But the translational philosophy is kind of free . Certainly less free than The Message though .

Try reading the NRSV which is the closest relative to the ESV . Its language is not simple .It's more formerly equivalent than the TNIV/NIV .

You should examine the wording of the NJB which is written in an elevated style , but is functionally equivalent .

I had started a thread a bit ago which I have to continue sometime soon . It deals with the NAB . Not the NASB , the NAB . It is a tad more formal than the NIV and uses a higher register of English .

The NIrV is not written on a first grade level . However it's considered to be appropriate for 3rd graders . I've given away lots tof NIrV's to South Koreans struggling with English . They may be able to read the TNIV/NIV , but the language is still too advanced for them . Yet I would recomend the NIrV to any fairly literate adult , as an extra version to consult . It's a wonderful version . ( I have some pet peeves about some translational choices though like Romans 9:13 ) .

I'm 53 , but I read at the level of a 43 year old

 

Sometime I wonder why I comment on KJVO advocates, but you never seizes to amaze me with your position. Should not come as any surprise however. But I thank God that no KJVO would be at the gates of heaven. I would not make it in. I use every version there is that is striving to be faithful to the Word of God, even the KJV.

But I dare not attach liberalism or neo-orthodox elements to them because they are not my favorite version, the NASB.

 

Moderators:
That was NO insult, but you be the man so do what you will.

 

How did anyone ever get this idea? How did this get started? Maybe that's the topic for another thread, but I find it remarkable that anyone could say this.

 

Jim may not mean it this way, but the statement implies that the KJB contains all the words of God. Of course, the KJB is NOT the complete and total collection of the words of God since human history began. Many of God's words were never recorded, or were not preserved for us.

 

I get the impression the statement means that the KJV is specially inspired, whereas all other English versions are just translated.

Again, I have to ask, where did anyone get the idea that the KJV in particular was given by some gift of inspiration? Who started that, and why?

 

How does one come to know this?

It never ceases to amaze me how so many laptop scholars indeed esteem themselves or their counterparts as the best translators in the business (business! Ha, that strikes home for some translators does it not!).

In fact, these people seem to equate thier own humble opinions higher than the KJVOists equate the KJV itself!

 

Honest question. I know the whole KJVO argument, but are there any other groups that hold to one version?

Honestly? This is no set-up or anything of the sort. I just have never seen them or heard of them... but is there a NIVO? or ESVO? or RSVO? Just curious if anyone has more insight into the other half....

 

That's sort of like the question I have in the other thread. I was wondering if there's an equivalent to the KJVOnly in other languages like some French translation, or some Chinese translation. Why not? Why would God specially inspire only an English translation? Why not a specially inspired Japanese translation?