Perfect VS Accurate

I do read the Bible.

 

Most could not read in the day when the KJV was translated nor could 98% of the early church.

A much better translation of 2 Timothy 2:15 would be, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

 

"Bird" is the closest word we have today to oph. In verse 20, it is interpreted that oph="flying creature" and sherets="creaping" is speaking about flying insects. NASB has all the winged insects. KJV has all the "fowls"-meaning the flying creatures- that creap- what are the flying creatures that creap? Flying insects. So today, the closest we have to ôph sherets is winged insects.

 

Today yes, but in 1611, "study" was an accurate translation. My question is why did they use "study" here and "diligent" in all the other places? It could be that it was a different group doing it, but there might be something else that I'm not sure of.

 

Look, I'm just as tired of beating this dead horse as you are. But birds is not the most accurate word to define "oph". "Winged creature" is far more accurate. Then a modern reader would understand that oph meant not only birds, but winged mammals like the bat, or winged insects like a wasp.

You want to be correct, but you are not. I'm ready to let this go if you are, but I will never agree that bird would be a better translation than winged creature.

 

And fowl isn't any better as in 1611 it meant bird. If you want to say that "winged creature" is a better translation, I have no problem with that.

 

My Bible is just as applicable today as it was about 2000 years ago. The Bible teaches that man is still sinful and foolish. If you go back in the NT you will find the traveling philosophers who were trying to lead people astray.

If I remember right Peter cut off a man's ear and Moses killed a man. David committed adultery just like men today.

So what has been dumbed down since then?

 

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here. Yes, Moses killed a man, and David committed adultery, but both trusted in God and were saved.

What does that have to do with dumbing down the scriptures? If you really believe the scriptures should be made as simple as possible, get one of those children's Bibles.

It's amazing. Would you go to college and complain that the textbooks were too complex and difficult to understand? Would you ask them to take out all the difficult words you don't understand?

I don't know about you, but I want to grow in knowledge and understanding. This takes study and hard work.

 

Not everyone goes to college. And not everyone is blessed with your supreme command of the English language. And here's the kicker-

NO ONE here was raised speaking King James English.

Stop trying to make everyone else live by your rules concerning versions and the world will be a much better place.

 

Hey, I don't care if you do read a Children's Bible, whatever floats your boat is fine by me.

But to constantly argue that the scriptures should be simplified is plain dumb. That is why I gave the example of college textbooks. Nobody would tell a college to simplify what they teach. So, why does everybody want the scriptures to be simple?

Actually, the scriptures are not difficult to read. They can be difficult to understand, that is a different matter altogether. But I have been reading the Bible since I was very young and never had difficulty reading it.

Oh, and as for college, I did go. But I was married with two kids in my late twenties. I was supporting my family with a full time job and went to school five nights a week. I didn't get home till 12 at night. It wasn't easy, but that is what I wanted to do.

 

Are you saying that it's not a good idea to have a Bible in the current language? It's not about dumbing down. There are words in the modern versions that are not "children's" words. The KJV English is outdated. Are you saying it's a bad idea to have a Bible in our current language. Isn't this exactly what the KJV translators did?

What do you mean by simplify? Say it in such a way as it is better understood, or take stuff out that is hard. There is a difference. Many times, simple is much better.

 

That is not what the KJB translators did. The scriptures at that time were for the most part in the original languages and unaccessible to the common man. Their goal was to print the scriptures in English so that every man could read and learn the Word of God for himself.

My problem with modern versions is not that they are written in modern English, my personal problem with them is that they are based on the Critical Text, where the KJB is based primarily on the Received Text.

I do not like the NKJV because it deviates from the KJB. While it is based on the RT, it used the translation methods of the MVs which I disagree with. Where the NKJV deviates from the KJB, it often reads word for word like the MVs.

If when they had published the NKJV if they had simply replaced the archaic words with modern words, then I would not have a problem with it. I doubt I would go out and buy one, but I wouldn't object to it.

 

There were about 6-7 English translations already available at the time. Actually, the KJV was there because the King didn't like the Geneva. But you said you disagree, but then you proved my point. Their gowl was to put the Bible into English so that "every man" could read and learn. That means putting the Bible in the common tongue.

I understand. I have no issue with anybody with this opinion. It's a defensible position.

Most of the time in updated languages. You have be be careful on how many kjvo's present the NKJV in comparison. Many times they take the NKJV out of context to make it say something it is not. Other times, they use circular arguments by assuming the KJV correct and anything else wrong.

I think there are some updated KJV's out there, but I'm not sure if they are in print or if they are what you are speaking.

Personally, I think the KJV is a great translation.

 

I second that.

Agree! The CT and the TR are MUCH different because the identification with the wordings of the autographs is shown their disagreement.

 

You got it.

 

Of course. I never said the KJV was a bad translation. I just say it is not the only translation. Some modern versions(ESV, NASB and the NKJV) are very good translations. None are perfect.

 

Who stops it? The KJV is still there.

 

Who stops what? I'm not sure what you mean?

 

No perfection in the doctrinal clarification?

 

Who stops the KJV?