Should we have to know these words?

I would say the KJV definitely wins hands down on this one. KJV = Lieutenants. Satraps is where I would have to dig out my Thesaurus, but unfortunately it does not even contain the word. To which end one might think the King was out playing Golf, and the word Sandtraps had gotten confused in translation.

The idea behind brining up the difference in manuscripts was not to change the subject. I simply was showing cause why of the modern translations, one might come closer to original word meanings with the NKJV, rather than some of the others. (SORRY)

"Drink ye all of it" might have been better if this had been done "Drink ye, all of it". As Rufus_1611 pointed out, the more you read the KJV English the more you become accustomed to it. I have gotten so used to it, sometimes I find myself structuring sentances likewise.

As several posts have pointed out - the KJV isn't alone in using hard to be understood words. They all do it, as a preference I would rather deal with the KJV's peculiar words than to further confuse the issue by shifting about with many other translations.

Of these two examples which do you think holds closer to the original meaning.

Ps 22:30
30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
KJV

Ps 22:30
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
NIV

One reveals the meaning of Generations used later on in the Bible, the other does not. Which one??.

 

Mercy. I like that - well said - I wish I'd said it that clearly and simply.

God bless

 

A bible dictionary would have been a better choice. You would have seen that a Satrap is a governer of Persia - who could be either military or civilian. The KJV gives the impression that the person could only be military.

 

What does not make good sense, is to produce a supposedly easier version for modern readers. Then complicate it with seldom used, obscure words like "satraps".

You wont have a problem with the KJV either with a Bible dictionary, so where is the difference.

I have a copy of most of the modern versions in common use today, including the KJV. Now! not from a literary standpoint but a deep feeling, I feel the KJV is the most trustful all the way around.

I am not KJVO, but I strongly recommend one be used in conjunction to any other version you may use. You will be surprised just how many verses are clearer in the KJV, when you really start looking.

 

True and if people were laying down English translations in favor of learning Greek and Hebrew and reading the Bible in those languages then, while I would think it unnecessary, I could appreciate that position.

This is true and there are a few out there that are advocating for a return to the Geneva. I would prefer this position over the modern version approach as at least the Geneva was based on the Textus Receptus. However, the Geneva was a couple steps away from purification and the AV was the masterpiece that the Geneva played a role in developing.

 

Deceitful.

Show ONE KJV church which regularly USES these Bibles.

Your point is [what is commonly seen as a crudity has been snipped].

 

Great! Let us know when you learn the Hebrew, Chaldee (Aramaic) and koine Greek, to the ability to speak it exactly, please. And, since I can't speak any of the above that well, please supply an interpreter, as well. Thanks,


Ed

 

Duh! If he is able to speak it fluently then he will be the interpreter for himself. And since you don't know anything, you will have to learn it as well just to make sure he is right.

OR....you could learn English.:laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

 

Amen - we should adjust our vocabulary to the Holy Bible and read about how love shows itself.

It'll take a bit of work, l but we can adjust our language to the Holy Bible!

 

Uh, Jim, a KJV church would use the KJV. Pretty simple, really. Your comment makes no sense at all, and your last line should get you thrown off the forums. We can all see that it doesn't stand for "Best Standards." Like Ruckman, what comes from you is not what a Christian should be communicating. Is this an indication of what is really in your heart? I'm praying for you, Jim.

 

Gotta disagree with you on this, Roger. It's fine for those of us who have been brought up on the Bible, but what about those we are witnessing to? Do we go to them with the attitude that we want to see them saved, but first they need to learn a 400-year-old form of English? That isn't what was intended by the Holy Spirit. The Bible was written in the common languages of the day so that everyone reading it could understand. A translation should be no less in the current and common language so that everyone reading it can understand. I thank God that He has provided the MVs in language that is clearer and easier to understand for the common man.

 

Thanks, C4K! Uh- oh yeah, and preach it??!! :thumbsup: Uh- I think! :laugh:

Ed

 

I think C4K was being a bit humorous, here, and was probably quoting from the Wyclif, maybe??. A great example of showing that any "only-ist" positione is arbatrarie at beste.

Ed

 

Sorry, guys, it didn't come over to me that way when I forst read the post. On second reading, I think you're probably right, Ed. Sorry, Roger!

 

Thats okay - my slightly strange sense of humour gets me in trouble at times

 

No damage done! Is everything hunky-dory (alright) now?

 

It would take A LOT more than that to get me ruffled .