January 11, 200818 yr Author To be entirely technical, we don't even speak the same language as the KJV bible. It's English but a different form. What about English Bibles before 1611? Were they not the truth? And when English evolves into something else (which it will) what about then? Oh and here's an example of English from the 12-1300s. It's the intro to Caterbury Tales as it would have sounded then. Actually, when people claim King James only, they're referring to the 1789 (I think) edition...I don't know of anyone that uses the 1611 version. That's what I don't get...the King James bible we use today is an updated version of the original (1611). One of the main reasons was to update the english. If that's acceptable, then why isn't it acceptable to update the english again...some 200 years later?
January 11, 200818 yr Actually, when people claim King James only, they're referring to the 1789 (I think) edition...I don't know of anyone that uses the 1611 version. That's what I don't get...the King James bible we use today is an updated version of the original (1611). One of the main reasons was to update the english. If that's acceptable, then why isn't it acceptable to update the english again...some 200 years later? Don't you understand? Jesus spoke 17th century English.....duh! :lol:
January 12, 200818 yr No love on here for THE MESSAGE?:lol::lol: At least it openly calls itself a paraphrase and Eugene Peterson has been a pretty good student of theology and languages before he tackled that project. :thumb:
January 12, 200818 yr I truly believe the superior translation is the one which brings any given individual closer to God. To blindly claim that KJV is better than the NIV or that any translation is better than the next is foolish in my opinion. I've read this entire thread, and noticed there is very little conversation concerning how the particular translations affect the actual readers. Let's say for the sake of argument that the KJV is the most structurally accurate and literal translation available. Let's then say that in the bookstore you have the KJV bible on the shelf next to the "Bible For Dummies". The customer buys both and once home, he/she begins to read the KJV and doesn't understand a bit of it and puts it down in frustration. He/she begins to read the "Bible For Dummies" and for the first time in his/her life is moved by the awesome love and greatness that is God. I would argue in this case the "Bible For Dummies" is the superior translation.
January 12, 200818 yr I have a Hebrew Bible, but its greek to me. Paul speaks in Philippians that the bottom line is Jesus. He is talking about all the different people who were preaching Jesus. As long as your are studing it, the holy spirit will guide you. I learned a lot from my sons Childrens Bible with the pretty pictures.
January 13, 200818 yr Author No love on here for THE MESSAGE?:lol::lol: I certainly think it has it's usefulness to further study a passage...it can shed some new light or allow you to see something that you hadn't before. It's certainly not something I'd recommend as your #1 Bible reading though.
January 13, 200818 yr I'm intrigued by this discussion that was started and then abandoned in evolution vs creation vs ID catch all thread...particularly this... I'd like to hear some specific examples/reasons that the KJV is superior to all other translations. If you don't mind... Especially considering that the King James Version is itself filled with mistranslations and missing information. As New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has noted, "The Authorized Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!" {1} (Erasmus' edition is the Textus Receptus.) The belief that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the Bible is a prejudice common to English-speaking fundamentalists. In the end, any version not based directly on the Masoretic Text -- including the KJV --- is probably questionable. {1} Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.
January 13, 200818 yr This is a very interesting thread. Kinda off topic but does anyone know of a good online bible study? I need to study my bible more and would love the view of others while Im doing it.
January 14, 200818 yr Rat, check out "BibleForums.org". Its a site like this one in iys format. You can relate to others, ask questions, and have fun. I go there when I can.
January 14, 200818 yr Author This is a very interesting thread. Kinda off topic but does anyone know of a good online bible study? I need to study my bible more and would love the view of others while Im doing it. There are a lot of good sites...if you want commentary, here's a couple you might check out... http://www.blueletterbible.org/ http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/ http://www.planetholy.com/ I've looked at these sites from time to time for a more detailed look at some passages. I'm not declaring them 100% correct because I haven't looked at everything on them, but I think they're pretty good from what I can tell. You should be able to find some useful studies or commentaries on there. There are plenty more sites on the net...some good, some bad, but you can search for yourself and find tons I'd say.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.