What support doth thou have from thy original Hebrew and Greek texts to suggestest that thy King James doth proveth best?
What about more modern translations that pull from a greater collection of early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?
2006-11-24 02:50:20 · 18 answers · asked by 5solas 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I can attest that the KJV does mistranslate a lot of words. My trusty NIV holds up pretty well, I think I've only found two slight errors, but the KJV is definitely shaky at best. And no, the "thee" and "thou" parts of the KJV are not problematic, that is simply the language of the day and it doesn't matter if you translate, "thou art happy" or "you are happy", its the same thing. I love Greek.
2006-11-24 03:04:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Many people thank other versions are better. I suppose people who grew up with the King James version prefer it. These new versions only came out recently and none of them are exactly correct. Certain words can have many different meanings. And the oldest manuscripts available only date back to several hundred years after Christ. None of them are taken from the original Hebrew and Greek text far they have long been lost. Not even the Dead Sea scrolls are original. It is only fair to tell you I am an Atheist but a Christian Atheist never the less. God bless kisses Betty.
2006-11-24 03:18:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Newer versions leave out verses and change words. Here are a few that have been omitted. Revelation 1:11, Iam the Alpha and Omega: 1 John 5:7, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Acts 4:24, Thou Art God. Matthew 8:29 Jesus. Romans 11:6 But if it be of works then it is no more grace. Acts 8:37 I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 1 John 5:13 and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. These are just a few, not counting the verses they left the name of God or Christ out of. That is why thou doest prefer the King James Bible
2006-11-24 04:08:15 · answer #3 · answered by judy_derr38565 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
People who advocate that the KJV is the inspired translation, fell victim to an early version of that text claiming same. In fact there is one instance where politics interfered with this translation and it is in reference to the trinity doctrine. This whole trinity idea is not actually a direct teaching in the Bible, though in many ways one can infer it if that is their desire however it is not a doctrine that separates believers from non-believers, which would then be used to divide the body, which is directed to be of one accord.
In defense of the work (KJV) it is a very accurate literal translation, and should be given appropriate weight in any study practice. Many others are paraphrases and so deliver the bias of the translators.
My preference is the NASB, however there is a bias there as well as in others. When it comes to repentance do not look to the NASB for the whole truth.
HERE IS A TRUTH WORTH REPEATING. aLL THOSE TRULY IMPORTANT THINGS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE ARE BEYOND MISINTERPRETATION BY EVEN THE SIMPLEST OF MINDS
2006-11-24 03:02:09 · answer #4 · answered by icheeknows 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it's just the most widely accepted, because so many people and scholars contributed to it's translation. However, that does not mean that it's perfect, or even near perfect. We must all read and study the Bible knowing there may be translation errors and seek guideance from God to understand what is correct.
2006-11-24 03:17:45 · answer #5 · answered by straightup 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The KJV probably is the most accurate translation that we have because it used manuscripts that bypassed the catholic control over the current manuscripts of that day. But it has a secondary prblem, and that is language changes with usage over time, and language has changed so much over the last 400 years that the KJV is not longer accurate to contemporary understanding of words. The newer versions are translated from older manuscripts (Alexandrian) but they have errors that are not in the KJV manuscripts (Textus Receptus)
2006-11-24 03:09:54 · answer #6 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The modern translations are better. The English is better understood than the KJV one. Many words in the English language have changed meaning or have become obsolete since then.
2006-11-24 02:52:45 · answer #7 · answered by . 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like the NEW King James, I don't care much for most of the wordier translations. But as long as it is correctly translated whatever version you can best understand is the best one for you. What good does reading a bible that is so bogged down in arcaic words that you get lost do for a person?
2006-11-24 02:54:46 · answer #8 · answered by Shalvia 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it's because some traditions used the King James version for so long that they have deified it.
They also claim that certain words were changed to confuse people. Like calling Jesus the Bright Morning Star, which they believe refers to Satan.
2006-11-24 02:59:04 · answer #9 · answered by Mark W 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The original KJV was written by scholars and is very hard to understand...therefore....most people think the KJV is best because it gives them a reason not to have to read it.
2006-11-24 03:08:51 · answer #10 · answered by Blondie B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋