2006-11-29 10:32:36 · 8 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
King James (the man, not the version) had scholars that had more and better access to the best codex manuscripts of the time. MUCH better than Wycliffe had. That's almost 300 years. Think about how LONG that is!!
Honestly, there has been much better scholarship and many more archaeological discoveries since 1611 that make King Jimmy's version a bit dated.
The NEW King James reflects these findings. The Revised Standard is also a better choice.
ANY version but the New International (NIV). That's my only rule for the folks in my parish.
2006-11-29 10:42:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
From AD 1382, and from AD 1611, the meanings of words have changed. That is what makes a language a "living language," and not a dead language.
For example: KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:15
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
That word "prevent." What does that word mean? Does it not mean to stop something from happening?
Now look at the same verse in the NASB:
1 Thessalonians 4:15
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.
Ah HA! Precede! Which is what "prevent" meant in 1611. "Pre" meaning "before," "vent" meaning "let out" or "release."
The examples of the examples of variations could be multiplied over and over. That is why I prefer the NASB, or the ESV!
2006-11-29 18:45:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well...I get lost in the Old English of 1611, so I prefer something a little easier to understand.
My fave is the NCV (New Century Version) it's translated from the original manuscripts but with today's language. Easy to read and understand!
NLT, NIV, NKJV and Amplified are also very good for study. I like to check them all... :o)
2006-11-29 18:37:01 · answer #3 · answered by Salvation is a gift, Eph 2:8-9 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In England a F*G is a cigarette. The problem you have from generation to generation is languages change meanings. Even in the US you have a major change of definitions from one area to another. King James simply tried to word the Bible to match the language of the day. Since our English language is based on that same dialogue we tend to understand the meanings more than the 'older' version. Remember Guttenburg created the FIRST English version of the Bible. If you tried to read his version today you would understand it at all.
2006-11-29 18:39:29 · answer #4 · answered by Marshall Lee 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know why people believe the KJV is better. It is better to have many different translations...mix it up a bit.
2006-11-29 18:37:03 · answer #5 · answered by JohnC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea, I guess King James won the popularity contest.
2006-11-29 18:35:12 · answer #6 · answered by GirlUdontKnow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are over a hundred versions of the buy-bull, and each one claims to be the correct, inerrant "word of god" --- do any of you have enough brains to realize that this is yet another sign showing you how ridiculous the bible is??
aye yi yi!!!
2006-11-29 18:35:15 · answer #7 · answered by Jeebus is my Rectum 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
depends on which people think is more profitable. lol
2006-11-29 19:06:41 · answer #8 · answered by lnfrared Loaf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋