do you understand your bible Many use the king james version which is in arabic ?

Question

do you understand old english.You know the new world translation doesnt mean the content changes its the english.Instead of sath you see said its easier to understand and it doesnt confuse you it makes bible reading interesting.Most important taking in this knowledge can mean our life (john 17:3)

Answer 1

I remember in school we had to read shakespear (DON"T KNOW WHY) but i was n the 10th grade and our teacher gave us the traditional shakespear and then gave us one in modern day english, and told the class to read both, and asked us which one did we understand the most. Everyone said modern day. And she pointed out that modern day is simply that, they translated it to modern day english.

So the same today if i had to read another bible i would prefer new world translation because its more understandable, and in plain english. On top of this other religions have changed the bible, they have taken Gods name out and replaced it w/ GOD, LORD, etc etc
His name is Jehovah, and they did this to detour people from the truth. I love it when people say we have our own bible, because once we show them its the same meaning they are suprised.

Answer 2

I prefer the New International Version or the New American Standard.

For all those that said that KJV is the bible without error, the "true" version from God, I challenge you to take a look at the Origanal Greek New Testament and tell me where the book of James is.

You won't find it! Because KJV is the King James Version and it wouldn't be right if the King's name wasn't in the Bible. So James in the Greek is actually Jacob. So Jesus' brother James... is actually Jacob. Does it change the meaning? Not at all but it just bothers me that some people are not open to other versions that might be easier for non believers to understand.

Answer 3

Ya know i must be getting old because i just don't understand what your point is. The king James bible is VIRTUALLY Arabic free. The old testament is Hebrew. the new testament is Greek. But there is only a smattering of Aramaic. So what am i missing? Oh i get it now your saying in the new world translation the precepts are the same it just uses different words to describe them. got ya. But in the kjb there is probably 8 Aramaic words.

Answer 4

Jon: Yes; there are more, clear, English renditions of the Bible.
A Greek Professor of New Testament Bible Studies told me once, that in the Greek Language (which the original manuscripts are written), translating the Greek meaning - attempting to convey the adequate and proper meanings of some of the passages into the English language, utterly changes its meaning, in some places of the Bible. Therefore, it is very important to employ the usage of Lexicons, Expositories, and one I like is entitled, The New GREEK ENGLISH INTERLINEAR NEW TESTAMENT of the New Testament. Of course, supplementing the King James Version with its poetic flare of its "Old English" rendition, with other translations, makes it come more alive.

Answer 5

I've compared the KJV to a couple of the newer versions of the bible people love so well in this day and age. However, without exception, these newer versions make subtle changes to names and meanings, and or entirely cut out phrases, that changes what the bible has said.

If I wanted some author's interpretation of the bible, I'd ask my little sister to rewrite what she felt was important in crayon.

I'd rather have the real thing - as authentic as possible.

Answer 6

Just because something makes Bible study more interesting doen't mean it's helping you learn the lessons in the Bible.

One lesson I learned about Bible teachings is that our misunderstandings of the Bible arise from no longer understanding the concepts that were originally included.

Take for example the word 'meek'.

There is not a single english translation of the Bible that I have read that does not use the word 'meek' in Matthew 5:5, which would be fine, if the word 'meek' hadn't morphed into something almost completely unlike how it was being used in the 1500's in England.

Back then, the word meek didn't even apply to the word lamb, like people like to use it nowadays.

Back then, if you were to say 'meek like a lamb', you stood a good chance of being locked up in a loony bin.

The word meek only applied to people in positions of power, who refrained from using the full extent of the power that they were capable of wielding, for example, a king who decided NOT to execute a subject who had done something that might seem worthy of capital punishment could both be considered merciful for sparing the guy's life, and meek, for not making the easy decision to just kill the guy.

A common citizen (a serf), however, could never be considered meek, because in order for a common citizen to spare a guy's life, it would have to be in his hands to begin with, which would require a lot of effort to get a person arrested and judged to where his adversary were placed under his power, and then, he could never be considered meek, even if he did become merciful and decide to try to spare the guy's life or to keep the guy out of prison, because, for him, the easier road would have been for him to never have sought to bring up charges against the guy in the first place.

That's what the word meek used to mean, and that's what the word "manso" in the Reina de Valera (Spanish) version used to mean, a few centuries ago.

Since then, however, the meanings of meek and manso have morphed.

The reason for that morphing is that of course if Christ is a God, and is all-powerful, then his decision to forgive the soldiers who crucified him would indeed be a sign of meekness, as it might have been a lot easier for an all-powerful god to punish the soldiers with excruciating amounts of pain, than to forgive them.

So, of course Christ would be considered the epitome of meekness.

So, people began to say that Christ was meek. And then people began to say that someone else was meek like Christ. And then people began to say that someone was meek like the Son of God. And then people would say that someone was meek like the Lamb of God. And then people would say that soeone was meek like the Lamb. And from there, the undereducated masses began to say that someone was as meek as A lamb.

So, now, the misconception is that anything can ever be as meek as a lamb, as if a lamb could be meek.

Lambs are not meek. The characteristic that most people think of when they think of this miconception is the lamb's tendency to be totally submissive.

Christ was hardly what could be called submissive.

Yes, he was a whole lot more submissive than I think I would ever be, as he was being taken without the city walls and to be slain, but, exactly how submissive was he when it came to clearing out the temple of it's uncleanliness of money changers and livestock vendors?

How submissive was he when he was ordered by the Sanhedrin to explain himself?

How submissive was he when he was calling the other leaders of the community a bunch of hypocrites?

Christ was hardly what we could call submissive to men, but that's what so many people wind up envisioning Him to have been, by misunderstanding a word that has been misconceived over the centuries.

So, even though something might make it more interesting, if it is false, it is false, and the falseness of it winds up making it a lesson UNlearned, not the other way around.

So, for me, I prefer to continue studying the Bible the old fashioned way: by muscling my way through it, and a bit and a piece at a time.

Answer 7

I'd rather stick to KJV, New World Translation translates incorrectly.

Answer 8

The KJV is the Word of God without error.If you change one word in the Bible you have changed it all.

Rev 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Answer 9

KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, WEB, CJB, NLT are great versions in english.
NWT is not a valid Chrisitian bible, the JWs use it to deny Jesus as part of the Godhead.

Answer 10

The KJV is the best english translation.
(a concordance will help).
Hebrew-Greek interlinear is the most accurate.