Some scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as an inferior English translation of the Bible, suggesting that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation
I'm confused. When was it written? It's pretty new right? All it is is an English translation of the Christian Bible first published in 1611.
Are you saying that it's the right version because some King 400 years ago decided it was? Even though the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) edition of the Greek texts, so called because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text.
Wouldn't the original versions be more reliable?! You REWROTE THE BIBLE PEOPLE!!! I mean, why can't i just translate those old versions and get the queen to say that MY VERSION is the true and authorised version.
You can't say that the KJ
2007-06-25 12:20:35 · 7 answers · asked by irishcharmer84 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I have many translations. They all tell the same story. I like NIV the best.
2007-06-25 12:24:19 · answer #1 · answered by Nina, BaC 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If you can find original 1st Century Greek New Testament transcripts and Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic transcripts from the BC times AND if you can accurately translate the language than you will have the accurate Bible. I hope you do find those transcripts. If you can not find these transcripts I suggest you start with the Greek text of Erasmus (Textus Receptus) if you can find that. The Stephanus text from 1550 was an updated version of the Textus Receptus and can be found in most Bible book stores. Well then you will have to learn Greek. Then you can try to learn Hebrew and Aramaic and you can know for sure that you can read the true Bible. Or you can just purchase the version with the language you can understand and just be happy with that.
2007-06-25 19:35:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some believe that the KJV is the only version to read and study, however it has numerous errors in the translation. For instance the term Passover was translated to Easter, minor but shows some problems that arise.
Having been to several countries outside the English speaking world, I question how the KJV could be the only version. If the KJV is the only version, then everyone would have to learn English.
There are some versions better than others but one must study to show oneself approved.
2007-06-25 19:30:16 · answer #3 · answered by Birdbrain 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The KJV isn't necessarly the "right one" however..it does allow a person to go back to the Masseratic Texts, the hebrew and greek that the manuscripts were written in. When you do that, like a scholar, which you're not, you see the errors of the english translation. Namely the Strong's Concordance shows every word in the english translated back to the Hebrew and greek as well as figures of speech. Get it? Doubt you will but there's your answer.
2007-06-25 19:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by pissdownsatansback 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Masoretic Texts were compiled 700 to 1000 years after the event ! Makes little difference what version you choose when the source is so distant from the event. Note the correct spelling is "Masoretic". Just for interest, King James was a notorious homosexual, bet you are so pleased he has his own Bible !
2007-06-25 19:44:52 · answer #5 · answered by ED SNOW 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the KJV of the Bible is the most accurate, and poetic. all the others were based off of it, and changed to fit the desires of the humans who rewrote them.
2007-06-25 19:24:55 · answer #6 · answered by . 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They were probably raised with it and their faith is so tied to it being correct, they can not accept anything else. Point out errors in it and they start pinging.
2007-06-25 22:36:12 · answer #7 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋