From my understanding Jesus spoke the surrounding languages of the time Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. "God's word is alive and exerts power" so why hang on to a VERSION that uses a dead language. The new testament changed languages from the old because the scene of things changed and God wanted to make sure that people would come to an accurate knowledge of the truth - so he changed it with the times. The clergy tried for centuries to keep the bible out of the layman's hand by keeping it in Latin - that only they and a small class of educated ones would know. Unbeknownst to them, they were, in a way, doing Satan's bidding - keeping man from drawing close to God. Over the centuries the Bible survived a tumultuous journey - all because God wanted to make sure man would receive his word and be drawn to him. So, by holding on to a confusing dead language as the KJV aren't we basically not getting the full message. Also, it is a VERSION and not a DIRECT TRANSLATION of the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.
2007-12-18 14:31:58 · 9 answers · asked by Enlightening McQueen 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The last time I looked, there were several modern language versions. If you don't like the Elizabethan English (KJV) then use one of those. If you REALLY want to complain about "Dead language" then go for a latin text version. I can tell you now that unless you are reading IN the source language OF the original texts FROM the original texts, you aren't getting "An accurate translation". Go learn early Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and a few other obscure languages and then access the original texts, such of them that still exist, and translate it yourself. Come back in a few decades with your translation. I can guarantee you that someone will question YOUR translation
2007-12-18 14:43:16 · answer #1 · answered by Stephen H 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, no, Jesus did not speak with thees and thous and ye and all that. The KJV was written in a time when speech was like that, and so the original texts were translated like that.
Each Testament was written in the language of the times, because they were written by the people who lived at the times. God used people to transcribe the Bible, which is just amazing to me.
Many people grew up with the KJV and hold onto it because the rather majestic tone reminds them of God, the same way you might hold onto a stuffed animal from your childhood - it's comforting, and familiar. I don't have a problem with any version, as long as it's an accurate translation.
Of course, the best thing would be to read the entire Bible in the original languages, but I don't have the command of different languages to do that. It's one of my many goals.
2007-12-18 14:38:47 · answer #2 · answered by Soyana 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, you have your opinion confused with fact.
The Bible was translated into Latin not to keep it out of the hands of laypeople, but because that was the universal language of education and commerce of the day. (Think about how universal English is today around the world). Universality was important because all copies of the Bible had to be crafted by hand before the invention of the printing press. Additionally, the vast majority of people were illiterate, not because of some 'conspiracy' to keep them away from the Bible, but because just staying alive was so time-consuming. Even so, there were Bibles in vernacular languages from the earliest days of the missionaries.
Once printing became feasible and widespread, the Bible was made available in the vernacular pretty quickly, though they were still relatively expensive and illiteracy was still widespread. In fact, illiteracy is STILL the way of life for many even in our modern world.
That said, translations which work for the people of God should be made available, based on translations from the extant ancient texts, rather than intermediate translations, as much as possible.
2007-12-18 15:04:19 · answer #3 · answered by MaH 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Okay, and your point is....Elizabethan English is not a "dead language" as it is still English. Middle English is a dead language because it substantially changed after the Norman invasion...picky but accurate. Some like the cadence of KJV than the newer translations. I liked the KJV for a long time, but now that my church uses the NIV I have started to switch over.
2007-12-18 14:35:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anna P 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Acts 26:14 addresses parts of this issue. YAHOSHUA the Savior spoke Hebrew.
2007-12-18 14:36:28 · answer #5 · answered by hasse_john 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For sure.
I use the New Living Translation version.
I like it because it notes when there are translation issues or if certain verses are not present in the oldest known texts.
2007-12-18 14:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by 5th Watcher 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"God wanted to make sure that people would come to an accurate knowledge of the truth - so he changed it with the times." you don't seriously believe that nonsense do you? Man wrote it and man changed it so that man could exert control over his fellow men. Try to understand that you fool!
2007-12-18 14:44:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Verily I say unto you Jesus spake Aramaic. Perhaps.
2007-12-18 14:36:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, you ignorant bastard, he speaks Aramaic!!! greek??? where do you get this info?? on the MTV reality shows?? JZZZZZZZ
and when you say ...... "G0d wanted to make sure that....." who the hell are you to presume that you know what G0d wants?!?!?!?!?!
2007-12-18 14:44:35 · answer #9 · answered by Mak_time 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋