Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She's mistaken. Today's modern versions are not re-translations of the KJV, but are instead based off of manuscripts that are actually older and closer to the source than the KJV. Her argument doesn't hold water.
So what specific modern version would you consider to be the most accurate and why? I'm pretty sure that this isn't something my Mother has ever studied, she's probably had the same Bible most of her life but I'm curious since you brought it up.
So what specific modern version would you consider to be the most accurate and why? I'm pretty sure that this isn't something my Mother has ever studied, she's probably had the same Bible most of her life but I'm curious since you brought it up.
Scroll to the bottom for an exhaustive list of English-language Bibles. The Holman Bible strives to be as etymologically correct a translation from the original text as possible. It's 'pedigree' is noted in this same link.
She's mistaken. Today's modern versions are not re-translations of the KJV, but are instead based off of manuscripts that are actually older and closer to the source than the KJV. Her argument doesn't hold water.
Even so, all translations bear the marks of the people who do the translations and their biases. We may think it is better scholarship but it may only reflect the sensibilities of our society and the translator's ideas. These biases should always be considered no matter what translation you use.
I'm no expert but I believe the poetry in the KVJ is better than other translations altho it most likely took some liberties with meanings to reflect their society at the time and to make the language flow better. The KVJ is not medieval, it is Renaissance.
I have noticed that most of the Scriptures quoted on this forum are in an archaic, out of date, sometimes hard to understand, English.
Some people even use it outside of the Scriptures, in their posts.
For instance Gen 25:29, 'And Jacob sod pottage.' King James Version.... who knows what that means?
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee' ???
'Maketh, Beareth, Knoweth, Justifieth, Travaileth..... As well as making some verses into tongue twisters, putting -eth at the end of every word can also temporarily obscure the meaning of the verses. Its just plain hard to read.
There are many modern translations of the Bible. Why not use those instead? Does it make it more authentic or more believable to use olde English? If the language is important to God, then all the Christians need to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, the original languages of the Scriptures.
Just an observation, but I do genuinely wonder why only the King James Version seems to be used.
My first comment would be to point out that King James English is hardly "medieval."
Think that's interesting? In my church days, people used to get up during worship service and "prophesy" in the Queen's English. These were folks from the Caribbean, mind you. These were people claiming God was speaking through them to people who believed God was speaking through that person to them. My ever growing cynical mind was always wondering why God found it necessary to talk to modern folk in Shakespearean English. LOL
the modern way to get back (wherever!) should be time travel or astral projection.
there ought to be some rare "talents" wherever on this earth today speaking old languages - in trance...
worth searching for them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.