The KJV

[alexGERMAN]

the King James version Bible is as close to the original Bible as we today, with very few exceptions, can get. Yet I find most of the christians here quote from the watered down, easy reading, editions that in many cases change what the bible intended in the first place.

I have read the whole Bible (KJV) over about 3 times, and memorized quite a good portion of it. After reading this, then going and reading many of the newer editions it was an intectual waterfall. A child of 2 could get the drift of what was going on because there is no depth to it.

Any christians here still read the real thing?

[Jack]

The King James Version is not a direct translation from the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament nor of the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. It's chock full of mistranslations and grammatical errors. The errors in the KJV have even been the subject of other books.

Since the original manuscripts were most likely written in a mixture of Aramaic and Greek, and the earliest known translations were in Greek, I'd recommend a translation taken from earlier source material than the church used for the KJV.

[alexGERMAN]

Quite true, thus why I said it was pretty much as close as you can get by going to ones local bible book store.

[Jack]

So do you feel that by trying to appeal to the current generation by updating the words, concepts and metaphors of the bible to lingo they understand causes too many passages to be rendered inaccurately? I don't see a great deal of consensus on interpretations taken from the KJV among protestant denominations as it is. Can using modern grammar make it any less concise?

Your comments remind me of what friends of mine were saying shortly after Vatican 2. Switching from the Latin mass to contemporary worship services was considered heretical. It took quite a while for some of them to finally accept the change. A few even left the church over it.

[alexGERMAN]

It does kind of come down to a fight between poeple that want the old ways and progressives who embrace change. I personally believe people who base there lives on the Bible to be crazy, but not foolish, there is alot of good stuff in there. But yes, if these people believe in the Bible as much as they do it stands to reason theyd get as close to the original as possible.

There are several passages whos meanings have altered due to new translations. Now your probally going to call me out to post them, but its 12:00am and ive had a long day...maybe tommorow

@your comment about some calling the change from latin mass to contemporary heritical. I think thats just the word christians use to describe anything that falls beyond there sphere of comprehencian. I myslef have had the pleasure to have been named a heretic shortly after my exit from church.

[gallo]

Quote by: alexGERMAN Quite true, thus why I said it was pretty much as close as you can get by going to ones local bible book store.

What? The KJV is a bad translation. It was bad in the 1600s when that archaic form of English was spoken, and it is worse today. There are several more modern translations that have gone back to earlier documents than those used for the KJV. They also have the advantage of using understandable English.

In science, nothing from the 1600s survives that has not been amended and updated, including Newton. Why would anyone think that a medieval translation of ancient mythology would be better today? We understand more about the original language and culture today than was known when the KJV was translated.

[alexGERMAN]

Quote by: gallo What? The KJV is a bad translation. It was bad in the 1600s when that archaic form of English was spoken, and it is worse today. There are several more modern translations that have gone back to earlier documents than those used for the KJV. They also have the advantage of using understandable English. In science, nothing from the 1600s survives that has not been amended and updated, including Newton. Why would anyone think that a medieval translation of ancient mythology would be better today? We understand more about the original language and culture today than was known when the KJV was translated.

and alex finds himself defending a book he doesnt believe in...

Suffciant evidence to support the 'theory' that the KJV is inaccurate takes a serious hit when accually books of the bible carbon dated to have been written around the time when the originals where supposed to have been written have been lined up and translated with the modern KJV and little to no alterations have been found.

Also, I get tired of people who complain about old english like its some kind of hard code. Shakspeare, the Bible, you name it, anything written in the time period is not that different from today. Mostly the change is with simple words like changing "thee" to "you" and "thus" to "therefore". So practically nothing would be changed in a translation. But the problem with new versions upgrading the KJV, is, they arent replacing old words with new words that mean the same. They are replacing old words with words that mean 'almost' the same, and sometimes with words that dont desribe the intent of the original word

I wish i had some examples with me, like i said above, to tired to accully provide solid evidence right now. even if i wanted too

[PatrickHenry]

New King James is better than the original KJV. It's still too stiff for everyday reading though and Apostle Paul's run-on sentences are so abstruse as to require a sentence diagram.

I currently prefer the New Living Translation and I was reared in a church that used KJV exclusively. The thing leaves me cold. God's Word for Ancient Man...