KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
All because you don't understand that the word torment in the archaic form means punishment in hell.
The devil "torments" The word- 'torment' was still being used in this way by my (Catholic) grandparents and school teachers in the last century.
So you are complaining that the NIV is saying the same thing as the KJV here. You personally prefer one to the other, that is all.
The devil "torments" The word- 'torment' was still being used in this way by my (Catholic) grandparents and school teachers in the last century.
So you are complaining that the NIV is saying the same thing as the KJV here. You personally prefer one to the other, that is all.
If you go into any field of study, music, art, science, medicine, automobile maintenance, forestry, or just about any thing, you are going to need to learn the meaning of some unfamiliar words.
We shouldn't expect these fields of knowledge to "dumb down" their vocabulary because we don't know what the words mean. We are expected to learn something we did not know before. This is called education. But unfortunately, the society we live in today has grown lazy and in need of spoon feeding. rather through hard work and studying to learn something new.
Lots of words in the King James Version that some people think are "archaic" are not. They are perfectly good and accurate English words. We have just been dumbed down as a society.
For instance, some people complain about the use of all those pronouns like "Thou", thee, thy, thine, and "ye", but the fact is, these have very distinct and specific meanings that are also seen in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.
Most people today do not know this. Do you know the difference between "thou" and "ye"? It is really quite simple. If a word starts with a "t", like "thou, thee, thy" then it is the singular you. God is speaking to one individual. But if we see the words that start with a "y", like "ye", your, and "you", then it is the plural form of "you" and He is speaking to more than one person.
We see this in hundreds of verses in the KJV and it often makes a big difference in meaning. These "archaic" forms are far more accurate than the generic "you". "Thou" is the subject. "Thee" is the direct or indirect object and "thy" or "thine" is the possessive form. It is impossible to have a really accurate translation in English without using these words.
Most foreign languages like Spanish, French, Italian, Russian etc. have ways of distinguishing between "you" singular and "you" plural. The only way we can do this in English is through the use of "thou" and "ye". So why the change?
We shouldn't expect these fields of knowledge to "dumb down" their vocabulary because we don't know what the words mean. We are expected to learn something we did not know before. This is called education. But unfortunately, the society we live in today has grown lazy and in need of spoon feeding. rather through hard work and studying to learn something new.
Lots of words in the King James Version that some people think are "archaic" are not. They are perfectly good and accurate English words. We have just been dumbed down as a society.
For instance, some people complain about the use of all those pronouns like "Thou", thee, thy, thine, and "ye", but the fact is, these have very distinct and specific meanings that are also seen in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.
Most people today do not know this. Do you know the difference between "thou" and "ye"? It is really quite simple. If a word starts with a "t", like "thou, thee, thy" then it is the singular you. God is speaking to one individual. But if we see the words that start with a "y", like "ye", your, and "you", then it is the plural form of "you" and He is speaking to more than one person.
We see this in hundreds of verses in the KJV and it often makes a big difference in meaning. These "archaic" forms are far more accurate than the generic "you". "Thou" is the subject. "Thee" is the direct or indirect object and "thy" or "thine" is the possessive form. It is impossible to have a really accurate translation in English without using these words.
Most foreign languages like Spanish, French, Italian, Russian etc. have ways of distinguishing between "you" singular and "you" plural. The only way we can do this in English is through the use of "thou" and "ye". So why the change?
That John, of all people, would say that someone is going to be tormented in hell for all time because they experienced fear cannot be correct. That gentle, loving soul could never say such a thing. I can believe that others may have interpreted his words in such a way down through time; but it could never have originated from John. He would only parrot the words of Jesus Christ and our LORD would never have said that. Jesus was and is about love, mercy, and compassion and so was John.
All of 1 John 4 is about love. To throw "you're going to be punished in hell forever" doesn't fit at all. People should really look at context. Sorry, but I can't believe you nor anyone else from anytime since that would interpret John's original meaning in such a way. He is one of my personal Bible heroes. So no one will ever persuade me that he even ever thought this let alone write it.
All of 1 John 4 is about love. To throw "you're going to be punished in hell forever" doesn't fit at all. People should really look at context. Sorry, but I can't believe you nor anyone else from anytime since that would interpret John's original meaning in such a way. He is one of my personal Bible heroes. So no one will ever persuade me that he even ever thought this let alone write it.
Don't be overly dramatic. It sounds as if you don't understand what the verse is telling you at all.
The love of Jesus drives out fear because in him you are NOT condemned. You no longer have eternal punishment to fear. Without his love and sacrifice you would still face the FEAR of eternal punishment.
It doesn't mean people who have been afraid (emotionally) will go to hell to pay for it.
The love of Jesus drives out fear because in him you are NOT condemned. You no longer have eternal punishment to fear. Without his love and sacrifice you would still face the FEAR of eternal punishment.
It doesn't mean people who have been afraid (emotionally) will go to hell to pay for it.
For instance, in Luke 22:31-32 the Lord says to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat: But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."
Here the word YOU is plural in both the Greek and the English, meaning Satan was going to sift all of the disciples, "you all"; but Jesus is letting Peter know that He had prayed for him (thee) specifically as an individual.
Here's the NASB. It confuses the reader. To whom is Jesus referring throughout?
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; Is Jesus referring to Simon or all the disciples?
32 but I have prayed for you, Simon or all the disciples? that your faith may not fail; Simon's faith or the discple's? andyou, Simon or the disciples? when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
Here the word YOU is plural in both the Greek and the English, meaning Satan was going to sift all of the disciples, "you all"; but Jesus is letting Peter know that He had prayed for him (thee) specifically as an individual.
Here's the NASB. It confuses the reader. To whom is Jesus referring throughout?
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; Is Jesus referring to Simon or all the disciples?
32 but I have prayed for you, Simon or all the disciples? that your faith may not fail; Simon's faith or the discple's? andyou, Simon or the disciples? when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
To both of you:
This thread is not about the NIV, nor about the NASB, nor about any other translation. The "alleged" superiority of the KJV is not established by comparing it to specific verses in specific other translations. With such reasoning you can only demonstrate the reasons for your personal preference.
To John146:
The specificity of the KJV in the matter of second-person pronouns is good, but its lack of specificity in translating the words, "love" and "hell" make this kind of reasoning grossly inadequate. You cannot legitimately argue for its superiority while quietly ignoring its failing in exactly the same way on other words. That is employing a double standard, and is logically and morally invalid. Before you respond with, "But newer translations use 'love' as well", that is a tu quoque fallacy and is also invalid.
This thread is not about the NIV, nor about the NASB, nor about any other translation. The "alleged" superiority of the KJV is not established by comparing it to specific verses in specific other translations. With such reasoning you can only demonstrate the reasons for your personal preference.
To John146:
The specificity of the KJV in the matter of second-person pronouns is good, but its lack of specificity in translating the words, "love" and "hell" make this kind of reasoning grossly inadequate. You cannot legitimately argue for its superiority while quietly ignoring its failing in exactly the same way on other words. That is employing a double standard, and is logically and morally invalid. Before you respond with, "But newer translations use 'love' as well", that is a tu quoque fallacy and is also invalid.
If I object to specific words or verses from an original work having their meaning substantially altered in a later copy, how does this then demonstrate a mere personal preference of one work over the other because I choose the truth over a poorly plagiarized version. The Bible is not just any book. You can't change a word here or a phrase there and call it your own version of the truth and not expect some serious blow-back.
