Is KJV the only real bible version?
- Thread starter beeskillet
- 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.
Yes, I agree, very cut and dry.
The ESV translates the Greek best. That is the language the Bible was written in, circa the 1st century. Koine Greek was the lingua franca (common language) of the Roman Empire and it was God's plan for the gospel to spread through that common language. Not some early English translation commissioned by a homosexual king to support his reign and belief in the "divine right of kings."
Funny, I wouldn't have thought Americans would be so eager to jump on the divine right of kings bandwagon. You, know, George III and the Boston Tea Party (the original, not the recent one!) and the American Revolution.
Surely even you will admit that the KJV TRANSLATORS used Greek manuscripts, as late as they were, to TRANSLATE the Bible.
All you are giving is opinion, to support the fact that the KJV WRONGLY translates the original Greek. I guess that is because you have absolutely no understanding of Bible origins. Just this erroneous faith in the "inspired" KJV.
I feel sorry for you! Ignorance is bliss, I guess, though!
The ESV translates the Greek best. That is the language the Bible was written in, circa the 1st century. Koine Greek was the lingua franca (common language) of the Roman Empire and it was God's plan for the gospel to spread through that common language. Not some early English translation commissioned by a homosexual king to support his reign and belief in the "divine right of kings."
Funny, I wouldn't have thought Americans would be so eager to jump on the divine right of kings bandwagon. You, know, George III and the Boston Tea Party (the original, not the recent one!) and the American Revolution.
Surely even you will admit that the KJV TRANSLATORS used Greek manuscripts, as late as they were, to TRANSLATE the Bible.
All you are giving is opinion, to support the fact that the KJV WRONGLY translates the original Greek. I guess that is because you have absolutely no understanding of Bible origins. Just this erroneous faith in the "inspired" KJV.
I feel sorry for you! Ignorance is bliss, I guess, though!
G
I disagree. I think that a bible translated into the "modern English" of 1970 may actually be more "misinterpreted" according to the "modern English" of today ( 45 years after it was written ) - which is rapidly changing - than the "unchanging" English of the KJV bible.
70's English can hardly be called a snapshot in time ( I mean this in the sense of being uniquely recognizable. ) -- it is still too 'modern'.
70's English can hardly be called a snapshot in time ( I mean this in the sense of being uniquely recognizable. ) -- it is still too 'modern'.
I disagree. I think that a bible translated into the "modern English" of 1970 may actually be more "misinterpreted" according to the "modern English" of today ( 45 years after it was written ) - which is rapidly changing - than the "unchanging" English of the KJV bible.
70's English can hardly be called a snapshot in time ( I mean this in the sense of being uniquely recognizable. ) -- it is still too 'modern'.
70's English can hardly be called a snapshot in time ( I mean this in the sense of being uniquely recognizable. ) -- it is still too 'modern'.
U
I disagree. I think that a bible translated into the "modern English" of 1970 may actually be more "misinterpreted" according to the "modern English" of today ( 45 years after it was written ) - which is rapidly changing - than the "unchanging" English of the KJV bible.
70's English can hardly be called a snapshot in time ( I mean this in the sense of being uniquely recognizable. ) -- it is still too 'modern'.
70's English can hardly be called a snapshot in time ( I mean this in the sense of being uniquely recognizable. ) -- it is still too 'modern'.
God deserves better than only the KJV in communicating to today's generation.
And He has provided.
The Elect of God had a need: to hear and read the Word of God in their own language, and God has moved mightily in His provision for the need of His People.
KJV is a foreign tongue to modern English speakers, and only a Gnostic would require knowledge of a foreign language.
G
Really? When was the last time you heard the word 'gnarly dude' or about 'valley girls'? The last time I said 'can you dig it' the people around me had no clue what I was saying. Dated is dated. Just like me
U
Really? When was the last time you heard the word 'gnarly dude' or about 'valley girls'? The last time I said 'can you dig it' the people around me had no clue what I was saying. Dated is dated. Just like me
and without a reference guide, I would never have understood the modernly unused words (not even found in Webster's) used in the KJV.
V
You would have a valid point if all we had were 10 manuscripts. But we have just 10 of Homer and all the ancient literature scholars say that's enough to reconstruct the original text.
Those same scholars should be absolutely blown away by the fact we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and the impeccably preserved Hebraic text -- as well as a enormously adequate Hebrew-to-Greek translation of them in the LXX -- to reconstruct the original. Your KJV is the least accurate of the major word-for-word translations, and yet it is well over 99% accurate. The NASB, ESV, HCSB and a few other literal translations are within 100ths of a point of total accuracy, yet none can actually reach total accuracy unless someone finds an intact compilation of the entire Bible, Genesis to Maps.
The ongoing argument over Bible versions does God a tremendous disservice, and it drives a wedge between brothers and sisters in Christ, to Satan's great delight. We need to be more mature than that.
Those same scholars should be absolutely blown away by the fact we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and the impeccably preserved Hebraic text -- as well as a enormously adequate Hebrew-to-Greek translation of them in the LXX -- to reconstruct the original. Your KJV is the least accurate of the major word-for-word translations, and yet it is well over 99% accurate. The NASB, ESV, HCSB and a few other literal translations are within 100ths of a point of total accuracy, yet none can actually reach total accuracy unless someone finds an intact compilation of the entire Bible, Genesis to Maps.
The ongoing argument over Bible versions does God a tremendous disservice, and it drives a wedge between brothers and sisters in Christ, to Satan's great delight. We need to be more mature than that.
This theme has been hit upon several times in the past few years. If I may repeat what I have posted before, the KJV is just fine. Any translation is good when the Holy Spirit is the Counselor of the student. Actually one may obtain th truth fro m a cookbook if it is the Lord' desie. A wise woman once declared if you believe you may find God betwen the pots i the kitchen. I understaqnd this, and I pray you do too. God bless you.........
I find the King James Version to be the best. However, the Hebrew and Greek original texts are the most sure. You can look up any King James Version verse on Blue Letter Bible (just Google Blue Letter Bible) and instantly click any word to see what the original language of Hebrew or Greek is and its meaning.
speaking for myself, I've had a great time here... like the proverb says, "As iron sharpens iron, so a person's face is sharpened by their friend"... I think it's fine for people to disagree, as long as they don't see the other person as less-in-God's-grace because they think something different...
(My thanks to all the people who make this site possible.)
(My thanks to all the people who make this site possible.)
M
Im not claiming any version is better than the KJV in fact I already said I prefer the KJV ....what I do challenge is the cult like nonsense that the KJV is without error...and again I would ask what revision are you claiming is error free? Or can you come to a place of honesty and say like most that you believe the KJV is far better than the other translations?
M
This reminds me of the Mormons who claim that that book they have is perfect ...yet every few years they change it ! The Word of God is perfect...and we have enough Greek text to be sure we have His Word in whole...but this idea the KJV is the final authority is just dishonest. In fact they use text that are a thousand years later than the text we have access to now! Just common honest sense proves the much older text are more accurate!
I appreciate your honesty, most original language proponents would never admit that the KJV was right and the modern Greek is wrong in this instance. What I don't understand is why would you support something that you know is wrong.
I have no problem acknowledged the KJV translators used Greek manuscripts. There are 2 lines of manuscripts, one is corrupt and the other pure. Why do you and the modern translations prefer the corrupted version in Mark 1:5? Why not believe the one below?
I have no problem acknowledged the KJV translators used Greek manuscripts. There are 2 lines of manuscripts, one is corrupt and the other pure. Why do you and the modern translations prefer the corrupted version in Mark 1:5? Why not believe the one below?