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.
Someone already told you, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
OT - written in Hebrew, a little bit of Aramaic, and also translated into Greek around 300 BC (LXX)
NT - written totally in Greek
After that, the Bible was translated into various languages, including Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin. The earliest Latin translation was by Jerome and others in about 400 AD. Problem with the Vulgate, is that it was adopted by the Catholic Church, and Latin became the language of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church split over some very fine points of theology and using the venacular. The Orthodox Church wanted each country to use their own language to read the Bible, Rome wanted nothing but Latin.
That is why, even today, the Russian Orthodox Church uses Russian, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church uses Ukrainian, etc. In fact, it kept people reading the Bible in their own language through the Middle Ages, when Europe was stuck in a very dark time, where the language of the church was Latin, and most people, even the priests did not speak or read it. So, RCC theology got murkier and murkier, with no one to call them to task till Martin Luther, that great translator, translated the Bible to German, and incidently started the Reformation. Of course, others were trying to translate the Bible into other languages, such as English, French, and a lot of Scandinavian languages. Not so much Spanish/Portuguese/Italian, as they were under the thumb of the Latinized RCC. John Calvin was from France, studied Latin, and eventually broke with the RCC and moved to Geneva, where he was safe, and could study the Bible in his own language, Latin, and German.
Of course, putting the Bible in people’s own language became so important that even the Catholic Church finally gave up the whole Latin nonsense, and after Vatican II, people were not only allowed to read the Bible in their own language, but Latin was expunged from the Catholic mass.
Of course, with the advent of the missionary movement, the Bible was translated everywhere, so people could read the Bible in their own, or heart language. Wycliffe translators were instrumental in making up written language for so many tribes, so that they not only gained the Bible, they gained a written language. The Chinese had their own Bible, in their own script, and so did many others. But there are still a lot of languages left to go.
So, let’s, for argument’s sake, insert some Malaysian tribal language into the Bibical text, somewhere. It is no different than randomly inserting Latin or any other language. If we do not have a word in English, then keeping the original language, which is called “transliteration” in the translation is perfectly acceptable. One example comes from the book of Jonah. There is a word, “sac” which is used for when the king wore “sackcloth and ashes” to repent so God would spare Ninevah. The KJV translators didn’t know how to translate it, so they just wrote the Hebrew word with Englsh sounds and letters. And from there, it made its way into common usage in English.
That is completely different than taking the words in Hebrew, and putting in Latin words, for no reason. Because there is no reason not to translate the words into English, so it could be understood, instead of dredging up a 1600 year old word from a dead language - Latin.
OT - written in Hebrew, a little bit of Aramaic, and also translated into Greek around 300 BC (LXX)
NT - written totally in Greek
After that, the Bible was translated into various languages, including Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin. The earliest Latin translation was by Jerome and others in about 400 AD. Problem with the Vulgate, is that it was adopted by the Catholic Church, and Latin became the language of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church split over some very fine points of theology and using the venacular. The Orthodox Church wanted each country to use their own language to read the Bible, Rome wanted nothing but Latin.
That is why, even today, the Russian Orthodox Church uses Russian, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church uses Ukrainian, etc. In fact, it kept people reading the Bible in their own language through the Middle Ages, when Europe was stuck in a very dark time, where the language of the church was Latin, and most people, even the priests did not speak or read it. So, RCC theology got murkier and murkier, with no one to call them to task till Martin Luther, that great translator, translated the Bible to German, and incidently started the Reformation. Of course, others were trying to translate the Bible into other languages, such as English, French, and a lot of Scandinavian languages. Not so much Spanish/Portuguese/Italian, as they were under the thumb of the Latinized RCC. John Calvin was from France, studied Latin, and eventually broke with the RCC and moved to Geneva, where he was safe, and could study the Bible in his own language, Latin, and German.
Of course, putting the Bible in people’s own language became so important that even the Catholic Church finally gave up the whole Latin nonsense, and after Vatican II, people were not only allowed to read the Bible in their own language, but Latin was expunged from the Catholic mass.
Of course, with the advent of the missionary movement, the Bible was translated everywhere, so people could read the Bible in their own, or heart language. Wycliffe translators were instrumental in making up written language for so many tribes, so that they not only gained the Bible, they gained a written language. The Chinese had their own Bible, in their own script, and so did many others. But there are still a lot of languages left to go.
So, let’s, for argument’s sake, insert some Malaysian tribal language into the Bibical text, somewhere. It is no different than randomly inserting Latin or any other language. If we do not have a word in English, then keeping the original language, which is called “transliteration” in the translation is perfectly acceptable. One example comes from the book of Jonah. There is a word, “sac” which is used for when the king wore “sackcloth and ashes” to repent so God would spare Ninevah. The KJV translators didn’t know how to translate it, so they just wrote the Hebrew word with Englsh sounds and letters. And from there, it made its way into common usage in English.
That is completely different than taking the words in Hebrew, and putting in Latin words, for no reason. Because there is no reason not to translate the words into English, so it could be understood, instead of dredging up a 1600 year old word from a dead language - Latin.
Which brings me back to my point, central to the thread - the whole point of a translation is to make it available to people in the language they speak. We do not speak the language of the KJV, there are constant bad theologies coming out of the KJV, because the language is not clear enough any more to understand, and people take things out (WoF comes to mind) that aren’t there. And while I am not saying people can’t read it and understand it, as certainly a few people on this thread understand the KJV, even most of these TV evangelists who use KJV, have no idea what it is saying.
Hence, we do need the Bible in modern English. And before anyone calls them “Satanic” my Greek professor, Bill Mounce was on the translation committees for the ESV and the NIV, and is now on the HCSB committee. His father was a Greek professor, he has studied it his whole life. He knows more about Greek than I will ever know. And he is a man totally committed to Jesus Christ, and is so concerned with the total lack of Bible understanding in our society, he has started a free on-line school, teaching the Bible at Biblicatraining.org.
Bill Mounce is adamant that the receiving language - in our case modern English - has to take the most important position. Because if you don’t understand what you are reading, because it is written in a 400 years ago language, that is often obscure and very archaic, you are never going to get the best value to understand what the Bible is saying. Of course, he says this as one of the more knowledgable men on the planet where Greek is concerned. His goal is always to have the text communicate, often in phrases rather than word for word, what the original Greek is saying. Communicate. Not worry about maintaining a language that fails to communicate to the majority of people in English.
We want people to read and understand the Bible. They will not be saved, until they can understand what they are hearing/reading, and hence, it is vital people let go of this utter nonsense about the “pure” word of God, as found only in the KJV. Archaic language is driving people from God, not drawing them near. I’m so glad God led me to a modern version, back in 1980, and then, saved me. And then I continued to read modern versions, and to grow closer to God.
As for new age?? I was in the New Age movement and there is not a single modern version that in any way, shape or form has anything to do with the New Age Movement. Do people who say this even have a clue about what the New Age Movement is? This is some kind of scare tactic by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger, to try and make people believe they are getting involved with the devil, when in fact modern Bibles are as far from the devil, and the new age movement as possible. Again, learn Greek and Hebrew, and you will see the falseness of all these ridiculous claims. Totally unsubstantiated!
PS. If you want to call modern Bibles “new age” or “satanic” please post some evidence. Like some verses in modern versions that show what you are talking about. Or even some scholarly sources, don’t bother with self made links to weird pages extolling the KJV without any clue what the original languages are, nor what the New Age Movement is. Otherwise, you are just slandering.
Hence, we do need the Bible in modern English. And before anyone calls them “Satanic” my Greek professor, Bill Mounce was on the translation committees for the ESV and the NIV, and is now on the HCSB committee. His father was a Greek professor, he has studied it his whole life. He knows more about Greek than I will ever know. And he is a man totally committed to Jesus Christ, and is so concerned with the total lack of Bible understanding in our society, he has started a free on-line school, teaching the Bible at Biblicatraining.org.
Bill Mounce is adamant that the receiving language - in our case modern English - has to take the most important position. Because if you don’t understand what you are reading, because it is written in a 400 years ago language, that is often obscure and very archaic, you are never going to get the best value to understand what the Bible is saying. Of course, he says this as one of the more knowledgable men on the planet where Greek is concerned. His goal is always to have the text communicate, often in phrases rather than word for word, what the original Greek is saying. Communicate. Not worry about maintaining a language that fails to communicate to the majority of people in English.
We want people to read and understand the Bible. They will not be saved, until they can understand what they are hearing/reading, and hence, it is vital people let go of this utter nonsense about the “pure” word of God, as found only in the KJV. Archaic language is driving people from God, not drawing them near. I’m so glad God led me to a modern version, back in 1980, and then, saved me. And then I continued to read modern versions, and to grow closer to God.
As for new age?? I was in the New Age movement and there is not a single modern version that in any way, shape or form has anything to do with the New Age Movement. Do people who say this even have a clue about what the New Age Movement is? This is some kind of scare tactic by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger, to try and make people believe they are getting involved with the devil, when in fact modern Bibles are as far from the devil, and the new age movement as possible. Again, learn Greek and Hebrew, and you will see the falseness of all these ridiculous claims. Totally unsubstantiated!
PS. If you want to call modern Bibles “new age” or “satanic” please post some evidence. Like some verses in modern versions that show what you are talking about. Or even some scholarly sources, don’t bother with self made links to weird pages extolling the KJV without any clue what the original languages are, nor what the New Age Movement is. Otherwise, you are just slandering.
I have no idea why you are loving it. Its sad that you could care less about the originals, because w/o those pesky originals, there is no KJV. 
What God theoretically "can" do and what He actually has done are not the same thing. Whether God "needs" a human to get His word into another language is irrelevant; that is not how He normally gets His word into another language. Creative speculation isn't going to get us closer to understanding the truth.
When I make assertions that God starts something and lets man finish it, then I will provide examples. I don't play "reverse onus" very well.
Perhaps you think the Wycliffe Bible Translators sit around waiting for God to inspire His word in every new language they tackle? Come on... give this some objective thought.
Perhaps you think the Wycliffe Bible Translators sit around waiting for God to inspire His word in every new language they tackle? Come on... give this some objective thought.
They are representations in the creation that we can observe and gain insight into spiritual things. The word of God is likened unto a seed and there are things to be learned by studying what a seed does. I agree that angels are referred to as stars. Lucifers last goal is to be "like the most High" (Isaiah 14:14) and in Psalm 84:11 we read "For the Lord God is a sun..." This isn't meant to be taken literal but to point out that God is ultimately the source of all light (1 John 1:5). Lucifer wants to be the source of our light so he "is transformed into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). I was just pointing out the it is the sun and not Venus that should be observed to gain insight into the goal of Lucifer in Isaiah 14.
"[FONT="]But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall." (Malachi 4:2)
[/FONT]
[FONT="]"Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (Psalm 19:4-6)[/FONT]
"[FONT="]But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall." (Malachi 4:2)
[/FONT]
[FONT="]"Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (Psalm 19:4-6)[/FONT]
I accept what the scriptures say because I love the truth.
Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
As I read the verse above I note that God didn’t only say he hated Esau, he acted accordingly.
So, I reason it is wise to understand why God hates. For he is not a respecter of persons.
Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
As I read the verse above I note that God didn’t only say he hated Esau, he acted accordingly.
So, I reason it is wise to understand why God hates. For he is not a respecter of persons.
So because a phrase was used by occultists, its use by a Christian means that Christian was trying to insert witchcraft into his paraphrase? That is the same reasoning that calls Jesus an adaptation of the Mithras myth.
It's a non sequitur, unless you can provide evidence of a direct linkage. Correlation does not prove causation.
It's a non sequitur, unless you can provide evidence of a direct linkage. Correlation does not prove causation.