-
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.
- Status
R
Here, I found something similar on the Zondervan website.
http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg
http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg
I have to readily agree with Baptistrw that if you're looking for an alternative to the KJV, the New King James Version or the New American Standard Bible are really good. Typically I look at 14 or so versions and translations in my studies, and these are the ones I recommend to new students when the Authorized King James Version is giving them difficulty........although I encourage them to still get used to the KJV.
God bless
God bless
A
well ive heard that kjv is like the "original". Its the one with the thes and thous, i guess how they would havde read or talked back then. i mean it all basicly says the same thing, niv just puts it in a way people understand. some people prefer kjv and others niv, personally i like niv because its a whole better the understand. i promise if u use a version besides kjv your not going to get the wrong info, its all the same, just said diffeently
B
I didnt' want to read thru all the posts in here because I've heard it all. Just let me tell you what I know. I have a degree in Bible, and have been a christian for almost 40 years.
First of all....we don't have ANY original copies of the scripture. Some we have found have been closer to the time of Jesus than others. In recent years we have even found some that are closer to the time of writing than we did before, so in my opinon, the newer versions are better because we have clearer scripture to translate from.
Ok, there is a differene between "Translations", and "Paraphrase". A translation is an exact( or as close to possible) of taking something written in one language and putting it in another. A Paraphrase is a book that rewrites the book using their perspective.
There are many translations. I don't think it matters which one you use. You can have an opinion on which you like better, or if one may be more accurate, but I dont' beleive God endorses just one translation.
I use a number of them in my readings and studies. The main 3 are King James VErsion, New American Standard Version, and the New International VErsion.
The king james version is just a version that was translated when we were using the kings english. We dont speak Kings English anymore so the newer translations are easier to read. The NIV, is interpreted into english meaning it uses english words and grammar to express what was written in the original texts. The New American Standard is translated into English but in the original grammar of the first language, i.e greek to english. So in reading it, it is maybe more accurate, word for word, but is not understandable sometimes because the grammar is difficult to understand.
We all have to remember too, that we dont' have the original aramaic and that everything we translate from, is still translating from a translation.
So once again, I think it doesn't matter which "translation" you use. That is personal preference. But a "Paraphrase" is not a translation, just someones personal interpretation of the bible. (i.e. The way)
First of all....we don't have ANY original copies of the scripture. Some we have found have been closer to the time of Jesus than others. In recent years we have even found some that are closer to the time of writing than we did before, so in my opinon, the newer versions are better because we have clearer scripture to translate from.
Ok, there is a differene between "Translations", and "Paraphrase". A translation is an exact( or as close to possible) of taking something written in one language and putting it in another. A Paraphrase is a book that rewrites the book using their perspective.
There are many translations. I don't think it matters which one you use. You can have an opinion on which you like better, or if one may be more accurate, but I dont' beleive God endorses just one translation.
I use a number of them in my readings and studies. The main 3 are King James VErsion, New American Standard Version, and the New International VErsion.
The king james version is just a version that was translated when we were using the kings english. We dont speak Kings English anymore so the newer translations are easier to read. The NIV, is interpreted into english meaning it uses english words and grammar to express what was written in the original texts. The New American Standard is translated into English but in the original grammar of the first language, i.e greek to english. So in reading it, it is maybe more accurate, word for word, but is not understandable sometimes because the grammar is difficult to understand.
We all have to remember too, that we dont' have the original aramaic and that everything we translate from, is still translating from a translation.
So once again, I think it doesn't matter which "translation" you use. That is personal preference. But a "Paraphrase" is not a translation, just someones personal interpretation of the bible. (i.e. The way)
R
Let me be clear, I do not disagree with you that you prefer the KJV. I disagree with you that any other version that differs from the KJV is wrong.
Your train of thoughts goes like this: The KJV is the absolute word of God. Therefore, anything that does not say exactly what the KJV (while giving absolutely no regard to the original translation) is wrong. Therefore, you compare any new translation with what the KJV says and if they do not match you declare it wrong and find some ridiculous argument against it.
The King James Version, as well as all other versions, are translations.
The problem with John 4:29 is that you do not know exactly what the woman believed. Was she in doubt that Christ was the Messiah? Did she actually believe that Christ was the Messiah but was still questioning it? Truth is, you do not know. What we do know is that her meeting with Christ caused a significant impact in her life as well as other people. Whether the woman actually believed that Christ was the Messiah or not does not affect Christ's Messiah-ship in any way, shape, or form.
While the wording from the NASB could insinuate that the woman had doubt, it does not accurately show that she did. What if the woman actually did have doubt? You are prepared to simply ignore that because you would rather the scripture say what it does not?
I have no issue with you liking the KJV, I myself like the KJV as well. I do not even have an issue with you preferring the KJV over other versions.
Could please provide any statement by me either from this threat or other post this forum to prove 1) that I say "it is more accurate to imply that Jesus was not the Christ, 2) that I want to believe that Christ is not the Christ?
You are sure I believe Jesus was not the Christ simply because I disagree with you accusing another translation because its wording doesn't match up with what the KJV (not the original translation) has?
If this is truly your reasoning then I truly won't bother to have further discussion with you. Knowing you from your other posts, I know you have more credit than that.
Your train of thoughts goes like this: The KJV is the absolute word of God. Therefore, anything that does not say exactly what the KJV (while giving absolutely no regard to the original translation) is wrong. Therefore, you compare any new translation with what the KJV says and if they do not match you declare it wrong and find some ridiculous argument against it.
The King James Version, as well as all other versions, are translations.
The problem with John 4:29 is that you do not know exactly what the woman believed. Was she in doubt that Christ was the Messiah? Did she actually believe that Christ was the Messiah but was still questioning it? Truth is, you do not know. What we do know is that her meeting with Christ caused a significant impact in her life as well as other people. Whether the woman actually believed that Christ was the Messiah or not does not affect Christ's Messiah-ship in any way, shape, or form.
While the wording from the NASB could insinuate that the woman had doubt, it does not accurately show that she did. What if the woman actually did have doubt? You are prepared to simply ignore that because you would rather the scripture say what it does not?
I have no issue with you liking the KJV, I myself like the KJV as well. I do not even have an issue with you preferring the KJV over other versions.
Could please provide any statement by me either from this threat or other post this forum to prove 1) that I say "it is more accurate to imply that Jesus was not the Christ, 2) that I want to believe that Christ is not the Christ?
You are sure I believe Jesus was not the Christ simply because I disagree with you accusing another translation because its wording doesn't match up with what the KJV (not the original translation) has?
If this is truly your reasoning then I truly won't bother to have further discussion with you. Knowing you from your other posts, I know you have more credit than that.
No i said that you believed that ahe was not the Chrisat because you had no problem with it worded "this is not the Christ,is it?" this is my point I have been trying to make which you keep jumping around to try and prove your point, but as far as the orginal manuscripts there is none. but my point is that the KJB is the oldest Bible it was for about 350 year, consider the authorized version, so here is my point
IF it ain't broke why fix it. and yes if we have an authorized version and something comes along that does not disagree with it we shouldn't cling to what disagrees with the Word of God , but rather stay with the the Word of God again I ask if it ain't broke why fix it.. It was and is the Word of God for about 400 years now, the KJB, so if we seek wisdom we ask God not change His word to make it simple
please just read this again
Is not this the Christ?
This is not the Christ, is it?
again i say if you can't see the wrong here then there lies the problem
IF it ain't broke why fix it. and yes if we have an authorized version and something comes along that does not disagree with it we shouldn't cling to what disagrees with the Word of God , but rather stay with the the Word of God again I ask if it ain't broke why fix it.. It was and is the Word of God for about 400 years now, the KJB, so if we seek wisdom we ask God not change His word to make it simple
please just read this again
Is not this the Christ?
This is not the Christ, is it?
again i say if you can't see the wrong here then there lies the problem
S
Thaddeus,
The KJV may be called the authorized version, but have you ever really thought about that claim? Who authorized it? Where did they get the authority to do so. If it is the version endorsed by God why did it take so long? The development of the English Bible reads more like the evolutionary theory. What about all those English speaking folks before 1611? What about all those folks who do not read or speak English?
The KJV may be called the authorized version, but have you ever really thought about that claim? Who authorized it? Where did they get the authority to do so. If it is the version endorsed by God why did it take so long? The development of the English Bible reads more like the evolutionary theory. What about all those English speaking folks before 1611? What about all those folks who do not read or speak English?
you don't know much about bible history do you, you need to read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, or another good book on the bible history is The Forbidden Book by Dr. Craig Lampe
up the early 1600's, according to the Catholic Church it was illegal for a lay person to read the Bible, the crime carried the death penality usually being burnt at the stake. the Pope was and still is the final authority on the scriptures. as far as those english speaking folk, they had to take to Pope's word for what it said. and cause alot of people did give their life so that we can have an english Bible, is another reason we should respect the Authorised Version. like we sholud need another reason,m over it Being The Word Of God, for 400 years now.
- Status