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.
My native language is Czech.
I communicate with all of you here in English on daily basis.
I read the New Testament in Greek.
I can communicate with any Slovak.
I can understand Polish.
I have some basics in German and I will probably soon learn it more properly because I am planning to move there.
I live in Central Europe in a small contry surrounded by 3 foreign languages.
----
Conclusion - I know what a language is and I know what a translation is. Do you?
Last edited:
That is the response of a jack-donkey. You're a man (apparently)... act like one.
You’re just hem hawing around trying to sound knowledgable.
Translation occurs all day long without legal hindrance.
So the theory that translators need centuries to figure out what they’re doing is ridiculous,
The modern translators of modern bibles are inept con artists far as I can tell by why you all present of them.
The whole dependency on translation is a egoistic novelty behind which inept people hide their unbelief of God’s written word by asserting how smart they wish someone would think they are.
How do I know?
Because no one can present the evidence the translators either professional or armchair experts know anything. They all merely say they can over and over.
Like poets that can’t rhyme.
Or, great thinkers no one quotes.
How do you know who the creator is? What He wants from you? Does He speak to you?
He has given many tools of how to know Him.
He is revealed in His works (universe).
He is revealed in us (we are created by Him), we can know Him more than animals.
He is revealed in order (logic).
He is revealed in His specific revelations:
a) Scriptures
b) Church and her creeds, community and common love
c) Individual prophecies or revelations (like to patriarchs in the OT)
He can use many other ways of touching us or speaking to us: music, literature, poetry, life events, even diseases.
---
So I obviously do not accept your limited view "there is one small book print from the 17th century and everything else is evil".
BTW, do you use 1611 or 1769?
I asked you how to know if a language is truly a language.
If you wanted to talk about yourself it’s fine with me but way off topic.
A true language can perfectly communicate any idea found in any other language.
Which you see proof of all around. And you don’t have to live in the middle of Europe to know that.
If translation were at all as cumbersome as so called scholars make it seem then the world would be in the dark ages.
There is no reason why translation is deemed some great thing except for bible translators trying to make themselves sound like they can help God intellectually.
The whole modern bible stuff is just avoidance of God’s truth in favor of man made junk mail.
Introduction to the Translators' Preface
At a conference with church authorities in 1604, the newly appointed King James I ordered a new, uniform translation of the Bible into English. The translators were allowed to use previous translations at their liking, such as Tyndale's, Matthew's and the Geneva Bible. The Preface contains much information on the considerations the translators had to make to accomplish their task. They also defend the idea of translating the holy text into 'vulgar' English.
There were 47 translators, who worked in 6 teams in Westminster, Cambridge and Oxford. It took 4 years to produce the first, preliminary translation, and nine more months for review and revision. The first edition was published in 1611. In most later editions the preface was not included.
"we do not deny — nay, we affirm and avow — that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the king's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech,"
Preface to the King James Version 1611, Part 9 of 10
At a conference with church authorities in 1604, the newly appointed King James I ordered a new, uniform translation of the Bible into English. The translators were allowed to use previous translations at their liking, such as Tyndale's, Matthew's and the Geneva Bible. The Preface contains much information on the considerations the translators had to make to accomplish their task. They also defend the idea of translating the holy text into 'vulgar' English.
There were 47 translators, who worked in 6 teams in Westminster, Cambridge and Oxford. It took 4 years to produce the first, preliminary translation, and nine more months for review and revision. The first edition was published in 1611. In most later editions the preface was not included.
"we do not deny — nay, we affirm and avow — that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the king's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech,"
Preface to the King James Version 1611, Part 9 of 10
Of course you do not need to live in the middle of Europe to understand that languages need to be on some level of development to properly render meanings of other languages.
But this is mostly solved by context. No two languages have specific terms for all specific terms of the counter language. The 17th century language could not render "email address", for example. Or "robot". All languages are developing with the society. New words originate, old unused words change meaning or are dropped.
How does it relate to the KJV onlyism?
Last edited:
He isn't trying anything! Lot's of Czechs speak 3 languages. I witnessed that myself while visiting their country. It was very common [in Prague especially] for people to understand both Russian and German as well as their own language. Now many Czechs speak English as well.
Thank you. I did not want to boast. This ability of various languages just seems natural to me, because of the history and position of my country.
I just responded to a question that seemed like he thinks I do not know what a language or translation is
Try responding to assertions that real people have made, instead of creating straw-man caricatures of their assertions and responding to those.
I do understand it and that's why I'm asking you what point you're trying to make. The preface is only saying that even older mediocre bibles of the past were the word of God.
Last edited:
If you are going to have a standard it must be applied to all. Translations made 400 years ago and translations made 40 years ago. The KJ translators thought so and so should you.
Wait. Does that not contradict the KJV onlyism? John146 is still repeating his dichotomy "either we have one word of God or none".
The KJV translators were just men, they had opinions just like all of us do but that doesn't make their bliefs true. I don't think anybody on the KJV side argues that the preface and notes are inspired nor do we argue that the KJV translators were "special" men above any other translators.