LSV and MEV are better than KJV.

[jaybo]

I would think this is another weak argument, if so then you need to write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as well. Translation cause us to understand what the Heb-Ara-Gk and does not mean we need to write it that way.

I'm sure that very, very few of us are fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and/or ancient Greek, so we must rely on translations into our native language which is not 17th Century English!

If you read-write-think in a language other than what you normally employ you must translate it in your mind! That is the case when you use the King James version and makes it prone to all kinds of errors of interpretation.

 

[Blik]

I agree with everything you wrote except "the only scripture that is absolutely true is written in Hebrew". Since part of the Old Testament was written in Aramaic and the entire New Testament was written in Greek, should those sections of the Bible be thrown away?

I was wrong to say the only scripture that is absolutely true was in Hebrew. I am sorry. I have been overly impressed, perhaps, that all the men God chose read Hebrew and most had Hebrew as their original language. For instance Paul wrote in Greek but his parents were Jews and he studied scripture under Gamaliel, a Jewish sage. Some Christian scholars have translated Paul's writing to Hebrew and feel it gave them a better understanding of Paul if he thought of scripture in the Hebrew language.

 

[jaybo]

English speaking Christians who want to understand Gods Word can easily pick up a KJV and start reading.

Of course they must ask God for understanding of it.

No matter how hard anyone tries to make it "easier" it will not end in greater understanding. Maybe people will THINK they have greater understanding. But that's a lot different than actually having understanding.


A different translation will not cause greater understanding. A different translation will only cause a different understanding.


NOBODY needs modern bibles to understand Gods Word. Gods Word was written long ago. If anything, the older the version the better it is likely to be.

There's no copyright on the KJV. But there is on all these "modern versions". Because they have changed some essential things to make it "unique". Unique doesn't translate to better.

Okay, then what does this single verse mean..?

"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." Luke 14:10

People need a Bible in their native language! It is absurd to take any written work, Bible or not, and "translate" it into a language that nobody talks, thinks, or writes in.

The King James translation was originally created so that even the meanest ploughboy (their words) would understand it. In other words, it was written in the most common English of the time; it was not written in an archaic, formal English. Following the principle established by the KJV translators, the most easily understood translation is the one that most people should use.

One of the worst mistakes is for someone to read from the KJV from the pulpit, then say, "what this means is..." Having been a church elder who regularly spoke from the pulpit, I know what I'm talking about; you're required to "re-translate" the text. That leads to misinterpretation at best and distortion of God's word at worst.

The Bible is meant to be as clearly understood as the posts on this forum and/or any recently-published book. The point is not to feel "religious" but to clearly understand God's word in the language one uses every day from early childhood to death.

 

[jaybo]

I was wrong to say the only scripture that is absolutely true was in Hebrew. I am sorry. I have been overly impressed, perhaps, that all the men God chose read Hebrew and most had Hebrew as their original language. For instance Paul wrote in Greek but his parents were Jews and he studied scripture under Gamaliel, a Jewish sage. Some Christian scholars have translated Paul's writing to Hebrew and feel it gave them a better understanding of Paul if he thought of scripture in the Hebrew language.

They re-translated Paul's writing into Hebrew from the original Greek? What a colossal waste of time!

 

[Dino246]

I should be using the Coverdale version because it is older, and therefore better?

I wasn't really saying older is better but just making the argument for it against newer is better.

Neither is a good argument for any translation. There are many other (more important) factors.

Its funny that you say my idea of the ease of reading the KJV is biased and ignorant. I started reading the KJV when I was in 3rd grade. I'd say that is a pretty easy comprehension level.

It's good that you started reading the Bible so early, but please don't treat your personal experience with the KJV as normative or normal. The KJV simply is not written in 21st-century English. It's bafflingly silly to encourage people to read the Bible in a language they don't speak.

 

[Blik]

They re-translated Paul's writing into Hebrew from the original Greek? What a colossal waste of time!

Actually, it wasn't a waste of time. Greek cannot express some Hebrew thoughts, and by going to the Hebrew that Paul was referring to it cleared us the meaning of the scripture.

 

[jaybo]

Actually, it wasn't a waste of time. Greek cannot express some Hebrew thoughts, and by going to the Hebrew that Paul was referring to it cleared us the meaning of the scripture.

Paul wrote in Greek to the various churches. Translating it into Hebrew would encounter the same difficulties as any translation effort: there is NEVER a direct equivalence between the source and receptor languages.

 

[Grandpa]

Okay, then what does this single verse mean..?

"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." Luke 14:10

People need a Bible in their native language! It is absurd to take any written work, Bible or not, and "translate" it into a language that nobody talks, thinks, or writes in.

The King James translation was originally created so that even the meanest ploughboy (their words) would understand it. In other words, it was written in the most common English of the time; it was not written in an archaic, formal English. Following the principle established by the KJV translators, the most easily understood translation is the one that most people should use.

One of the worst mistakes is for someone to read from the KJV from the pulpit, then say, "what this means is..." Having been a church elder who regularly spoke from the pulpit, I know what I'm talking about; you're required to "re-translate" the text. That leads to misinterpretation at best and distortion of God's word at worst.

The Bible is meant to be as clearly understood as the posts on this forum and/or any recently-published book. The point is not to feel "religious" but to clearly understand God's word in the language one uses every day from early childhood to death.

I think your biggest mistake is thinking that the straightforward text of the KJV needs your re-translation.

Its not hard to understand. Thats in your mind. Even the meanest ploughboy will understand it.

 

[jaybo]

I think your biggest mistake is thinking that the straightforward text of the KJV needs your re-translation.

Its not hard to understand. Thats in your mind. Even the meanest ploughboy will understand it.

Are you serious? There is nothing straightforward about the Englyshe of 400+ years ago. The English language has changed a lot in four centuries so the KJV is bound to be misunderstood by even those who think they understand it.

Your post and my post and every other post I have seen on this forum is written in today's English. That's the way we all read, write, and think. You would be a laughingstock if you went around spouting things like...

"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." (Luke 14:10) Try saying that the next time you're invited to attend a dinner. I guarantee you will be laughed at!

The people of the Bible, including Moses and Jesus did not speak in some strange, affected manner and no translation should be written in that manner.

Can you explain this, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Deuteronomy 33:17

or this... "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." Numbers 23:22

or this... "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? " Job 33:9-10

or this... "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns" Psalm 22:21

or this... "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Isaiah 34:7

And those are just verses referring to an animal that never existed. And please don't come up with "what that really means is..." as an explanation, because if they need to be explained in terms of modern English, why is that the case?

And read my tag line below...

 

[Micaiah-imla]

The English language has changed a lot in four centuries

Yes.

And not for the better...

 

[jaybo]

Yes.

And not for the better...

Thank you for taking one phrase from my post and trying to change the subject. Not!

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Paul wrote in Greek to the various churches. Translating it into Hebrew would encounter the same difficulties as any translation effort: there is NEVER a direct equivalence between the source and receptor languages.

Direct equivalence is not necessary.

I speak Spanish and English and I am able to communicate between the two languages with no problem.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

The KJV simply is not written in 21st-century English.

I agree.

21st century English has degenerated since the time of the Authorized Version.

 

[fredoheaven]

I'm sure that very, very few of us are fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and/or ancient Greek, so we must rely on translations into our native language which is not 17th Century English!

If you read-write-think in a language other than what you normally employ you must translate it in your mind! That is the case when you use the King James version and makes it prone to all kinds of errors of interpretation.

Umm. I try to disengaged with those having circular reasoning. What you saying had nothing to prove KJV in error.

2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

[Blik]

Paul wrote in Greek to the various churches. Translating it into Hebrew would encounter the same difficulties as any translation effort: there is NEVER a direct equivalence between the source and receptor languages.

Paul thought about the teaching that God gave him in the Hebrew language. Paul translated that Hebrew learning into the Greek language. The Hebrew is a language structured to report the spiritual meaning of life, the Greek language was not composed for that. By translating Paul into Hebrew they were able to find the source meanings of what Paul said. As I learned about this I was given the words that Paul used and probable Hebrew source of those words, and I do not remember the two examples given or where the document is that gave me this information, but that I have lost it does not mean that the information is false.

 

[jaybo]

Direct equivalence is not necessary.

I speak Spanish and English and I am able to communicate between the two languages with no problem.

Good for you! However you are communicating in normal conversation, not in an obsolete language. Since you speak two languages you should understand the difficulty of direct translation. For example...

If you say "Como se llama?" Literally means "How do you call yourself?" In English that sounds nuts."
"Me llamo Jose" Literally means "I call myself Jose" In English that sounds nuts, unless you expect the response to be, "But what is your real name?"

Think about it... "How do you call yourself?" "I don't call myself, since I don't have my phone with me, so what's the point?"
"Me llamo Jose" "Okay, but what is your real name? I can call myself Superman, but that doesn't make me Superman."

=> The languages of the Bible were the plain languages of the people of the time. <= That is the only way they should be translated into the language readers use in their day-to-day lives. On that basis alone the King James is a confusing, flawed translation to people living, speaking, talking, praying, listening, etc. today.

The archaic language may make people feel "religious" and "holy" but it is not the way Jesus -- God in the flesh -- spoke. Jesus spoke Aramaic, "a Semitic language, a Syrian dialect of which was used as a lingua franca in the Near East from the 6th century BC. It gradually replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews" and the Bible he used was the Septuagint, "a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), including the Apocrypha, made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC and adopted by the early Christian Churches."

Can you imagine Jesus saying the equivalent of "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." instead of "“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.’

In the first example, the Pharisees would have naturally thought, "Why is this man talking so strangely? Is he drunk? Why doesn't he speak in the language that he was taught as a Galilean?"

Do you think that when Jesus taught the people in parables, He used language that they couldn't understand?

It defies logic and common sense to make God's word into something that it never was.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

If you say "Como se llama?" Literally means "How do you call yourself?" In English that sounds nuts."

“Como se llama” can be translated in English faithfully as “what do you call yourself”.

If asking their name, you could say “Cuál es su nombre”

Exact words are not so important; exact meaning is.

 

[jaybo]

Umm. I try to disengaged with those having circular reasoning. What you saying had nothing to prove KJV in error.

2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

I don't understand what this single (isolated) verse means. Would you translate it into the language that you and I and millions of others use every day?

Paul did not write in code! He wrote in Koine Greek, the simplified language spoken by the people of the Mediterranean world.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the type of language that people, including Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, and everyone else of that era spoke/wrote/heard? An accurate translation changes the meaning, including the connotations and denotations of the source language as little as possible. Anything else is a distortion of the Word of God!

 

[jaybo]

“Como se llama” can be translated in English faithfully as “what do you call yourself”.

If asking their name, you could say “Cuál es su nombre”

Exact words are not so important; exact meaning is.

But that's not the way people talk! When you ask somebody their name you normally say the idiom, "Como se llama?" Nobody ever says (in English), " “what do you call yourself”. It sounds insane, like so much of the mistranslated KJV, just like the verse in the previous post, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." Nobody thinks/talks/writes like that, and nobody thought, spoke, or wrote like that in the New Testament era.

It sounds pseudo-holy, pseudo-religious, and nonsensical, but God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit are just the opposite.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

It sounds insane, like so much of the mistranslated KJV, just like the verse in the previous post, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." Nobody thinks/talks/writes like that, and nobody thought, spoke, or wrote like that in the New Testament era.

That verse in the KJV sounds fine to me.

Does anybody have a problem with Yoda in Star Wars because of the way he speaks?