quote:

ORIGINAL: Saved34
I can no longer support the King James only movement. It's just not an argument that has basis. I've researched many different versions and there are many versions that are really good. The ISV is fast becoming a favorite of mine. The KJV is awesome, but I am really beginning to believe those who think the KJV is the only Bible is doing so from tradition and a bit of ignorance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

but you have a problem if I try to tell you?

Exactly. You have a personal conviction. Who am I to tell you to change your mind? But it is personal, not universal. Someone telling me to stop reading my ESV because it's a sin is like someone telling me to stop listening to mewithoutYou because it's a sin, or to stop playing WoW because it's a sin. There's simply no biblical basis for it, so I have no obligation to obey them.

quote:

There are three basic approaches to translation including:

Word-for-Word:
As much as possible, biblical scholars take each "word" from the original Greek or Hebrew text and an English word in its place.

Thought-for-Thought: Translators take the "meaning" of the original language and rewrite it in modern language that's easy to read and understand.

Balanced Approach: Scholars translate word-for-word where it results in a translation that’s both clear and accurate. But where a word-for-word approach might result in an unclear or inaccurate translation (take the ¿Como se llama? example above), these translations use the most natural English possible to clearly and accurately communicate the meaning.

Paraphrases help people who are new to the Bible understand it. And literal translations are helpful for people who want to study each word. The NIV and TNIV are literal where possible and "thought-for-thought" where necessary to help the reader understand. The NIV and TNIV are the best balance between accuracy and readability.

The graphic below can help you understand how each translation fits into the philosophies.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Boocrane/?action=view¤t=bible_transchrt_js.jpg

quote:

On the other hand, Burgon upheld the Traditional Text as well as the Authorized Version that is based upon that text. So those who continue to uphold the KJV are very well informed. It is a pity that most Christians have not investigated this matter carefully before accepting modern "Bibles". If you have not studied the researches of Burgon and others who upheld the true text of the NT, you are in no position to make a judgment about the KJV.

I have no intention whatsoever of entering into a debate here. I have stated the position of those (like myself) who reject all modern versions as corrupt (regardless of their shiny "new" veneer). Anyone who desires the truth about this matter can communicate privately with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irish2

quote:

On the other hand, Burgon upheld the Traditional Text as well as the Authorized Version that is based upon that text. So those who continue to uphold the KJV are very well informed. It is a pity that most Christians have not investigated this matter carefully before accepting modern "Bibles". If you have not studied the researches of Burgon and others who upheld the true text of the NT, you are in no position to make a judgment about the KJV.

I have no intention whatsoever of entering into a debate here. I have stated the position of those (like myself) who reject all modern versions as corrupt (regardless of their shiny "new" veneer). Anyone who desires the truth about this matter can communicate privately with me.

I got a copy of a 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible for Christmas. It's quite hard to read but the marginal notes of Calvin are very interesting.


It is also similar to my copy of the original 1611 KJV. The both have the apocryphal OT books.



Considering is was first published 50 years before the KJV, I guess that makes the KJV the "shiny" new modern version.






Peace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saved34

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irish2

quote:

On the other hand, Burgon upheld the Traditional Text as well as the Authorized Version that is based upon that text. So those who continue to uphold the KJV are very well informed. It is a pity that most Christians have not investigated this matter carefully before accepting modern "Bibles". If you have not studied the researches of Burgon and others who upheld the true text of the NT, you are in no position to make a judgment about the KJV.

I have no intention whatsoever of entering into a debate here. I have stated the position of those (like myself) who reject all modern versions as corrupt (regardless of their shiny "new" veneer). Anyone who desires the truth about this matter can communicate privately with me.

I got a copy of a 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible for Christmas. It's quite hard to read but the marginal notes of Calvin are very interesting.


It is also similar to my copy of the original 1611 KJV. The both have the apocryphal OT books.



Considering is was first published 50 years before the KJV, I guess that makes the KJV the "shiny" new modern version.






Peace

This is one of many reasons I cannot continue to support the idea that the KJV is the only legitimate version of scripture. There were bibles years before the KJV, and there are bibles that are good since the KJV. It is a great translation of God's Holy word, but so is the ISV, the NASB, and the ESV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saved34
I can no longer support the King James only movement. It's just not an argument that has basis. I've researched many different versions and there are many versions that are really good. The ISV is fast becoming a favorite of mine. The KJV is awesome, but I am really beginning to believe those who think the KJV is the only Bible is doing so from tradition and a bit of ignorance.

That statement in itself reveals that your research into this matter has been superficial at best and influenced by the anti-KJV crowd at worst. No matter, you would be wise to dig a little deeper to arrive at the truth.

Those who believe that the KJV is the only reliable and worthy translation in the English language at the present time do not (in most cases) believe this because of either tradition or ignorance. They have solid documentary evidence to prove that modern translations are based upon "scandalously corrupt" manuscripts full of "fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of the Truth".

Those are the words of Dean John William Burgon, one of the leading textual scholars of the 19th century. A corrupt manuscript is one that is full of omissions, additions, substitutions, alterations, and transpositions, and that is where the modern translations have come from. Burgon personally collated hundreds of manuscripts (including those he branded as corrupt) and is regarded as an authority in these matters. He knew exactly what he was talking about. In fact, he wrote a book on The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (as well as many others on the text and translations of the Bible).

On the other hand, Burgon upheld the Traditional Text as well as the Authorized Version that is based upon that text. So those who continue to uphold the KJV are very well informed. It is a pity that most Christians have not investigated this matter carefully before accepting modern "Bibles". If you have not studied the researches of Burgon and others who upheld the true text of the NT, you are in no position to make a judgment about the KJV.

I have no intention whatsoever of entering into a debate here. I have stated the position of those (like myself) who reject all modern versions as corrupt (regardless of their shiny "new" veneer). Anyone who desires the truth about this matter can communicate privately with me.

quote:

One of the big problems with KJV today comes, not from translation errors, but from modern English speakers misunderstanding the vocabulary and Grammar of 16-17th century English.

quote:

That statement in itself reveals that your research into this matter has been superficial at best and influenced by the anti-KJV crowd at worst. No matter, you would be wise to dig a little deeper to arrive at the truth.

Those who believe that the KJV is the only reliable and worthy translation in the English language at the present time do not (in most cases) believe this because of either tradition or ignorance. They have solid documentary evidence to prove that modern translations are based upon "scandalously corrupt" manuscripts full of "fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of the Truth".

quote:

The TR is just reflects the choices of Erasmus, relatively modern, very humanistic editor, who probably didn't believe in the Holy Spirit, using obscure texts that had long ago been discarded by the Western Church (the side protestants come from) because of the superiority of the Latin version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

The TR is just reflects the choices of Erasmus, relatively modern, very humanistic editor, who probably didn't believe in the Holy Spirit, using obscure texts that had long ago been discarded by the Western Church (the side protestants come from) because of the superiority of the Latin version.

That's completely false, and shows a clear and present bias (which is fine...we all have a bias) without any honest observations. I suggest you read "Touch Not The Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson. Although you may not agree with his position, I know that a person of your intellect will learn much from what he has to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ninjaaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

The TR is just reflects the choices of Erasmus, relatively modern, very humanistic editor, who probably didn't believe in the Holy Spirit, using obscure texts that had long ago been discarded by the Western Church (the side protestants come from) because of the superiority of the Latin version.

That's completely false, and shows a clear and present bias (which is fine...we all have a bias) without any honest observations. I suggest you read "Touch Not The Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson. Although you may not agree with his position, I know that a person of your intellect will learn much from what he has to say.

These things are true:
Erasmus was relatively recent (compared to the Bible).
Erasmus was a humanist (But not a secular humanist).
Erasmus did edit together his version of the text based on available manuscripts.
The Western Church had quit using the Greek text some time ago and had only become interested in it again with the revived interest in classics that the Renaissance brought. Of course, the Eastern church had never abandoned the Greek text, and that's where Erasmus got his manuscripts.

The rest may have been added for comic value.

It is also true that when I'm serious (a state I try to avoid), I consider Erasmus one of the greatest champions of Christian Education that ever has been.

And to "Touch Not the Unclean Thing," I say "Rise Peter, kill, and eat!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: pwfaith
I've read many of the supposed "documents" on websites and they all come across as extremely biased. So yeah I'm a little leery of those kinds of websites According to the little diaghram above put out by Zondervan the NASB is more word-for-word accurate than the KJV, so why do people still make such silly claims about the KJV? Sorry I just don't get it, esp if it is not b/c of traditions or some ignorance. Word of mouth maybe, they haven't actually looked up the research themselves? Not sure really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

My point? I believe that a preference for a translation as a new convert starts with the traditions of others. Then if they are allowed the freedom in Christ to explore the other translations they will eventually settle on the translations they prefer for various purposes. I use multiple translations for study, one for general reading, and yet another when I really just want a clear modern English description of something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

The KJV's (and NKJV's) translation of "they say" in Jer 3:1 came up in another thread, and because this demonstrates a mistake in the KJV translation, I thought that it would be useful to post here. Let's begin by looking at the actual text of this verse.

ìàîø äï éùÑìç àéùÑ àúÎàùÑúå åäìëä îàúå åäéúä ìàéùÑÎàçø äéùÑåá àìéä òåã äìåà çðåó úçðó äàøõ ääéà åàú æðéú øòéí øáéí åùÑåá àìé ðàíÎéäåäÓ

The first two words 'ìàîø äï' form the phrase translated "they say" in the KJV version; however there are several significant problems with this translation. First, there is not the expected verb/noun agreement. Hebrew verbs are conjugated and must agree with the subject in both number and gender and in this case because the pronoun is 3rd person feminine plural it should be 'úàîøðä äï' if "they say" was really what was intended but here the verb is in the infinitive form. Second, pronouns in Hebrew are used with a much wider semantic range than they are used in English. They are used quite frequently to express the meaning of "this", "these", etc... Third, the feminine pronoun is used here; in Hebrew a masculine pronoun can be used inclusively to refer to a group of both men and women, but a feminine pronoun can only refer to women; clearly the context would not allow for a reference to ONLY women. Last, this phrase ends with the another phrase 'ðàíÎéäåä/declares the Lord' which strongly indicates that these are the words of the Lord. Last we have the interrogative 'äìåà/if not' that indicates a rhetorical question that refers back to the previous phrase. Because of these grammatical and contextual issues, the translation of "they say" has been rejected by every translation other than the KJV and the NKJV; they have much more accurately communicated the actual meaning of this phrase i.e. "saying this" rather than "they say"

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDOC

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

My point? I believe that a preference for a translation as a new convert starts with the traditions of others. Then if they are allowed the freedom in Christ to explore the other translations they will eventually settle on the translations they prefer for various purposes. I use multiple translations for study, one for general reading, and yet another when I really just want a clear modern English description of something.

I agree with all you've said here, including your entire post, with one minor difference. Even if you don't understand the KJV, if you continue to read it, in time you'll learn the language, so to speak. That's why I chose the KJV over others, even though I sometimes use another translation (or, more often, look up certain words in Hebrew or Greek), but the KJV remains as my main Bible version because I'm so familiar with it. I'm saying, basically, that even a child can come to understand the KJV if he/she continues with it, if that person is under spiritual guidance.

It's true that certain words are better rendered in today's vernacular English, such as Philippians 3:20's "conversation," which is better rendered "citizenship" (and if you have the Thompson Chain-Reference KJV, that's stated in the margin), but that is not enough justification to use another translation because I know the KJV so well. So you read enough of it and not only you understand its "language", you know certain things and certain words (English, Hebrew, and Greek) and certain idiosyncrasies, and you end up not wanting to depart from it. KJV is my preference, yet I am not a KJV-onlyer.

quote:


KJV only-ism is dangerous because studying textual criticism to defend the KJV-only stance will only lead you into (abject) error, because the Word of God is meant to be internalized and obeyed based on the relationship with Jesus Christ, not on textual criticism. Textual criticism holds no value in the day of judgement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MDOC

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

The KJV's (and NKJV's) translation of "they say" in Jer 3:1 came up in another thread, and because this demonstrates a mistake in the KJV translation, I thought that it would be useful to post here. Let's begin by looking at the actual text of this verse.

לאמר הן ישׁלח אישׁ את־אשׁתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאישׁ־אחר הישׁוב אליה עוד הלוא חנוף תחנף הארץ ההיא ואת זנית רעים רבים ושׁוב אלי נאם־יהוה׃

The first two words 'לאמר הן' form the phrase translated "they say" in the KJV version; however there are several significant problems with this translation. First, there is not the expected verb/noun agreement. Hebrew verbs are conjugated and must agree with the subject in both number and gender and in this case because the pronoun is 3rd person feminine plural it should be 'תאמרנה הן' if "they say" was really what was intended but here the verb is in the infinitive form. Second, pronouns in Hebrew are used with a much wider semantic range than they are used in English. They are used quite frequently to express the meaning of "this", "these", etc... Third, the feminine pronoun is used here; in Hebrew a masculine pronoun can be used inclusively to refer to a group of both men and women, but a feminine pronoun can only refer to women; clearly the context would not allow for a reference to ONLY women. Last, this phrase ends with the another phrase 'נאם־יהוה/declares the Lord' which strongly indicates that these are the words of the Lord. Last we have the interrogative 'הלוא/if not' that indicates a rhetorical question that refers back to the previous phrase. Because of these grammatical and contextual issues, the translation of "they say" has been rejected by every translation other than the KJV and the NKJV; they have much more accurately communicated the actual meaning of this phrase i.e. "saying this" rather than "they say"

Good thing you don't need to know Hebrew to understand this, as you get the same information from the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge or from a number of commentaries such as the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown.

quote:


And nevertheless, this is not a strong disagreement between the two renderings because they are related; but in this case it does clarify what is meant by the phrase "they say". Minor issue not worthy of note.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

The KJV's (and NKJV's) translation of "they say" in Jer 3:1 came up in another thread, and because this demonstrates a mistake in the KJV translation, I thought that it would be useful to post here. Let's begin by looking at the actual text of this verse.

ìàîø äï éùÑìç àéùÑ àúÎàùÑúå åäìëä îàúå åäéúä ìàéùÑÎàçø äéùÑåá àìéä òåã äìåà çðåó úçðó äàøõ ääéà åàú æðéú øòéí øáéí åùÑåá àìé ðàíÎéäåäÓ

The first two words 'ìàîø äï' form the phrase translated "they say" in the KJV version; however there are several significant problems with this translation. First, there is not the expected verb/noun agreement. Hebrew verbs are conjugated and must agree with the subject in both number and gender and in this case because the pronoun is 3rd person feminine plural it should be 'úàîøðä äï' if "they say" was really what was intended but here the verb is in the infinitive form. Second, pronouns in Hebrew are used with a much wider semantic range than they are used in English. They are used quite frequently to express the meaning of "this", "these", etc... Third, the feminine pronoun is used here; in Hebrew a masculine pronoun can be used inclusively to refer to a group of both men and women, but a feminine pronoun can only refer to women; clearly the context would not allow for a reference to ONLY women. Last, this phrase ends with the another phrase 'ðàíÎéäåä/declares the Lord' which strongly indicates that these are the words of the Lord. Last we have the interrogative 'äìåà/if not' that indicates a rhetorical question that refers back to the previous phrase. Because of these grammatical and contextual issues, the translation of "they say" has been rejected by every translation other than the KJV and the NKJV; they have much more accurately communicated the actual meaning of this phrase i.e. "saying this" rather than "they say"

ESV Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the LORD.

KJV Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

NASB Jeremiah 3:1 God says, "If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him And belongs to another man, Will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; Yet you turn to Me," declares the LORD.

NET Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, he may not take her back again. Doing that would utterly defile the land. But you, Israel, have given yourself as a prostitute to many gods. So what makes you think you can return to me?" says the LORD.

NIV Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers-- would you now return to me?" declares the LORD.

NKJ Jeremiah 3:1 "They say,`If a man divorces his wife, And she goes from him And becomes another man's, May he return to her again?' Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me," says the LORD.

NLT Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces a woman and she goes and marries someone else, he will not take her back again, for that would surely corrupt the land. But you have prostituted yourself with many lovers, so why are you trying to come back to me?" says the LORD.

NRSV Jeremiah 3:1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the LORD.

TNIV Jeremiah 3:1 "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers-- would you now return to me?" declares the LORD.

YLT Jeremiah 3:1 Saying, 'Lo, one sendeth away his wife, And she hath gone from him, And she hath been to another man, Doth he turn back unto her again? Greatly defiled is not that land? And thou hast committed whoredom with many lovers, And turn again to Me, an affirmation of Jehovah.

quote:

The KJV's (and NKJV's) translation of "they say" in Jer 3:1 came up in another thread, and because this demonstrates a mistake in the KJV translation, I thought that it would be useful to post here.