- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/kjv3.htm Quote:There is a strange new doctrine being taught in some circles — the doctrine that the King James Version of the Bible alone is the Word of God, and all modern versions of the Bible (such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version) are “corrupt perversions.” Advocates of this KJV-Only position strongly insist that “the 1611 KJV is the only real Bible.” The irony is, most KJV-Onlyists have never actually seen a real 1611 KJV. They would be surprised and even shocked to see how different the 1611 KJV was from the “modern” KJVs they read today!
This website will list of some of the material found in the actual 1611 KJV, though not found in today’s KJVs. But don’t take my word for it… click on the links to see what these pages looked like in the 1611 KJV itself. (Note: these graphics files are big… around 100 Kb. each. If you want to see the larger full versions, use your browser’s “view image” function.)
My 2 cents…I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around the concept that this “Bible” book is so absolutely divine. It was compiled by a power-mongering emporor for political purposes, then used as leverage to force people to follow this “inerrant word of God,” then proceeded to massacre millions of people who didn’t comply. And we’re suppose to believe it is inspired by a loving God??? Please help me understand this!
😯 😮 I think almost any modern Bible is better than KJV. mormonheretic wrote:I think almost any modern Bible is better than KJV.
unless you have insomnia.
😆 You know what’s funny? I got myself a New Revised Standard Version (with apocraphal books). I actually prefer my ol’ KJV. I dunno, I’ve heard each version carries its own meaning. You know, different nuances and whatnot. I think it is probably true. It is nice to be able to refer to both, plus my good ol’ Joseph Smith Inspired Version.
Then, I also like to look up interpretations from Rabbi’s, other Christians, Gnostics, Historians and Athiests. You can learn a lot that way.
Yeah, I could never be a “1611 KJV” is straight from the mouth of God believer.
I’m actually a supporter of the KJV. Why? Well, I know there are a couple of major points against it, namely the language is old fashioned and the translation is sometimes out… but…
I like the KJV because we need a standard Bible translation. I keep on hearing the same quotes from various different modern Bibles, and they all come out quite differently, it’s almost as if they’re different Bible verses. And I can’t follow them on. The KJV also ties nicely into literature and culture, and a lot of phrases in the English language come straight out of it. So by removing that, you’re actually removing a major standard.
Secondly, I actually like the style. Yes, it’s old fashioned, and could probably do with proper punctuation, but at times I think the style’s quite poetic. Some of the modern translations do REALLY badly on this score, and their style is awful. The Good News version is way off the mark in some cases, as is the New English Bible… really badly written in some places. And it’s not the original, it’s the translation! The worst translation by a long way, has to be something called (pretentiously) the Scholars’ Version. I have a copy of some of the Gospels in it at home. The translation of the Beatitudes is truly awful. For example, they think that the word “bless” or “blessed” is archaic and out of use (since when?!), so they have Jesus saying “congratulations to the poor” etc. It makes Jesus sound like he’s running some kind of corny competition.
On the flipside, the KJV is said to be “diplomatic” about alcohol, since King James had a bit of a drink problem. So the verses about drunkards are watered down a bit, supposedly.
What I like about the KJV is also the language. Because it is more archaic, it sounds like something different, special or “otherworldly.” It sounds more poetic to me. I don’t think the translation is particularly the most accurate. But then again, I don’t depend that much on the Bible (or other scripture) being literally accurate in a lot of ways, not in the sense that they really need to be parsed and understood on a legalistic and technical level. For those of you who like KJV, how do you think Isaiah compares with modern Bibles? Personally, I think that KJV is awful for the Old Testament, with the notable exception of Genesis. If you ask a person to read other books like Ezekiel, Amos, Psalms, etc, most people get completely lost because it is so archaic. It’s practically like reading a foreign language. Perhaps I’m biased against KJV because I love the Old Testament so much. For the Synoptic Gospels/Acts in the New Testament, it’s mostly fine. But when you get into Romans, Hebrews, Revelations, etc, I think it’s pretty awful.
I am not too familiar with other versions of the Bible. Mostly the NIV, NLV, and The Message… I take precautions in reading any version of the Bible because I always feel like MAYBE, just MAYBE, the person translating is unknowingly making biased statements. Like SamBee mentioned, one can read the same verse in different versions of the Bible, and they can mean different things. *shrug* I just wish I knew greek and hebrew, and a dash of aramaic… lol What versions do you guys recommend??
SamBee wrote:On the flipside, the KJV is said to be “diplomatic” about alcohol, since King James had a bit of a drink problem. So the verses about drunkards are watered down a bit, supposedly.
I’ve never heard this before!! I couldn’t help but laugh.. thats definitely interesting.I prefer the KJV simple because it is by far the most poetic. IMO. Someone else mentioned the fact that many of our popular quotes and saying that define a lot of America’s culture come from KJV. Yeah. The world would certainly be a more dismal place without the KJV of ECCLESIATES or The Preacher. It’s beautifully written, even if not inspired. The KJV is particularly flawed in respect to the Old Testament. They mostly used the Latin Vulgate as the source and not Hebrew texts. That right there is already another layer of removal and filtering. A lot of modern English comes straight out of the KJV, as I was saying earlier. Which makes it interesting. http://quotations.about.com/od/biblequotes/a/biblephrases.htm http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bible-phrases-sayings.html These are all KJV phrases –
Many are called but few are chosen.
A fly in the ointment
A man after his own heart
Bite the dust
By the skin of your teeth
Give up the ghost
No rest for the wicked
The blind leading the blind
Sour grapes
etc etc
Kind of amazing how much of an influence it has had on the language. The only other thing which comes close in this kind of influence is the theater of Shakespeare.
The trouble is that language will always change, not always for the better (why for example are “sad” and “pathetic” now used as insults, but “bad” and “wicked” used as compliments now?), but the KJV has instilled some stability in the English language. It’s also stopped it splitting up fully into American, Australian, Anglo-Irish etc languages.
Quote:For those of you who like KJV, how do you think Isaiah compares with modern Bibles? Personally, I think that KJV is awful for the Old Testament, with the notable exception of Genesis. If you ask a person to read other books like Ezekiel, Amos, Psalms, etc, most people get completely lost because it is so archaic. It’s practically like reading a foreign language.
I think it’s important to remember that the OT comes out of a tribal, classical society, and much is like that in it. The people of King James’ time were much closer to that stage, in fact, some of his dominions, such as the people in parts of Scotland and Ireland actually were still living in a tribal society, where genealogies and oral histories were important, and who fought small scale battles on a regular basis. I think people who live in cities get lost with nature poetry, and people who live in a peaceful time can’t relate to a warrior culture.
A lot of Paul’s writings are philosophical, so are well rendered in modern English. Jesus, again, tends to talk in many general terms (although some of his points of reference – shepherds, vineyards, oil lamps, might not chime with everyone in the western world these days).
PressingForward wrote:I am not too familiar with other versions of the Bible. Mostly the NIV, NLV, and The Message… I take precautions in reading any version of the Bible because I always feel like MAYBE, just MAYBE, the person translating is unknowingly making biased statements. Like SamBee mentioned, one can read the same verse in different versions of the Bible, and they can mean different things. *shrug* I just wish I knew greek and hebrew, and a dash of aramaic… lol
What versions do you guys recommend??
SamBee wrote:On the flipside, the KJV is said to be “diplomatic” about alcohol, since King James had a bit of a drink problem. So the verses about drunkards are watered down a bit, supposedly.
I’ve never heard this before!! I couldn’t help but laugh.. thats definitely interesting.King James had other “tendencies” as well. I don’t know whether these were reflected in the translation or not. He was in a difficult position in many ways. His Catholic mother had been murdered, and he was also a foreigner on the English throne. Some contemporary English writings of the time frequently contained anti-Scottish abuse about him and his retinue. He was in a difficult position. He is said to have been given to mood swings.
I find it all fascinating to look into where we get our modern day Bible from. Why do you think this is so? I mean, I can’t help but think of a scripture… hmm. not sure where.. Isaiah maybe?? (my scriptures are 2 arms lengths away from me, thats one extra arm length i’m not willing to take at the moment lol) that speaks about the Word of God lasting forever. How can this be with so many different versions? Or it could not be referring to the Bible at all, but then, to what? Well, one of the good places to start might be the Apocrypha. I have never understood why the LDS doesn’t take more interest in it. Curiously, the KJV Apocrypha (rarely seen, although I have a copy) uses the word “Nephi” in the translation of 2 Maccabees. There are also at least half a dozen books referenced in the Bible which don’t appear in it. Like the Book of Enoch (see Jude), and Book of Jasher.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.