|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:07 am
Generally most of them all say the same thing, but they do it in different ways. (And then of course you have the crappy old translations like Geneva, which we like anyway because it was Old School.) Which is your favourite to read, and why? Do you have a few different versions, or have you read just one or two? I know a bit of Latin and consider the Vulgate to be quite beautiful, more so than any English version I've looked through. But my favourite so far is the Polyglot. I love comparing the different versions and seeing the original text in Hebrew. Can't read a word, but it's fascinating the original words and their different meanings and contexts, and what words were chosen for the translations.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:02 pm
My prefereed version of the bible to use is the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV is one of the english LITERAL translations, like King James and New American Standard. The biggest difference from other literal translations is that the ESV was put together much more carefully to do the very best possibly to maintain the integrity of the original texts while maintaining a high level of readability.
I also own many other versions of the bible. New Living Translation, Todays New International Version, King James version, New Revised Standar and I think a few others but I'm not certain what they are offhand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:32 pm
I recommend KJV (King James Version). As I was speaking to someone earlier on this topic, the reason I prefer it is because it is strictly interpreted word for word from the former language it was written in. It wasn't changed in any way to make it easier for people to understand. The way it was written is the way God intended for it to be written and people shouldn't really try to change it to make it sound the way they want it to. I understand that they feel the need to translate it into laymen terms, but it is not for us to do that because if we need understanding of the word, we are to seek that from God. We are to lean not to our own understanding of things and trust God with all of our heart minds and souls. If we ask him believing we shall receive, if we do not receive what we ask for then it just wasn't meant for us to have. I believe that if a person wants to truly serve God that he will help them in all that they do and will help them to understand his word.
God bless and thank you for your time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:01 pm
Danitra I recommend KJV (King James Version). As I was speaking to someone earlier on this topic, the reason I prefer it is because it is strictly interpreted word for word from the former language it was written in. It wasn't changed in any way to make it easier for people to understand. The way it was written is the way God intended for it to be written and people shouldn't really try to change it to make it sound the way they want it to. I understand that they feel the need to translate it into laymen terms, but it is not for us to do that because if we need understanding of the word, we are to seek that from God. We are to lean not to our own understanding of things and trust God with all of our heart minds and souls. If we ask him believing we shall receive, if we do not receive what we ask for then it just wasn't meant for us to have. I believe that if a person wants to truly serve God that he will help them in all that they do and will help them to understand his word.
God bless and thank you for your time! Actually...there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a vast majority of the different versions of the bible....the paraphrasedversions are good as they allow some peple to understand the bible better that otherwise ould end up confused....dont forget..no everyone is smart enough to 'get it'. now..King James Version is NOT translated completely WORD FOR WORD from the original texts..because some hebrew and greek words do not directly tanslate to English without some alteration. I only have one issue with KJV...which is that KJV is translated from greek into english...but it is a dead dialect. That was dieing out when KJV was translated...people do not talk that way anymore...and some of the words can have more than one meaning and it doesnt do a very good of making it clear which meaning it is using.... if you like King James Version, you should check out English Standard Version. It is translated at least every bit as literally as King James version is and it is actually in OUR dialect, not a dead one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:36 pm
I don't really have any real preference as to which one to read. I have several King James and several other versions. I find King James dfficult to read because the dialect is dead and nobody can really understand it since some of the words have multiple meanings--several of which could apply to that particular verse and , if changed, changes the meaning of the verse.
No English translated Bible is "exactly translated" because it's impossible. Like Archer said, there are words the english lanaguage doesn't have an exact translation for. Does that mean that version of the Bible is wrong in any aspect? No, it just means it has a flaw because of the dead dialect. ALL versions have flaws because they were translated by humans and all humans are flawed. That isn't to say that I think every Bible has some falsehood in it, but that the flaws are in the inability of people to understand things in the exact same way. Wording something differently doesn't make what you're saying untrue, it just makes it easier for somebody else to understand....unless you're twisting scripture to say what you want it to....and then that's a problem with you....not your wording or translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:20 am
The INSPIRED Word of God IS the King James Version 1611. It is the only Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:38 am
I Am flash The INSPIRED Word of God IS the King James Version 1611. It is the only Bible. Wrong. The translation from Hebrew to other translations is just as accurate as the King James. To say that anything other than that is wrong is to say that everyone who reads anything but that is going to hell. The paraphrased Bibles lose some meaning because you lose some words that have real meaning in the tanslation but the King James is NOT the only Bible that is the inspired word of God. Furthermore, King James was quoted as saying, "Monarchy is the greatest thing on earth. Kings are rightly called gods since just like God they have power of life and death over all their subjects in all things. They are accountable to God only ... so it is a crime for anyone to argue about what a king can do." The man likened himself to God, the Almighty, the Creator of everything. He was also bisexual. In 1611 it was brought to fruition after having first begun translation in 1604, and was written by the Church of England; which has a world-wide reputation for having been a corrupted church...full of greed and power back then. These things don't make that Bible inaccurate because Hebrew scholars have directly translated the book since then and have drawn the conclusion that insofar as ANY english translation, it is as accurate as it can be--given that certain words CANNOT translate. However, that DOES NOT make it the only "right" Bible out there and I encourage anyone who thinks that to open their minds and really study the other translations without prejudice. Scorn and judgment is only a gateway to a small mind's interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:44 pm
In this reply I'm speaking specifically to Danitra and I AM FLASH!
It is with great love in my heart that I say what I'm about to say. The King James Bible is a wonderful Bible. In fact, it is perhaps one of the most accurate English translations from the original texts that are in existence. However, the dialect, which influences the largest part of the translation, is not reflective of literal accuracy to the original text. Those who are under the impression that "thee's" and "thou's" are part of the Hebrew or Greek texts are simply misled. Such parts of speech belong strictly to the Elizabethan dialect, which most people only encounter from works of Elizabethan theater...such as the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare. I only bring this up because when people enter into this "inspired English translation" debate they tend to point out things like the usage of the second person singular pronoun "thou". Rarely do we find theological "meat" being debated. The simple fact is that most Bibles, at least all of which I've personally read and studied, are incredibly consistent in their theology however different they might sometimes be in their translation.
In order to help shed some light on this debate I want to give some further background on the creation of the King James Bible and the movement related to the claim that the King James Bible is the “only true Bible”.
First let me comment on the movement behind the “King James Only” ideology. Many people believe that this claim began some time in the mid to late 20th century. But nobody is quite sure from where the claim originated. Even within the community of those who believe the King James Version to be the only “true” version, there is widespread view and debate. You find some strange assertions in these communities that don’t seem to draw their argument from the scriptures rather from human based sources. For example, some believe that because the church itself translated this version of the Bible and authorized its usage that this is sign enough of its divine inspiration. There are even some beliefs that assert that the King James Bible is superior even to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Some discount the Greek and Hebrew texts altogether citing that the King James should be the standard that measures all other translations. Odd. The latter way of thinking is often referred to as “advanced revelation”…a curious term that implies many dangerous things.
As far as the citation that the 1611 King James Bible is the only correct Bible in existence…well…those who say such things obviously are quite unfamiliar with the 1611 translation. Perhaps my first question to I AM FLASH would simply be, “Why do you believe what you’ve written here in regards to the King James Bible?” The sad fact of the matter is that most people don’t know. Most people have no concept of why people began saying such things in the first place. There is a philosophy behind it that most just aren’t aware exists. Do you know what that philosophy is I AM FLASH? What you may or may not know is that the 1611 translation received fierce opposition from scholars of that day citing it to be a dumbing down for the sake of the general populace. One such scholar, the foremost Hebrew scholar of the era to be exact, harshly criticized the text for its FAILURE to achieve word for word equivalence. In other words, he was saying that the Hebrew translation needed some work. He was not alone in his criticism. Other highly regarded scholars of the day felt the same.
You may also not be aware that the 1611 Bible contained errors. For example:
The 1611 KJV Bible has Judas, not Jesus, saying “Sit ye here while I go yonder and pray.” (Matthew 26:36)
Would you argue that this is an INSPIRED error?
My encouragement to both Danitra and I AM FLASH would be to really examine what you believe about the King James Bible. It is a great Bible…I’m not arguing that. But it is not THE only Bible. It is not THE INSPIRED ENGLISH TRANSLATION against which every other translation should be measured. However, it does serve as a great standard to which translators should aspire. It is, after all, a magnificent translation. At least that’s my humble opinion. Build your arguments on sure footing and then bring them back to this place. This is an important discussion. One that I would very much like to continue. I sincerely hope that very thing comes to pass.
Sincerely,
Chad Dodson
Assistant Pastor
Oasis Christian Fellowship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
