Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?

[Conan]

If your GPS spoke in King James English? You would not get to your destination...

Yes, it would. By the way you meant Early Modern English. Or Archaic Modern English.

 

[RiJoRi]

If your GPS spoke in King James English? You would not get to your destination...

😂 "Turn thou right in two furlongs." 😲 "Stay thou on I-40 for thirteen leagues." 😢

The company that produced such a monstrosity would quickly be out of business! People wouldn't have a feel for the distance. They know about how far a quarter mile - or 39 miles - is, but no feel for furlongs or firkins!

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

 

[YeshuaFan]

Translators are not in the same Divinely ordained position as the Apostles.

The apostles were specially appointed to be "pens" in God's hand, to write Scripture as it should be read.
Translators would have to be presumptuous to place themselves on the same level.

Indeed, but those holding to Kjvo do elevate the 1611 translators to be on par with Apostles of Christ!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Or, to end the confusion...

Example:

KJV: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as ​

silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers." 1 Peter 1:18​

Vain conversation?

Does that mean the vain words you speak with others has been put to an end?
I know a good number of Christians that that would not be the case.

So, how should it be translated today to relate to reality? Translated by someone understanding the idioms used back then?

Modern translation: For you know that it was not with perishable things such ​

as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed ​

down to you from your ancestors."​

That was just one. The KJV suffers from containing too many misleading anachronisms. It turns well intended believers into silly people in how they wish to be obedient.

Which one is stabilizing for our edification today?

KJV: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as ​

silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers."​

​

​

Modern translation: For you know that it was not with perishable things such ​

as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed ​

down to you from your ancestors."​

​

Even the NKJV made this correction!

Many times the Kjv was good for what English use meant of its time, but not for today how its used!

 

[YeshuaFan]

The expression "vain conversation", when the KJV was translated, meant "futile conduct"; in other words, the translation was correct, but language has changed. This is one reason why I would not recommend using the KJV, unless the person knows about the changed meanings and obsolete words/expressions.

A;; kjv should have a good dictionary to show the changes in meanings form words now to today!

 

[YeshuaFan]

With all do respect, the problem is Onlyism, not the KJV it's self. It has a very good New Testament based on the earlier English Translations, beginning with William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible.

Yes, as I prefer the Nas 1977/1995, but main problem is with Kjvo itself!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Here is the source of this nonsense.

It's the brain child of Peter Ruckman.

Here are some quotes.

“coincidences” which have slipped through the AV 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light and advanced revelation… (Manuscript Evidence. 1997, p. 140)

Moral: Mistakes in the AV 1611 are advanced revelation! (Manuscript Evidence. 1997, p. 139)

Advanced revelation given by the Holy Spirit in the English text of 1611… (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Exodus. 1976, p. 186)

“There is no more revelation, no new light since 1611.” That’s the truth. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. July 1997, p. 8)

The revelation was given in 1611. It was in advance of all qualified scholars in 1900, 1910… (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Oct. 2008, p. 13)

Ruckman’s belief in advanced revelations in the KJV | Ruckmanism.org

he and others have elevated the Kjv to be above even the original languages scriptures!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yes, it would. By the way you meant Early Modern English. Or Archaic Modern English.

Why if one wanted to stay in KJV tradition, go get the Nkjv!

 

[Conan]

😂 "Turn thou right in two furlongs." 😲 "Stay thou on I-40 for thirteen leagues." 😢

The company that produced such a monstrosity would quickly be out of business! People wouldn't have a feel for the distance. They know about how far a quarter mile - or 39 miles - is, but no feel for furlongs or firkins!

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

You could always just look at the screen and still get there. Be reasonable.

 

[Conan]

Yes, as I prefer the Nas 1977/1995, but main problem is with Kjvo itself!

Even the 1977 edition has ties to Tyndale.

 

[RiJoRi]

You could always just look at the screen and still get there. Be reasonable.

Why? 😊 I was just responding to Gene's comment. 😉 The difficulty lies in familiarity: knowest thou ought which useth firkins in their vulgar tongue? Mayhap other archaic quantities? 🤣 An incomprehensible Bible may as well be written in Latin!
Gimme clarity any day, bro! (Although not at the expense of being true to the original - a rather difficult task.)

--Rich

 

[YeshuaFan]

Even the 1977 edition has ties to Tyndale.

How about the original 1901 Asv?

 

[GeneZ]

Many times the Kjv was good for what English use meant of its time, but not for today how its used!

Irony of ironies..

In its day? The KJV was a 'modern translation.'

 

[GeneZ]

You could always just look at the screen and still get there. Be reasonable.

You did not understand what I meant? Maybe if I wrote in Shakespearean English it might have happened.

 

[GeneZ]

Here some are arguing for the King James... And, no one seems to care about what the Greek and Hebrew actually say... nor the historical background for passages that would require it to grasp why certain things were said. Instead, some by nature love the challenge of winning an argument (but losing the Truth in the process).

 

[YeshuaFan]

Irony of ironies..

In its day? The KJV was a 'modern translation.'

Yes, same way Nas Esv Nkjv are today!

 

[Conan]

Here some are arguing for the King James... And, no one seems to care about what the Greek and Hebrew actually say... nor the historical background for passages that would require it to grasp why certain things were said. Instead, some by nature love the challenge of winning an argument (but losing the Truth in the process).

I think you may be included in your discription. I'm glad you oppose onlyism . But in your enthusiasm don't go over board, as I used to.

 

[Conan]

You did not understand what I meant? Maybe if I wrote in Shakespearean English it might have happened.

Without using miles, one can still watch their car moving and get to their destination quite easily. Certainly you understand that.

 

[Conan]

Irony of ironies..

In its day? The KJV was a 'modern translation.'

Not really. It used older language than needed sometimes.

 

[David1701]

Irony.. If a person is already so educated, he should not be depending upon the KJV to begin with.

The KJV is a very good translation, albeit not perfect. I would always recommend comparing at least a few translations anyway and not to depend upon only one.