LSV and MEV are better than KJV.

[fredoheaven]

There are several things wrong with your post...

1) When the New Testament authors referenced specific things in the Old Testament, they were referring to the Septuagint, the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament that was "the Bible" in use at the time. They were not quoting the Hebrew Bible.

2) When you say, "I think the new versions are purposefully deceitful in order to push their agenda. But you wouldn't know it if you don't compare it with the KJV" you are making some questionable statements. The "new versions" are almost without exception superb translations based on 1) the vast number of ancient manuscripts, both Biblical and otherwise, available that weren't discovered centuries ago and 2) the knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek that has been gained through exceptional research and scholarship, and 3) (most important) the English language has changed considerably in the last 400+ years. The KJV doesn't mean what supposedly says because its was written in the vernacular of the 16th (not 17th) Century; nobody uses that language anywhere on the planet in 2020.

The King James Version is an antiquated version that belongs in a museum, not in the hands of modern English-speaking Christians who want to understand God's word.

Aww, seems to me the greek, hebrew and aramaic languages are more antiquated...how is that. Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

Why not? KJV-o's compare everything else to the KJV, however wrong that is.

Well, you have some point here however, many of the english translations have somehow compared to the kjv as seen in their preface. Thanks

 

[NotmebutHim]

Oh boy... another KJV-only thread.

(Yawn)

I dunno man, seems as if this thread is approaching it from the opposite direction.

I'm not a KJV-Onlyist, but.......

 

[Nehemiah6]

But the KJV is the best overall English version.

Agreed. This false notion that *literal* translations (meaning interlinear literal) are better has no merit. Young's Literal Translation is perfectly useful and no one needs another *literal* translation. They are helpful for Bible study, but only if they are based on the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Received Greek text (Textus Receptus).

 

[Grandpa]

There are several things wrong with your post...

1) When the New Testament authors referenced specific things in the Old Testament, they were referring to the Septuagint, the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament that was "the Bible" in use at the time. They were not quoting the Hebrew Bible.

2) When you say, "I think the new versions are purposefully deceitful in order to push their agenda. But you wouldn't know it if you don't compare it with the KJV" you are making some questionable statements. The "new versions" are almost without exception superb translations based on 1) the vast number of ancient manuscripts, both Biblical and otherwise, available that weren't discovered centuries ago and 2) the knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek that has been gained through exceptional research and scholarship, and 3) (most important) the English language has changed considerably in the last 400+ years. The KJV doesn't mean what supposedly says because its was written in the vernacular of the 16th (not 17th) Century; nobody uses that language anywhere on the planet in 2020.

The King James Version is an antiquated version that belongs in a museum, not in the hands of modern English-speaking Christians who want to understand God's word.

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.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

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.

Technically, there is a copyright on the KJV. In the UK, it is owned by the crown. In the USA it’s public domain. In the UK, they have to get permission. In the USA you don’t. But technically there is a copyright. For whatever reason, it’s not binding here.

 

[Dino246]

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.

According to your logic, you should be using the Coverdale version, not the KJV.

Your idea of the ease of reading the KJV is terribly biased and shockingly ignorant. The reading comprehension of the average person today is far less than it was in the previous four generations. The KJV is written in 16th-century English, not 21st-century English. You would hinder people from understanding instead of facilitating understanding.

 

[preacher4truth]

According to your logic, you should be using the Coverdale version, not the KJV.

Your idea of the ease of reading the KJV is terribly biased and shockingly ignorant. The reading comprehension of the average person today is far less than it was in the previous four generations. The KJV is written in 16th-century English, not 21st-century English. You would hinder people from understanding instead of facilitating understanding.

Or the Tyndale version which iirc is the first English translation.

If all of his points are true and applied consistently, then its difficult letter style should be no excuse whatsoever. It should also supplant his usage of the KJV.

Of course, I totally disagree with his take. One of the most refreshing things I've done some 12 years ago or so is to start using modern versions.

 

[Chester]

There are several things wrong with your post...


The King James Version is an antiquated version that belongs in a museum, not in the hands of modern English-speaking Christians who want to understand God's word.

Some good information in the first part of your post, but I simply do not agree at all with your sentence you highlighted . And I am not a KJV only person by any means . . . ! LOL!

 

[Dino246]

I dunno man, seems as if this thread is approaching it from the opposite direction.

I'm not a KJV-Onlyist, but.......

I know the OP wasn't advocating KJV-only. However, I also knew the thread would devolve to that topic.

 

[jaybo]

Aww, seems to me the greek, hebrew and aramaic languages are more antiquated...how is that. Thanks

More antiquated than ..? Very few people understand the ancient languages in which the early Bible texts were written. Translating Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into an archaic form of English, then retranslating that archaic form of English into the English we use today is guaranteed to cause more problems than if the best source documents are translated directly into the language that we use to speak, read, and write today.

 

[Blik]

Why try to compare it with KJV?

Because the only scripture that is absolutely true is written in Hebrew. Even when the original language was something else, the men God used to put down His words had an original language of Hebrew, and that was the language they thought of the scripture they read. No other language gives us the original thought of the scripture.

The KJV is a wonderful God inspired version, but it is a translation, using the language and thoughts that the translators had. They lived in a time that thought that persecuting Jews was fine. In Spain it was a government policy. We need to know this as we read that translation. As an example, the word Passover is translated as Easter. The word Torah is translated as law.

 

[Blik]

More antiquated than ..? Very few people understand the ancient languages in which the early Bible texts were written. Translating Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into an archaic form of English, then retranslating that archaic form of English into the English we use today is guaranteed to cause more problems than if the best source documents are translated directly into the language that we use to speak, read, and write today.

The dead sea scrolls has turned up information that had been lost because they are the oldest translations we have, closer to the original. It has resulted in even changes to the old translations that new editions make. Each change is documented in footnotes.

 

[Dino246]

Because the only scripture that is absolutely true is written in Hebrew. Even when the original language was something else, the men God used to put down His words had an original language of Hebrew, and that was the language they thought of the scripture they read. No other language gives us the original thought of the scripture.

Umm... Aramaic? Greek?

The KJV is a wonderful God inspired version, but it is a translation, using the language and thoughts that the translators had.

"God inspired (sic)"? That phrase is best saved for the originals. God did not re-inspire any translation.

 

[jaybo]

Because the only scripture that is absolutely true is written in Hebrew. Even when the original language was something else, the men God used to put down His words had an original language of Hebrew, and that was the language they thought of the scripture they read. No other language gives us the original thought of the scripture.

The KJV is a wonderful God inspired version, but it is a translation, using the language and thoughts that the translators had. They lived in a time that thought that persecuting Jews was fine. In Spain it was a government policy. We need to know this as we read that translation. As an example, the word Passover is translated as Easter. The word Torah is translated as law.

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?

 

[fredoheaven]

More antiquated than ..? Very few people understand the ancient languages in which the early Bible texts were written. Translating Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into an archaic form of English, then retranslating that archaic form of English into the English we use today is guaranteed to cause more problems than if the best source documents are translated directly into the language that we use to speak, read, and write today.

I view archaism argument as very shallow. This the reason why we need to study and pray. Spritual things are met with Spiritual being. Besides Modern english bibles have them too.

 

[jaybo]

I view archaism argument as very shallow. This the reason why we need to study and pray. Spritual things are met with Spiritual being. Besides Modern english bibles have them too.

Why don't you write in 17th Century English? If you are in favor of using a long-dead form of English, why not go for it 100%?

 

[fredoheaven]

Because the only scripture that is absolutely true is written in Hebrew. Even when the original language was something else, the men God used to put down His words had an original language of Hebrew, and that was the language they thought of the scripture they read. No other language gives us the original thought of the scripture.

The KJV is a wonderful God inspired version, but it is a translation, using the language and thoughts that the translators had. They lived in a time that thought that persecuting Jews was fine. In Spain it was a government policy. We need to know this as we read that translation. As an example, the word Passover is translated as Easter. The word Torah is translated as law.

Well the easter passover is your example. Would you expand this? Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

Why don't you write in 17th Century English? If you are in favor of using a long-dead form of English, why not go for it 100%?

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.

 

[Grandpa]

According to your logic, you should be using the Coverdale version, not the KJV.

Your idea of the ease of reading the KJV is terribly biased and shockingly ignorant. The reading comprehension of the average person today is far less than it was in the previous four generations. The KJV is written in 16th-century English, not 21st-century English. You would hinder people from understanding instead of facilitating understanding.

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.

So really, I probably would prefer the Coverdale over the LSV and MEV. But I haven't read all three of them to find out.


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.