Here we go
Romeo oh Romeo wherefore art though Romeo. Or
Hey Romeo where your bald head is, you no this trash got to go, so get in here for I put 5 cross your lip, thinking you some romeo. If you was romeo then where my Rolls royce. I knew mama was right old, bald head pig farmer.
Oh for goodness sake. If we were to ignore the fact that Shakespeare is in fact written in Modern English, and is in many respects already the same as what we read today,
if were were to ignore the fact that large portions of Shakespeare of which were written with particular cadences and poetic meter in mind, the removal of which directly impacts on the literary value of the text,
and also to ignore that Shakespeare is theatre, while the Bible is about saving souls (out of curiosity, you have read the entirety of the Shakespearean canon, yes? If not, why not?),
and ignoring the fact that the Shakespeare you would have read in school would have been altered (albeit in minor ways, i.e punctuation for readability) when compared to the originals,
and ignoring the fact that KJV translators deliberately used more archaic forms (particularly thou in deference to Tyndale's earlier work - Shakespeare, a contemporary of the KJV period, uses thou and the increasingly common and more polite form, you), even though many of those forms were dying out by the end 17th century,
even if I ignore the facile analogy you propose (no one is at all proposing we should insert Rolls Royces into the biblical text!),
it is still an incredible straw man, and also has a deep logical impact on your argument.
If we were to follow your logic to its sensible conclusion, because we MUST and SHOULD study Shakespeare only in the specific language and terms in which he wrote his plays and poetry, we therefore MUST and SHOULD only read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Luther, Wycliffe, Cranmer, Tyndale, not to mention King James, would all be rolling in their graves at the thought. I sure hope you know the difference between aorist and perfect tenses.
And at the risk of repeating myself, so it is clear to everyone else reading...
Just saying be careful. these writers do not have your interest at heart, just your dollar and nothing else. Sorry thats the way it is. like it or not. So read the new idiot version while the investors laugh their way to the bank.
Kerry, you have repeatedly stated this, but a) have not offered any proof for the assertion that the people who worked on the NIV translation are all money grubbing satanists and b) you have not offered any proof that this has impacted on the translation (i.e. that the NIV is demonstrably inferior to the KJV in terms of an understanble and sufficient rendering of the text). Your assertions are merely that, unless you actually want to prove what you have rather roughly alleged.
Plenty of people have already offered various textual arguments in support of why, purely at the MSS critical level, the NIV has some points over the KJV. I suggest you refer to them, and offer a reasoned argument as to why they should be considered wrong, if you can.
