LSV and MEV are better than KJV.

[Dino246]

That's too funny my friend, you are engaging to a non-native English speaker and you don't understand it, exactly, what Paul says in the koine Greek is translated exactly in the KJV, but I do understand your dilemma. BTW, translation is not about the changing the word of God, it is an act of rendering into another language.

How can you possibly know that Paul's koine Greek is "translated exactly in the KJV" unless you are a technical expert in both koine Greek and 16th-century English? I doubt you are either.

Perhaps you are using "exactly" very loosely, or perhaps you are simply spouting empty assertions... or both.

 

[Dino246]

That's EXACTLY why the new versions are INFERIOR to the KJV.

WAY TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS BY "EDUCATED" PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE BIBLE FOR BETTER "UNDERSTANDING".

That's just your opinion, and not a sound reason at all. By the way, there's really no need to shout; it doesn't make your opinion more valid. The KJV translators were highly educated men, but they were a long way from omniscient.

The KJV is perfectly straightforward and easy to understand.

That's your experience, and not the experience of many. It has no value as objective truth.

What, in the text of what you have written, would cause you to think that the unicorn is an animal that never existed? Its obviously an animal that used to exist or an animal that does exist but the name of it has changed.

Just by the written text we can see that the unicorn was/is extremely powerful and follows its own will and can't be bridled.

It's a rhino: Rhinoceros unicornis. Educated people really can offer better understanding of some biblical words.

Why do you find this so difficult? It was written specifically to be easy to understand. There is absolutely no reason to re-translate it if you don't know what its talking about in the first place.

There is no reason to re-translate it anyway. Just go to the source languages and translate directly. Oh! It's been done already... in many versions.

 

[PennEd]

The Preface of the LSV says that they consulted the Septuagint for OT readings, But the Septuagint was corrupted right from the start, and there are some very significant differences from the Masoretic Text. This should be a serious concern.

As to literal translations (such as Young's, which follows the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts) the very fact that the idioms and language do not have the same construction in English means that they are only good Bible study tools. However the King James 2000 Bible has been updated and also maintains the idiomatic usage of the KJV.

Jesus mostly quoted from the Septuagint.

 

[jaybo]

The Holy Bible, Modern English Version

Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. All rights reserved.

The text of the Modern English Version (mev) may be quoted or reprinted without prior written permission with the following qualifications:

(1) up to and including 500 verses may be quoted in printed form as long as the verses quoted amount to less than 50 percent of a complete book of the Bible and make up less than 50 percent of the total work in which they are quoted;

(2) all MEV quotations must conform accurately to the MEV text.
Any use of the MEV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

However, when quotations from the MEV text are used in church bulletins, orders of service, Sunday school lessons, church newsletters, and similar works in the course of religious instruction or services at a place of worship or other religious assembly, the following notice may be used at the end of each quotation: mev.

For quotation requests not covered by the above guidelines, write to Passio, ATTN: Bible Rights and Permissions, 600 Rinehart Road, Lake Mary, FL 32746.

Am I understanding this wrong, because this is funny.

How can you have a copyright on the word of God, and have used by permission.

It is the word of God so you cannot have a copyright on it, and say use by permission when it is not your own work, but the words of God.

Am I missing something.

How can any translation do that for that is strange.

God gives us the words, Jesus said freely you have received freely give, all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and then someone puts a copyright on the Bible, and says use by permission.

And is this a law that must be done that they have to have a copyright, and if so how do they explain the limiting of the use of it in quotes, and say use by permission if it is the word of God.

Any use of the MEV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

How can they actually say that when it is not their work but the word of God, and who cares if they translated it to where people might understand it better it is still the same meaning.

This is something that to me is ridiculous.

Then you don't understand either translation or publication. Any English Bible is a translation of ancient texts; not two are alike. Modern translations are copyright protected so that others can't copy them and claim the copies are originals and profit from somebody else's work. Even old translations like the King James have additions such as footnotes and references that are added and therefore are protected, as are the style and formatting of the text of all printed Bibles.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Jesus mostly quoted from the Septuagint.

That is a commonly held but mistaken belief.

Why would Jesus -- who is God -- use a corrupted Greek Bible, when He was a Palestinian Jew who lived in Judea, where the traditional Hebrew Bible was used in the synagogues and privately?

After His resurrection the Risen Lord identified the true Hebrew Bible -- which He and His apostles used -- as consisting of (1) the Law of Moses (5 books), (2) the Prophets (8 books), and (3) the Psalms (11 books called "the Psalms" because the Psalms are the first book in this group) for a total of 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh (kindly study Luke 24). That automatically excluded the Septuagint which has 50 books. Also those 24 books are identical to the 39 books of our Protestant Old Testament, since they were split in the translations.

Furthermore, scholars familiar with both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) have clearly shown how and why it is corrupt. And I have personally compared the OT quotes in the NT with the LXX and found that 10% or less of those quotes actually match the LXX (which does not necessarily mean that they are from the LXX, since the Holy Spirit was quoting freely from the Scriptures when the divinely inspired NT writings were given). The quotations are generally from the Masoretic Text, which is as it should be.

The Septuagint was primarily created by and for Alexandrian Jews who had been strongly influenced by Greek philosophy and ideas. They did not hold to the same reverence of the Hebrew Bible as did the Palestinians. And the very fact that they incorporated the non-canonical and uninspired Apocrypha into the LXX proves that they had a very loose concept of inspiration.

 

[Dino246]

That is a commonly held but mistaken belief.

Why would Jesus -- who is God -- use a corrupted Greek Bible, when He was a Palestinian Jew who lived in Judea, where the traditional Hebrew Bible was used in the synagogues and privately?

After His resurrection the Risen Lord identified the true Hebrew Bible -- which He and His apostles used -- as consisting of (1) the Law of Moses (5 books), (2) the Prophets (8 books), and (3) the Psalms (11 books called "the Psalms" because the Psalms are the first book in this group) for a total of 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh (kindly study Luke 24). That automatically excluded the Septuagint which has 50 books. Also those 24 books are identical to the 39 books of our Protestant Old Testament, since they were split in the translations.

Furthermore, scholars familiar with both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) have clearly shown how and why it is corrupt. And I have personally compared the OT quotes in the NT with the LXX and found that 10% or less of those quotes actually match the LXX (which does not necessarily mean that they are from the LXX, since the Holy Spirit was quoting freely from the Scriptures when the divinely inspired NT writings were given). The quotations are generally from the Masoretic Text, which is as it should be.

The Septuagint was primarily created by and for Alexandrian Jews who had been strongly influenced by Greek philosophy and ideas. They did not hold to the same reverence of the Hebrew Bible as did the Palestinians. And the very fact that they incorporated the non-canonical and uninspired Apocrypha into the LXX proves that they had a very loose concept of inspiration.

Your argument is founded on rhetorical speculation. You have done nothing to prove that Jesus did not quote from the Septuagint. Rather, all you have done is made a statement of opinion (phrased as a statement of fact) and supported it with irrelevant evidence.

You may have some knowledge of historical facts, but you seem to have a poor understanding of logic.

 

[Blik]

There isn't one translation that can be depended on to give an accurate understanding of scripture. Hebrew does it best, for even scripture originally written in other languages refers to Hebrew scripture. Even Hebrew has changed over the years.

Think if the difference in the meaning of just one word: gay. If scripture told us a person was gay, it would not mean his sexual orientation. We need a good history and a good dictionary to understand any scripture.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

There isn't one translation that can be depended on to give an accurate understanding of scripture

I have faith in my translation.

Otherwise, what’s the point of all this.

 

[Dino246]

I have faith in my translation.

Otherwise, what’s the point of all this.

That's common among those who hold tight to the KJV. In contrast, I have faith in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

In contrast, I have faith in the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.

Amen!

But I found out about Him through his word.

 

[Dino246]

There isn't one translation that can be depended on to give an accurate understanding of scripture. Hebrew does it best, for even scripture originally written in other languages refers to Hebrew scripture. Even Hebrew has changed over the years.

Think if the difference in the meaning of just one word: gay. If scripture told us a person was gay, it would not mean his sexual orientation. We need a good history and a good dictionary to understand any scripture.

Where the Greek quotes a Hebrew passage, the Hebrew may provide helpful contextual understanding. However, you can't say the same for either Aramaic or the remainder of the NT which is not quotations or references to Hebrew scriptures.

 

[Dino246]

Amen!

But I found out about Him through his word.

So have millions of people... who did not use the KJV.

 

[Blik]

I have faith in my translation.

Otherwise, what’s the point of all this.

The point is to study, use all the smarts the Holy Spirit gives you, and stay open to the Lord's leading.

I know people who have read the entire bible several times without trying to understand what the Lord was teaching, and know little of the Lord.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

I know people who have read the entire bible several times without trying to understand what the Lord was teaching, and know little of the Lord.

Was that necessary?

Man, tough crowd.

 

[Blik]

Was that necessary?

Man, tough crowd.

Thanks for pointing this out. Christ told me not to judge people, Christ forgives I thank the Lord.

 

[jaybo]

There isn't one translation that can be depended on to give an accurate understanding of scripture. Hebrew does it best, for even scripture originally written in other languages refers to Hebrew scripture. Even Hebrew has changed over the years.

Think if the difference in the meaning of just one word: gay. If scripture told us a person was gay, it would not mean his sexual orientation. We need a good history and a good dictionary to understand any scripture.

??? "If scripture told us a person was gay, it would not mean his sexual orientation" ??? A good modern translation would never use this type of confusing wording.

 

[Blik]

??? "If scripture told us a person was gay, it would not mean his sexual orientation" ??? A good modern translation would never use this type of confusing wording.

This is a discussion about translations not about sex. Please get on board. The point is that words change meaning at different times, it is an illustration about a word that changed meaning.

 

[jaybo]

This is a discussion about translations not about sex. Please get on board. The point is that words change meaning at different times, it is an illustration about a word that changed meaning.

What is it about my post that said "??? "If scripture told us a person was gay, it would not mean his sexual orientation" ??? A good modern translation would never use this type of confusing wording" that you didn't understand?

 

[Grandpa]

It's a rhino: Rhinoceros unicornis. Educated people really can offer better understanding of some biblical words.

Yes. More than likely its a rhino.

An animal that exists, or that its name has changed.

 

[Truth7t7]

I like and only recommend literal Bibles based on Textus Receptus or Majoritarian Text.
LSV (Literal Standard Version) is a Bible based on YLT (Young's Literal Translation), LSV was published in 2020, as an update to YLT that is from 1898, LSV is extremely literal, the order of the words in the verses are based on the order of the words in Hebrew and Greek, but it is an excellent Bible for you to study. (LSV is my favorite)
MEV (Modern English Version) is practically an updated KJV, MEV was published in 2015, it is a little more literal than KJV, but in certain points it tries to "fix" the Bible as using terms according to modern logic and not the point of view of the ancient world (use of the term "epileptics" instead of "lunatick", "lunatick" is more similar to the original Greek "seleniazomai", etc.), MEV is an excellent alternative to KJV, in fact I believe that KJV should be replaced by MEV, because MEV is better, more literal, and in today English.
I do not recommend paraphrase or Critical Text based bibles.
I also recommend that you have a paper bible, because nowadays, we don't know what can happen, Christians can be tracked by governaments, and, electronic devices can fail, break, need battery charge, etc.
You will need to have a paper Bible, its more secure.

The time honored KJV, 409 years and going strong!