Chinese KJV equivalent

John V., I'll be able to ask him this weekend and get back to you on Monday.
That way I can confirm the written language question and see if I'm right on that too.
Definitely not a stupid person, he also speaks some Spanish. Have you ever heard someone with a Chinese accent speak Spanish? It's almost as funny as hearing people from Hong Kong speak the Queen's English!
No sister, sorry. I've always thought he's make a cute girl though. Beautiful hair, good complexion, etc..
Gina

 

Maybe there is a dynamic equivalent to the KJV???

I am sorry, I know that you posted a serious question... I just couldn´t help it
I don´t know if there is. But I believe there must be a TR-translation in China. Before the so called "corrupt manuscripts" were discovered, every translator used the MT and the TR.

God bless!

Alex

 

Why would anyone want to waste the time and effort to translate the KJV into Chinese, an undertaking which would no doubt result in a Bible completely inferior to the few solid Chinese Bibles already available?

 

Nothing else to do? Any lost folks in your world?
I don't think you are interested in the question or the answer just the need to spout off.

 

Do you say anything is lacking in the Authorized King James Version Bible?

Original Language

The Bible tells us, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The King James Version is Scripture, given by inspiration of God. That settles the matter for me.

The King James Version is original language, nothing lacking. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Am I saying the Authorized King James Version is not a translation? Of course not. But as inspired Scripture, it is God breathed, and is no less Scripture now than when first received by the holy men of God in olden time. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The King James version is the holy Bible, wholly Scripture given by inspiration of God. Quote that precious Bible and with boldness and full integrity you can proclaim, Thus saith the LORD...

We have the comfort of the Scriptures and are to grow thereby.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Again I'll say, I receive the King James Version as the very word of God, and not simply a translation that contains some of the words that God would have in the Bible. For that reason I see no reason for not referring to the KJV while making a new version for a different language. I see a problem with referring solely on some other so called "original languages" and would wonder at that. Which original language sources, and which lexicon sources would be used, and would there be concern if the new version were different in meanings, doctrines and theology than the KJV? I would hope that would be a concern.

God can speak in any language. In the English language versions, there are contradictory readings discovered. I do not believe the contradictory readings are each the word of God. The King James Version, I believe, is not simply a version that contains along with other words, words of God, but is instead fully true, and fully complete, inspired Scripture. If a version is made in another language, and it would have contradictions to the King James Bible I find no reason for approving the contradictory meanings, doctrines and theology. With that, I find no reason for not using the King James Version as a source while compiling a foreign language version.

It is the text that is given by inspiration of God, i.e., Scripture given by inspiration of God. The apostle Paul was used to give us some plain words to point that the word of God is in fact the word of God, and not the works of men:

KJV 1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Myself, I have to wonder if many are not simply seeing and hearing words they imagine are the workings of men, rather than as it is in truth, the word of God. Sometimes there are so many notions layered on to explain what men did, and how they are thought to have given the words, that I wonder if some actually have the word of God effectually working in them. Their heads seem the whole of the matter as they explain the layers between them and the word of God, and some of the arguments are convincing, but when the dust settles, what matters is that the word of God which ye heard, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

... the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God

God's word! Amen!

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Are you able to read original languages? How can you know the King James Version is correct, nothing lacking, or nothing added, if you cannot read the original language? Have you been introduced to this method of justifying the contradictions in MVs? You probably have. But if you are able to read so called “original language” what do you have to validate that? There are contradictions in “original language” sources. By contradictions, I mean the differences in meanings that are shown between the many versions. Some have recently sent me email asking about my ability with "original" languages. Not knowing the motivation of the ones recently sending the email asking about original language, I do know that expressing dependence on "original" language is a method used previous by some to validate conflicting readings among various versions. Some, in my estimation, seem to have just recently discovered this method and are showing vigor to advance what is to them a new way to validate the conflicting readings of the conflicting English versions.

The King James Version is a translation, that is admitted, but we have more than a simple translation. In practical terms, I conclude the King James Version is "original" language. By that, I mean there is not a valid way, no proven source to use that conclusively validates changes to the readings of the King James Version, based on different "translation" techniques.

The contradictions between MVs and the KJV are being explained away, said to mean the same thing by some even when they clearly show themselves to be different, because the promoters of the contradictions look to another source, as if the King James Version was not wholly complete and wholly true. To say the KJV is not wholly complete and wholly true allows changes to be made based on nuances found from any of various lexicons or other sources.

With an imperfect copy, and that is what our Bible is being referred to as, there is no absolute, so when changes are made, changes that are evident in the English readings, those changes are justified, validated, explained away, by advancing the notion our Bible is an imperfect copy, non-original, but instead a faulty translation. Again I say, we have a translation, that is admitted, but we have more than a simple translation. The word of God is living, and does not change. While we don't have the actual copy as first penned, we have the original words. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Does every language and every place have a wholly true and wholly complete Bible? No, for there are contradictions between various versions, but the voice is heard, by those with ears to hear it. Therefore it is readily admitted to me those of non-English speaking language, and those never having seen a King James Version or have not heard the King James Version have nevertheless heard the words of God. Contradictions to the readings of the King James version are not the word of God, however. God's word does not change.

If you say something is lacking in the Authorized King James Version Bible, what is lacking? What proof do you have?

Bob Krajcik

 

A King James Bible translated into Chinese is, by definition, not a King James Bible. The point is moot.

 

My point is, what if someone like me went to a pocket of people that had no Bible in their dialect. I cannot read nor write Hebrew or Greek, therefore, my obvious course of action would be to translate the Word of God from a version written in a language that I could read and write.

In doing so, I am not elevating the version in my native language above the originals, I am merely using the Word of God available to me to produce the Word of God and make it available to the people to whom I am trying to reach with the Gospel.

Who's to say that is not the case for the first English Missionary to China?

 

I'm not sure if this ties in or not Brian, but here is a quote from the Biography of James Hudson Taylor pg. 14

 

Yes I too am new to this board as far as posting a reply but I have read them for a while.I noticed the same flavor on most of the threads.Someone going off on their hobby horse even unrelated to the topic.Makes you wonder what "spirit" it is being done in.

 

btw, anyone of you a Chinese?

I guess the question is best left answered by me a chinese then.

First of all, i want to clarify that the univeral language spoken by Chinese is called Manadrin, though not all chinese can speak it. This is becos we came from different dialect groups, Cantonese, Hokkien, Hakka, TeoChew, Hainanese... Before the 1950s, my parents generation, evey child MUST know how to speak their dialect FIRST, else the child will be frown upon as having no cultural roots. It is also liken to a chicken talking to a duck when a Cantonese want to communicate with a Hokkien. Some words are just taboo to their dialect. With Mandarin, we can be more certain of the ideas and meaning being conveyed.

Secondly, i want to talk about the chinese characters themselves. In my generation, we are finding chinese characters too complicated to write. So some smart alec came up with a simplified characters to replace the more complex ones. You will realise this when open the menu ->view->encoding->
you will find that there are chinese traditional and simplified.

So what am i driving at?

The words when translated are meant for the majority of people speaking Mandarin now. If we read it in the Cantonese or Hokkien dialect way, it would have lost its punch though the general idea is there. Right now, there is no such a Bible as a word for word translation like the KJV. It probably makes no sense at all as chinese language does not adhere to english language grammatical structure.

In fact, I believe that God has endorsed his Word within the traditional characters themselves. don't understand? This is becos traditional chinese characters are actually picture words. They tell a story.

2 words that i remember vividly:
the word for devil alone, actually tells the story of the garden of eden.
the word for righteousness, pictures a person with the lamb as the head.

i don't know if you can see the connections. It is better if you have a chinese friend to explain to you what i mean.

But with simplified chinese characters, all these essence are lost. It is as if that in the English Language, the words are abbrevated.

In conclusion, Praise God when he said that He will preserve his word. He did it in the traditional chinese characters. So if i were to looked for a chinese KJV equivalent, it has to be the traditional text format.

 

Here's some more versions you may want to investigate:

High Wenli:
Morrison & Milne Version, 1823
Delegates' Version, 1922
Union Version (already mentioned), 1925

Easy Wenli:
ABS's (Schereschewsky), 1902

Kuoyü:
Chu Yin Phonetic, 1921
Chinese Character, 1947,
Mixed Chinese & Phonetic, 1924
ABS's (Schereschewsky), 1878 (the "standard" until the Union Version was published)
China Bible House's 1941 Union Version redone in Chinese Character with Yin phonetics

Cantonese:
Chinese Character, 1939

I have a list containing more Bibles in about 2 dozen other dialects if you are interested in more.

 

u misunderstand me completely. my point was simple: similar in what sense?

there's no point in arguing anything else if u haven't defined how similar a Chinese version u're looking for is to the KJB (as the 3 pages of postings n ur present complaint have shown). the points i listed were examples of similarity--kinda like multiple choice answers to jog ur mind.

so, back to the question--can u clarify in what sense of similarity is this Chinese KJB u're looking for? i might be able to help u once u've crafted ur definition, based on my rudimentary knowledge of the Chinese Bible.

 

"More people can speak English than any other single language of the world except Chinese... [English] also serves as a second language for many other people whose native tongue IS not English....Even foreign language scholars admit that English is the STRONGEST language spoken.... The above facts may well help us to understand why that God in His Divine providence gave us the KJV, says E. L. Bynum.

http://www.llano.net/baptist/kjvfans.htm

Just as the English language KJV is met with criticism, with multitudes of conflicting revisionist versions published in English to replace it, and the foundation, so it appears there is also difficulty with a Chinese Bible following the true lineage of the KJV, as a different foundation is being proposed for that.

I have been making inquiry various places about a Chinese Bible, equivalent to the KJV. If I find an answer, I will post it here.

In Christ,
Bob Krajcik

 

Praise God, i din know i will succeed in typing chinese here. Maybe i can explain better in my next post.
我也是在学习 chinese simplified
我也是在學習 chinese traditional

you will realise that for some words, there are less strokes.

[ December 22, 2002, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: ventin ]