Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, the English are British, but so then are the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish. The key is 1611 is before the Act of Union. Scotland and England were only in a personnel union. With James being IV of Scotland and I of England. So, the AV 1611 was not written in British English.
That is because universalism is corrupt, as in ". . . the one who believes has eternal life. . . ." NET Bible. Unspecified belief is universalism.
In universalism it dose not matter what one believes.
The American form of English is more internationally appreciated than the British form.
Maybe now. But in the days of the Brittish empire.....
Yes, but we "improved" it!English is from England, not America!
Care to give some examples of your claims?
Very strange that the inspired and perfect Translation had so many variants and conjectures within even the finished product!
Thought that the Holy Spirit would know what to give them exactly to translate, as He authored the Originals!
Do not think any of the translators on either version were into Universalism!
I would just add a little comment here, that it's fairly common in my community to hear archaic things and sometimes our speech fits more with the KJV than other areas of the U.S. So it's not totally archaic throughout the U.S, although even here it's 'mostly' archaic.
(I added the correction you mentioned into the quote here in red, just so you/others don't think I misquoted you
My complaint against most of the modern translations isn't necessarily that the meaning of a passage is going to be radically changed, so much as it's going to be watered down.
For example, I prefer the word "Conversation" in the KJV to the word "Conduct" in the NIV in 1 Timothy 4:12. "Conversation" has an all-pervasive kind of definition whereas conduct seems limited to a "behavior" definition. The ESV and NKJV also use conduct in this verse, but are overall more precise than the NIV when I read them.
In other words, older English was much more expressive and precise whereas newer English is less expressive, and less precise. I have this exact same issue with modern Christian music where the current mainstream English dialect often falls short of precision.
There's also the issue of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the KJV vs NIV. The KJV is quite clear on the list of sin there. The NIV groups it all up as "immoral". For obvious reasons I'm not going to discuss this in too much depth, but there are other verses in scripture where such behavior is explicitly mentioned and castigated in the KJV whereas the NIV does not seem to take as much of a hardline stance.
In some cases yes. I am fine with him denouncing the gender neutral versions and any other liberal versions. I am fine with him denouncing the Message Bible as well, or Roman Catholic Bible versions. I am fine with him denouncing the NIV for the lack of precision.
I would not be ok with him denouncing other versions that I would rate as "more solid" such as NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc.
