Yep. And nobody has trouble understanding "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."
-
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!
Face Off Between The KJV And NIV
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Amen! Also would add the NKJV for those who have problems with using the Critica lGreek text!
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
As TC pointed out, I was speaking of only that verse.
I grew up KJVO, and have only attended churches that were KJVO. However, while my position (and that of the churches I attend) has not changed, the connotation of KJVO has changed over the years (thanks to Ruckmanites). By the current usage, I am KJVP.
I only use the KJV. Based on the (limited) research I've done, I believe it to be the best translation currently. However, I do not bash the other versions, and I do not belittle those who use them. My main issue with other versions is that I simply see them as completely unnecessary.
It is my belief (not backed up by any studies) that a person who claims to not be able to understand the KJV will not understand other versions either, as it is God who guides us into understanding. I see the difficult word usage of the KJV as an excuse, not a problem.
But, like I said, this is my opinion. Others see things differently. Also, FWIW, I've preached out of the ESV before. It was in a military chapel, and it's what was in the chairs provided for people. So I preached out of it.
Edited to recorrect my phone's autocorrect.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
Not trying to give you are hard time, but the KJV also uses dynamic equivalence.
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
I don't think he has ever claimed the KJV is most accurate. In fact quite the opposite.
It might be a good idea to go back and read the entire thread.
TC, While I appreciate your comments, I have read the entire thread. It seems I may have misunderstood it.
My parents are KJVO and it has brought nothing but pain to the rest of is.
God Bless
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
I have no issue with anyone who uses the KJV. My only issue is with wild statements made by SOME KJVO's. I never bash other translations either.
Rod Decker on the NIV, NET and HCSB being balanced translations:
"Certainly none of them deserve to be 'tarred' as functional equivalence or classified with legitimate examples of such (e.g. GNB, CEV, Phillips.)."
Regarding the 1984 NIV (it it may fairly be said of the 2011 version)
"The NIV has attempted to steer a middle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrases of Phillips, the NEB and Taylor on the other. Loyalty to the text has been defined in terms of a compromise between the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literalness...." (Jack Lewis)
"A reader familiar with the KJV will feel at home with the NIV." (p.756)
"Hostile commentators with electron microscopes detected in NIV a theological tincture invisible to the naked eye, but in fact there is little in NIV to frighten the horses." (p.757)
The Bible In English by David Daniell
"Hostile commentators with electron microscopes detected in NIV a theological tincture invisible to the naked eye, but in fact there is little in NIV to frighten the horses." (p.757)
The Bible In English by David Daniell
"The modern KJV is a mutated version of a 17th century text with partially modernized spelling, punctuation and presentation. Some of the mutations are necessary corrections of errors of negligence in the original, some of them are deliberate changes made in good faith to improve the text according to the judgment of many successive individuals, individuals who often worked anonymously and even more often left no account of their work. Many of those changes do not stand up to critical examination, and the spelling, punctuation and presentation are all in acute need of further modernization." A Textual History of the King James Bible by David Norton, pages 126,127
"The style of this translation is in general so enthusiastically praised that no one is permitted either to qualify or even explain the grounds of his approbation. It is held to be the perfection of our English language."
"It abounds, in fact, especially in the Old Testament, with obsolete phraseology, and with single words long since abandoned, or retained only in provincial use."
Henry Hallam 1777-1859
"It abounds, in fact, especially in the Old Testament, with obsolete phraseology, and with single words long since abandoned, or retained only in provincial use."
Henry Hallam 1777-1859
Micah 1:11
KJV : "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, having thy shame naked : the inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in the mourning of Beth-ezel; he shall receive of you hi standing."
NIV : "Pass by naked and in shame,
you who live in Shaphir.
Those who live in Zaanan
will not come out.
Beth Ezel is in mourning;
it no longer protects you."
KJV : "Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, having thy shame naked : the inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in the mourning of Beth-ezel; he shall receive of you hi standing."
NIV : "Pass by naked and in shame,
you who live in Shaphir.
Those who live in Zaanan
will not come out.
Beth Ezel is in mourning;
it no longer protects you."
Yep. An nobody has trouble understanding "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; it yearns me not if men my garments wear; such outward things dwell not in my desires.
From Henry the Fifth. Act 4
You a CT guy....you think a TR based translation is more accurate to the orginal autographs????
...just messin' with ya
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Science
..and the Science is settled.
*I base this on no actual scientific evidence....i just heard of you say the Science is settled you are automatically right
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
True, as all versions, even the Nas does at times, but the truth is still that formal translated versions do it to a much lesser extent!
i am NOT KJVO, as totally against that position!
Yes, if compared to a DE translation!You a CT guy....you think a TR based translation is more accurate to the orginal autographs????
...just messin' with ya
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Both the Esv and the CSB do that better though!
"Even translations that claim to be essentially literal constantly modify Hebrew and Greek forms to express the meaning of a text."
"So whiled formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence...their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning."
Both quotes are from page 28 of How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.
"Further, it's not just personal pronouns but word order, articles, direct objects, subjects, verbs, and a host of other things that may be missing in the originals but are needed in the translation.
Finally, just about any Greek and Hebrew sentence in the Bible cannot be literally translated." Daniel Wallace
Finally, just about any Greek and Hebrew sentence in the Bible cannot be literally translated." Daniel Wallace
- Status