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!
God's Word is not equal to an early 17th century translation alone.and Pieper was saying very valid,reasonable things about the KJ Version.
You really need to calm down. You need to get a grip and read more about issues before going on your own slashn'burn routine. You are bring up things that are not only false but very dishonoring. Go start a thread somewhere else. Don't dirty the carpets here.
Why does everybody want to "dumb down" the Bible? Sure, there are archaic words, but if a person is serious about learning the scriptures they will study. There are many resources available today at the touch of a mouse.
Was the KJV a dumb-down of the Wycliffe New Testament?
If you don't think the Textus Receptus is an accurate representation of God's word, why not? And do you have an opinion about what might be considered an accurate representation of God's word today?
By the way, I'm sorry for burning your carpet. I never know who might get their feelings hurt when I post my own opinions.
I think that if anything could turn me into a KJV-onlyist, it will be threads like this. Why on earth would I listen to a German telling me what English is difficult and what isn't? Let him worry about German translations!The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931). He was a Lutheran scholar. He was raised in Germany and then became an American later in life.
"You cannot read a single page,even a single column in the King James Version...without bumping up against words and phrases that are unenglish,artificial,unclear,and difficult. The shortcomings of the English Bible are primarily two. For the most part,it translates the idioms and expressions of the original languages too literally,often literalistically,and this makes it difficult,if not incomprehensible,for the reader. And secondly,the English Bible too often lacks the vitality,the freshness and power of the original Hebrew and Greek."
Pieper goes on to say that "words and expressions no longer in common use (cf.the jaw-breaker 'but nourisheth and cherisheth it,' Eph.5) The English pastor preaches in a language different from his Bible."
No one here ever said that the TR is bad, just that some of us hold that the CT is better to base a translation of grom...
We have NO problem with KJV as seen as a good version, nor if one prefers to use it...
problem is with TR ONLY Greek text, or KJV ONLY version for today!
I think that if anything could turn me into a KJV-onlyist, it will be threads like this. Why on earth would I listen to a German telling me what English is difficult and what isn't? Let him worry about German translations!
I would sooner listen to Jonathan Swift:I am persuaded that the Translators of the Bible were Masters of an EnglishStyle much fitter for that Work, than any we see in our present writingsm [sic]with I take to be owing to the Simpilicity that runs through the whole.'
I much prefer to deal with the occasional language difficulties of the KJV
The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931). He was a Lutheran scholar. He was raised in Germany and then became an American later in life.
"You cannot read a single page,even a single column in the King James Version...without bumping up against words and phrases that are unenglish,artificial,unclear,and difficult. The shortcomings of the English Bible are primarily two. For the most part,it translates the idioms and expressions of the original languages too literally,often literalistically,and this makes it difficult,if not incomprehensible,for the reader. And secondly,the English Bible too often lacks the vitality,the freshness and power of the original Hebrew and Greek."
Pieper goes on to say that "words and expressions no longer in common use (cf.the jaw-breaker 'but nourisheth and cherisheth it,' Eph.5) The English pastor preaches in a language different from his Bible."
Well, I am sure I can find someone who will say the same thing about the NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, CEV, Amplified, etc.
Only in a more limited manner could the same thing be applied to the ESV,NASB,NKJV. It would not nearly apply to the NIV,certainly not the CEV.The Amplified is a whole nother critter.
I know you do not like it, and you're entitled to your opinion.
But, as for me, it's the best one out there!... give me the KJV anytime.
I think Tyndale deserves more credit for all his groundwork. He has been shortchanged in all the hoopla regarding the 1611. His final edition and the Geneva are better.
It took a while for the KJV to take hold. Some estimates are almost 60 years. It solidified its place by the mid-18th century. On the other hand,the NIV has been # 1 almost from the start --some 30-odd years ago.
The so-called KJV is not in my top 20. But it is still serviceable. It's only reasonable that in this day and age many other translations would be considered to be superior to the Anglican version.
I won't have to give it to you --you already have it.:laugh:
To be fair, the original Living Bible sold in the millions during the time...
Would say it was due to a combo of being much easier to read/understand for new bible readers, being pretty accurate to the originals, and to having Zodervan publishing behind it, as it got into schools and churches for Sunday school curriculums!
What in the world are you talking about JF? I was speaking of William Tyndale and the KJV,and then you started talking about the old Living Bible. You quoted my whole post while ignoring the contents.
was just saying that just as the NIV outsold the KJV, so did the original LB for awhile...
Didn't mean was better than KJV, but outsold it due to some of the reasons that allowed for the NIV to do same thing!
The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931). He was a Lutheran scholar. He was raised in Germany and then became an American later in life.
"You cannot read a single page,even a single column in the King James Version...without bumping up against words and phrases that are unenglish,artificial,unclear,and difficult. The shortcomings of the English Bible are primarily two. For the most part,it translates the idioms and expressions of the original languages too literally,often literalistically,and this makes it difficult,if not incomprehensible,for the reader. And secondly,the English Bible too often lacks the vitality,the freshness and power of the original Hebrew and Greek."
Pieper goes on to say that "words and expressions no longer in common use (cf.the jaw-breaker 'but nourisheth and cherisheth it,' Eph.5) The English pastor preaches in a language different from his Bible."
Well, the KJV has withstood the test of time, being 400 yrs old. I know you do not like it, and you're entitled to your opinion. But, as for me, it's the best one out there! And yes, I have an ESV and the Hebrew/Greek Interlinear 4 volume set by Jay Green. These are both very good reads, but give me the KJV anytime.