Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

[Friend of God]

Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation, OR from another translation to the KJV?

What was the result?

What version did you switch to/from?

What was your purpose in switching?

I started out with the NIV, then switched to the NASB, and then the NKJV, and then finally switched to the KJV. I wanted a translation more literal then the NIV, the NIV was like reading a newspaper to me; so I went to the NASB and the NKJV but didn't like the way they read [particularly the NKJV]; I ended up with the KJV because I like the literal translation and the beauty of the language.

 

[Baptist4life]

"I ended up with the KJV because I like the literal translation and the beauty of the language." :thumbsup:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I went from KJV to RV1960 to ESV as my primary Bible.

But I use many different ones in my study. I make a habit of reading through a different version each year. This year it is the NIV- and I will be glad when I am done. Although there isn't anything "wrong" with it, it's just not my kind of translation.

Like you, I ended up with the ESV because of the (essentially) literal translation and the beauty of the language.

 

[Rippon]

Like you, I ended up with the ESV because of the (essentially) literal translation and the beauty of the language.

The ESV is not "essentially literal" despite the marketing claims. It is marginally more "literal" than the TNIV.

"The beauty of the language"?! Every time I hear or read that I scratch my head in wonder. Do the ESV-proponents actually read their own translation? It does not employ beautiful English. It uses awkward, dated and ungrammatical language.

I arbitrarily opened my ESV to the book of Ezekiel. Here are some choice gems. (Sometimes only a phrase will be cited instead of a whole verse.)

1:28 : Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain

3:19 : you will have delivered your soul

4:16 : They shall eat bread by weight and with anxiety, and they shall drink water by measure and in dismay.

6:9 : I have been broken over their whoring heart that has departed from me and over their eyes that go whoring after their idols.

[ Why use the singular "heart" and yet use "eyes" in the same passage? The TNIV rendering makes better sense. : how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts, which have turned away from me, and by their eyes, which have lusted after their idols.]

7:15 : The sword is without;

 

[Olivencia]

1992-1993 KJVOnly
1994-2008 NASB
2008 NKJV (about 1 week)
2008 - Present KJV (but not KJVOnly)

The beauty of the language? Yes....me too.

I also prefer to read all the Thee's, Thou's and Thy's.

 

[Rippon]

Continuing In Exekiel (ESV)

10:13 : they were called in my hearing

16:16 : The like has never been, nor ever shall be.

17:21 : And all the pick of his troops
[TNIV : All his choice troops]

20:31 : I will not be inquired of by you.
[TNIV : I will not let you inquire of me.]

22:15 : I will consume your uncleanness out of you.
[TNIV : I will put an end to your uncleanness.]

25:15 : took malice of soul to destroy in never-ending enmity
[TNIV : took revenge with malice in their hearts, and with ancient hostility ]

27:35 : the hair of their kings bristles with horror
[Since the word "kings" is plural the ESV should have used "bristle". But the translation could be rendered like the TNIV : their kings shuder with horror]

34:22 : And I will judge between sheep and sheep

[TNIV : I will judge between one sheep and another.]

35:13 : And you magnified yourselves against me with your mouth, and multipled your words against me

[ "Yourselves" is used but instead of saying "mouths" the singular is used -- why? Here is the TNIV wording : You boasted against me and spoke against me without restraint]

38:8 : After many days you will be mustered.

[ That sounds humorous -- "You'll be mustard" is how a kid might understand that. If Lot's wife turned into salt I guess ...
Here is the TNIV wording : After many days you will be called to arms.]

 

[Rippon]

I also prefer to read all the Thee's, Thou's and Thy's.

Do you appreciate :

cleanseth
cleaveth
didst
surfeiting
tempteth
washest
wearieth
wentest
wroughtest

? I haven't encountered many KJV advocates who can properly pronounce these and many other antiquated word forms.

And in 1611 'hath" was spoken as "has" despite the spelling.

 

[Olivencia]

Yes I appreciate all of them.

 

[Rippon]

Yes I appreciate all of them.

Do you also appreciate the modern forms of those words which people have used now for more than 200 years?

Should a Bible of any language be understood by the average person -- in other words the equivalent of the ploughboy of Tyndale's time? Or do you think very antiquated phraseology is better?

 

[Mexdeaf]

The ESV is not "essentially literal" despite the marketing claims. It is marginally more "literal" than the TNIV.

"The beauty of the language"?! Every time I hear or read that I scratch my head in wonder. Do the ESV-proponents actually read their own translation? It does not employ beautiful English. It uses awkward, dated and ungrammatical language.

I arbitrarily opened my ESV to the book of Ezekiel. Here are some choice gems. (Sometimes only a phrase will be cited instead of a whole verse.)

1:28 : Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain

3:19 : you will have delivered your soul

4:16 : They shall eat bread by weight and with anxiety, and they shall drink water by measure and in dismay.

6:9 : I have been broken over their whoring heart that has departed from me and over their eyes that go whoring after their idols.

[ Why use the singular "heart" and yet use "eyes" in the same passage? The TNIV rendering makes better sense. : how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts, which have turned away from me, and by their eyes, which have lusted after their idols.]

7:15 : The sword is without;

Let's just agree to disagree on this, ok? You keep beating the horse and it's not getting up regardless.

 

[Olivencia]

Do you also appreciate the modern forms of those words which people have used now for more than 200 years?

--> Yes.

Should a Bible of any language be understood by the average person -- in other words the equivalent of the ploughboy of Tyndale's time? Or do you think very antiquated phraseology is better?


--> If people want to read other versions than the KJV that is fine. As I pointed out earlier in this thread I used to be KJVOnly. Not anymore. It's just a version that I prefer to use myself. If others don't want to and and instead want to read another version I ain't gonna throw a hissy fit about it.

 

[go2church]

Yes, switched to NIV, used ESV for a while, now use the TNIV.
It prefer the combination of modern language and accuracy, I get both with the TNIV. That and I like not using the phrase "What that word means is..." or "Oh, that includes you to ladies".

 

[Amy.G]

When people say "this version is more accurate", what exactly does that mean? How do you know it's more accurate? Unless you're fluent in Greek and Hebrew and have access to the actual texts, how can you say "it's more accurate"? And, more accurate than what?

 

[Mexdeaf]

When people say "this version is more accurate", what exactly does that mean? How do you know it's more accurate? Unless you're fluent in Greek and Hebrew and have access to the actual texts, how can you say "it's more accurate"? And, more accurate than what?

Awww, come on- let's not turn this into another "my version can beat up your version" thread!!

 

[Amy.G]

Awww, come on- let's not turn this into another "my versions can beat up your version" thread!!

Why not?

Girls just wanna have fun! :laugh:

 

[go2church]

To the text in which the translation was made. It is as much a comment on the underlying texts as it is to the actual translation. It's possible to have good texts and a bad translation or a good translation based on inferior texts. The TNIV is a good translation based on good text. The KJV is an ok translation based on inferior texts. This is of course is my opinion, but it is shared by most scholars today. There are a few scholars that would disagree with me, but hey, they have the right to wrong if they want!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Awww, come on- let's not turn this into another "my versions can beat up your version" thread!!

Too late, Mexdeaf. Too late.

 

[Amy.G]

To the text in which the translation was made. It is as much a comment on the underlying texts as it is to the actual translation. It's possible to have good texts and a bad translation or a good translation based on inferior texts. The TNIV is a good translation based on good text. The KJV is an ok translation based on inferior texts. This is of course is my opinion, but it is shared by most scholars today. There are a few scholars that would disagree with me, but hey, they have the right to wrong if they want!:smilewinkgrin:

That's just it. It's your opinion. How do you verify this? Do you read Greek and Hebrew? If not, you have to rely on the opinion of someone else.

You said the KJV is based on inferior texts, yet from what I understand there is only about a 2% difference in the texts underlying the KJV and modern versions. That doesn't sound inferior to me. How do you prove one version is superior over another?

Doesn't it all boil down to a matter of faith?

 

[go2church]

If it is a 2% difference that would make it more of difference then the DNA between a chimp and a human. Sure 2% doesn't sound like a lot but....

Reading Greek and Hebrew isn't the issue really because we don't have the originals, even in translation we are dealing with a family of texts. Faith that the texts are reliable to the original yes, faith that inferior texts are not inferior because you believe they aren't seems to fall short of what faith actually is. There is a whole field of study called Textual Criticism that deals with the issues you raise. By comparison they are able to produce for us a text from which to translation that is completely reliable.

Also, even if you read Greek and Hebrew a translation done by one person is not considered as reliable as a translation done by a group of translators. So even the folks who know Greek and Hebrew have to rely on someone else. There are no Lone Rangers when it comes to translation.

Jesus wants us to use the brains he created us with and creating a doctrine like the KJV only disaster and calling it faith isn't using our brains to their full potential.

 

[Tater77]

1983-2006 KJV - Oxford Press Edition
2006-present NASB 95
Also:
All the translations and manuscript scans I can get my hands on.

I grew up with the KJV but I made the switch later on once my wife bought her an NASB. I started reading it and really took to it. Then bought my own. After that I have been collecting Bibles whenever I can afford to get more.