Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?

[Villager]

it's influence on English speaking peoples can't be denied

Indeed. It deprived them of a much better Bible for four hundred years. James has had a very, very sinister and malign effect on the world, particularly British society, and not just through the 'Bible' now named after him. Don't stand near him on judgment day.

I certainly wouldn't deny its literary effect!

But are you a literary expert? Or do you just copy what others, who so often have no interest whatever in Christianity, who so often (like Dawkins) have a vested interest in suppressing Christian faith, say and write? Beware false prophets.

You really should be angry with Tyndale

I can't imagine why I should. Tyndale was murdered in 1536, when English was significantly less developed than it was in James' day. In some instances, the KJV 'translators' actually made a more old-fashioned version even than Tyndale's.

 

[Protester]

Indeed. It deprived them of a much better Bible for four hundred years. James has had a very, very sinister and malign effect on the world, particularly British society, and not just through the 'Bible' now named after him. Don't stand near him on judgment day.

But are you a literary expert? Or do you just copy what others, who so often have no interest whatever in Christianity, who so often (like Dawkins) have a vested interest in suppressing Christian faith, say and write? Beware false prophets.

I can't imagine why I should. Tyndale was murdered in 1536, when English was significantly less developed than it was in James' day. In some instances, the KJV 'translators' actually made a more old-fashioned version even than Tyndale's.

Well, if you looked over those articles you would see from the number of idioms that come from the AV you show you it was/is a power house in English literature. Do I have to be an expert in Shakespeare to know that he was a literary giant also.

Oh, why to angry with Tyndale? it is because many of those turn of phrases and idioms first were done by Tyndale. When I pointed out such article as Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today or highly condemnatory commentary about the KJV, Restating the Obvious about Bible Translations it should be completely obvious that I don't recommend the KJV as a Bible.

So, you're dislike (dare I say, hatred?) perhaps be reserved for the NWT ? Now all of my arguments with the King James Only types has led not only to my research into the background of the KJV, but really a distaste for Elizabethan English which led to a lessening of my liking for the ASV and Darby versions of the Bible. Now, that I'm not overly happy with, but of course when talking to new Christians you should alway emphasize:

1 Corinthians 14
8 For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?
9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.
11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who (g) speaks will be a barbarian to me.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

So, perhaps we in agree in Comparing Bible Translations .but whatever.

 

[Villager]

the number of idioms that come from the AV you show you it was/is a power house in English literature.

In the common and garbled parlance of ignorant people, which is the very propagandised, hypocritical condition that James wanted; not in literature. The Bible was mostly not written as fine literature, and those who say that it is fine literature are either lying or talking nonsense because they repeat the lies they have heard from those who have their worst interests at heart. It's very common and ironic that those who say that the Bible is 'poetic' or similar show no interest in poetry or lyrical prose, and no knowledge of either. It's a laughable phenomenon- though of course it is not amusing, because it arguably leads to spiritual death.

Do I have to be an expert in Shakespeare to know that he was a literary giant

Not at all. You can be totally illiterate and know that Shakespeare was a literary giant. Ask English speakers on the street, and all of them will tell you that Shakespeare was a literary giant. Ask them to pick two lines of Shakespeare at random and the chances are that fewer than one in a hundred will be able to explain them. And the chances are that two lines picked at random out of the KJV they will either not understand, or they will think they understand them, but misunderstand them- which is worse. And that is exactly what people want who want to keep the KJV going; it's better than having the Bible locked in Latin, in some ways.

When Bibles in modern English were published, the cry "This can't be the Bible, I understand it" was so commonplace it became a sort of joke. There are people who want to turn the clock back, because the Bible says that we cannot serve God and money, and that marriage is the only proper sexual relationship; and of course those ideas do not suit many, particularly today.

Oh, why to angry with Tyndale?

Do you have reading difficulties yourself? Or are you just hopping mad that I am not angry with Tyndale? That's misrepresentation, accidental or otherwise, and it is noted. Any more misrepresentation will be logged, so take care. Get that clear in your head.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which one of the apostles walked around with the King James version ?

More than ever before the ancient manuscripts can be consulted, none of which were written in English. So the Hebrew and Greek need to be compared with modern English.

Proverbs [4v18]; Daniel [12v4] both show that spiritual light [Bible knowledge] would grown lighter with the passing of time, especially increasing in our day being the time of the end of all badness on earth before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.

 

[Protester]

Which one of the apostles walked around with the King James version ?

More than ever before the ancient manuscripts can be consulted, none of which were written in English. So the Hebrew and Greek need to be compared with modern English.

Proverbs [4v18]; Daniel [12v4] both show that spiritual light [Bible knowledge] would grown lighter with the passing of time, especially increasing in our day being the time of the end of all badness on earth before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.

Well, what I highlighted I agree with. there was progressive revelation, (See, What is dispensationalism and is it Biblical?) and of course there was no more revelation after the Book of Revelation. (See,Is it possible that more books could be added to the Bible?)--that's a rhetorical question by the way!

As I have pointed out, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today and it really wasn't when it came out for that matter, but it was great literature, sanctioned by King and Church. Really good reasons and shouldn't have been used by Christians in the first place.



Of course Jesus is going to return with a sword, during the time of the Tribulation, When is the Rapture going to occur in relation to the Tribulation? ,a period of time that Christians won't have to suffer through.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Of course Jesus is going to return with a sword, during the time of the Tribulation, When is the Rapture going to occur in relation to the Tribulation? ,a period of time that Christians won't have to suffer through.

....with the 'words' from his [Jesus] mouth being described as a sword.
[Rev19v15; 2v16; Isaiah 11v4; Jeremiah 25vs31-33]

Revelation [7v14] mentions the great crowd of people of verse 9 that they come out of the great tribulation of Matthew [24v21].

Proverbs [2vs20-22; 10v30;21v18] mentions the wicked being removed from earth and also mentions who will remain on earth.

The 'goats' of Matthew [25v32] are 'cut off' and the 'sheep' remain.

Isn't 1st Cor [15v50] clear that 'flesh and blood' [physical] can Not inherit the kingdom of heaven? _____

Jesus did not take his flesh [physical] to heaven. Jesus was caught up by the cloud [Acts 1v9] after he was resurrected as a spirit person and ascended.

Jesus 'brothers' of 1st Cor [15v50] are the same 'brothers' of Matthew [25v40].
The 'sheep' of verse 32 are Not the 'brothers'. The remnant 'brothers' that are alive at the time of 1st Thess. [4vs13,17] will be 'caught up' in that they will be resurrected to heavenly life as Jesus was caught up in the cloud.

1st Thess [4vs16,17] is talking resurrection. The already sleeping dead 'brothers' rise first [resurrected earlier or first], ''THEN' [afterwards], after the already dead 'brothers' rise first, THEN, the rest of the 'brothers' [Matt 25v40] will then be resurrected without having to spend time sleeping in death but changed right away to spirit life. -1st Cor 15v52.

Whereas the humble sheep-like great crowd can remain alive on earth right into the start of Jesus messianic [1000-year] reign over earth while evildoers perish. -Psalm 37vs2,9,38; 92v7; Jeremiah 25vs31-33.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Rapture is not biblical, and the KJV was not the first english translation, and was/is the worst

 

[Protester]

....with the 'words' from his [Jesus] mouth being described as a sword.
[Rev19v15; 2v16; Isaiah 11v4; Jeremiah 25vs31-33]

Revelation [7v14] mentions the great crowd of people of verse 9 that they come out of the great tribulation of Matthew [24v21].

Proverbs [2vs20-22; 10v30;21v18] mentions the wicked being removed from earth and also mentions who will remain on earth.

The 'goats' of Matthew [25v32] are 'cut off' and the 'sheep' remain.

Isn't 1st Cor [15v50] clear that 'flesh and blood' [physical] can Not inherit the kingdom of heaven? _____

Jesus did not take his flesh [physical] to heaven. Jesus was caught up by the cloud [Acts 1v9] after he was resurrected as a spirit person and ascended.

Jesus 'brothers' of 1st Cor [15v50] are the same 'brothers' of Matthew [25v40].
The 'sheep' of verse 32 are Not the 'brothers'. The remnant 'brothers' that are alive at the time of 1st Thess. [4vs13,17] will be 'caught up' in that they will be resurrected to heavenly life as Jesus was caught up in the cloud.

1st Thess [4vs16,17] is talking resurrection. The already sleeping dead 'brothers' rise first [resurrected earlier or first], ''THEN' [afterwards], after the already dead 'brothers' rise first, THEN, the rest of the 'brothers' [Matt 25v40] will then be resurrected without having to spend time sleeping in death but changed right away to spirit life. -1st Cor 15v52.

Whereas the humble sheep-like great crowd can remain alive on earth right into the start of Jesus messianic [1000-year] reign over earth while evildoers perish. -Psalm 37vs2,9,38; 92v7; Jeremiah 25vs31-33.

Just to mention something of the message that followed yours, NWT is a worse translation than the KJV, but that has already been mentioned and that is why I suggested to many to look at Comparing Bible Translations: Conclusions and for that matter the whole lengthy article.

Don't use the bible like a dictionary, as this particular commentary clearly points out is wrong, How [Fill in the Blank!!!!] Twist Scriptures, while this article mentions only one sect, one just has to realize that many individuals and groups other than this one do twist Scriptures either intentionally -- or not


Proper Biblical Interpretation is a great article for many different people to read, and like the above one it is aimed at a particular group--in both cases the authors could very well have used a shot gun to better effect than to use a sniper's rifle to really narrow the target!--that shouldn't have been. By the way, this particular idea on Interpretation has been around for quite awhile.:yes:


By the way, a fairly good history of Dispensationalism can be found here, The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism this pdf file by Dr. Ice is done by one of the experts on the topic.



I will let this fellow, however do the Defending The Pre-trib Rapture

Oh, apparently a condensed discussion of the Book of Revelation is also in order, A Jet Tour Through Revelation

Of course a good modern English Bible should be looked at for all of these topics.

1 Corinthians 14
8 For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?
9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.
11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who (g) speaks will be a barbarian to me.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

 

[URAVIP2ME]

RE: don't us the Bible like a dictionary

Since the Bible was not written ABC like a dictionary then it can not be used like one.

The Bible has corresponding or parallel passages or verses that can be compared by searching or researched by subject or topic arrangement. -Acts 17v11

 

[Protester]

RE: don't us the Bible like a dictionary

Since the Bible was not written ABC like a dictionary then it can not be used like one.

The Bible has corresponding or parallel passages or verses that can be compared by searching or researched by subject or topic arrangement. -Acts 17v11

Of course there are corresponding passages. I would also say when one starts to do Biblical Interpretation
he does it, he takes the various verses in context, (See, Why is it important to study the Bible in context?)

It is not really surprising that conservative Protestants in various parts of the country, during various times, and even in different denominations agree with each other, and as one church likes to ask, Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God? you will find there is this close agreement because most agree What is Biblical Hermeneutics? and many have signed onto the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982).

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

This thread has been moved to the Same Faith Debates forum.​

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'd be curious to hear from some of the scholars and scholars in training which versions they feel most accurately translate the original Greek and Hebrew. Other than accuracy issues I don't see how you can say if one version is actually "better than another. To me it's more of an artistic preference.

 

[Protester]

I'd be curious to hear from some of the scholars and scholars in training which versions they feel most accurately translate the original Greek and Hebrew. Other than accuracy issues I don't see how you can say if one version is actually "better than another. To me it's more of an artistic preference.

The title of the message answers your question, as does Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions hey, I won't stop you from reading the who article!:help:

Why are there so many Bible translations, and which is the best? this would be something of a summary of the above, and it is very short monograph.

 

[Villager]

'The ESV is theologically the strongest version out there.'

For the god of this world.

Now the Vulgate and the KJV have been shredded, the antichrists have got their next failure lined up.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Of course there are corresponding passages. I would also say when one starts to do Biblical Interpretation
he does it, he takes the various verses in context,

Of course both setting and context go along with corresponding or parallel verses and passages which show the internal harmony showing agreement among the Bible writers.

Like other books the Bible has a theme.
What is the theme, or main theme, of the Bible ?
What is the theme of Jesus preaching and teaching ?

 

[paxvobiscum]

I agree with a couple of the viewpoints that the KJV is probably the least biased. I just took a college review of the making of the NT and you can't believe the errors in transcribing the books of the NT over many centuries. Still, you work with what you have and I personally like the New King James the best. It has a lot of the poetic prose of the old KJV but is a little more readable.

 

[Villager]

I just took a college review of the making of the NT and you can't believe the errors in transcribing the books of the NT over many centuries.

Can one believe what passes for colleges, these days?

I personally like the New King James the best.

The translators of the NKJV expressed misgivings about their source text- and one suspects that this publication would never have got off the ground had those misgivings been followed. I'm not sure that any translation can be held as the best in such circumstances. However, It can hardly be denied that this version renders conservatively and with a decent style, and provided the controversy over its text-type is kept in mind, is a useful modern version.

Having said that, I consider that all published translations are seriously defective to some degree, and authors of most of the latest ones worthy of death sentences. In the next world, of course.

 

[Protester]

Can one believe what passes for colleges, these days?

The translators of the NKJV expressed misgivings about their source text- and one suspects that this publication would never have got off the ground had those misgivings been followed. I'm not sure that any translation can be held as the best in such circumstances. However, It can hardly be denied that this version renders conservatively and with a decent style, and provided the controversy over its text-type is kept in mind, is a useful modern version.

Having said that, I consider that all published translations are seriously defective to some degree, and authors of most of the latest ones worthy of death sentences. In the next world, of course.

...if you read the margin notes (actually the center column notes), because they use the better Greek and Hebrew manuscripts for the those notes. It might be the only Bible where the margin notes are almost always more accurate then the main text.

So, don't knock the NKJV which isn't popular for that reason, but because it does follow the KJV style which makes it a great sounding Bible. Not much reason to have a Bible unless it's read! No, no real complaints about the ESV. It's the RSV with all the liberal nonsense in it removed.

So, while I have often put up, Comparing Bible Translations to help people decide which is the Bible translation is for them, the NASB, Why the NASB? , naturally but there are some good translations out there, and the NKJV is one of them if people only remember to look at the center column, but the KJV, however, isn't one of them.

 

[Protester]

Of course both setting and context go along with corresponding or parallel verses and passages which show the internal harmony showing agreement among the Bible writers.

Like other books the Bible has a theme.
What is the theme, or main theme, of the Bible ?
What is the theme of Jesus preaching and teaching ?

It is the manual for men on how God works.

Huh! Tony a founder of a Bible Bulletin board agrees with my title! Question - What is the basic theme of Scripture? It's always nice to have a third party endorsement.

I knew the American Tract Dictionary of 1859 was pretty good it's definition of Bible in part:

This word signifies the Book, by way of distinction, the Book of all books. It is also called Scripture, or the Scriptures, that is, the writings. It comprises the Old and New Testaments, or more properly, Covenants, Ex 24:7; Mt 26:28. The former was written mostly in Hebrew, and was the Bible of the ancient Jewish church; a few chapters of Daniel and Ezra only were written in Chaldee. The latter was wholly written in Greek, which was the language most generally understood in Judea and the adjacent countries first visited by the gospel. The entire Bible is the rule of faith to all Christians, and not the New Testament alone; though this is of especial value as unfolding the history and doctrines of our divine Redeemer and of his holy institutions. The fact that God gave the inspired writings to men in the languages most familiar to the mass of the people who received them, proves that he intended they should be read not by the learned alone, but by all the people, and in their own spoken language.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

its NKJV for me it's easier to read and understand, thats the only reason..