Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good point. I should have asked if it is dividing the English speaking church.Of course not.
Most Christians can't even read English.
Tom
Even then, I don't think it is.Good point. I should have asked if it is dividing the English speaking church.
Fair enough. I don't have an issue with the KJV, I just have an issue with people who infer that I am sinning by using another translation.I would not say it's dividing Christianity.
There are advantages and disadvantages of using the KJV in my opinion.
I like that many of the original word pictures in psalms are carried over as is in KJV. Some say the manuscripts may be better that it was taken from. On the down side, many of the words no longer have the same meaning as when written and many people will read it more slowly than a more modern translation.
The New King James is quote good as an essentially literal translation. ESV is also essentially literal. Essentially literal means they attempted to not force a particular interpretation and leave it up to the reader as much as possible. NASB was also essentially literal but a bit wooden and needed better flow.
I would not say it's dividing Christianity.
There are advantages and disadvantages of using the KJV in my opinion.
I like that many of the original word pictures in psalms are carried over as is in KJV. Some say the manuscripts may be better that it was taken from. On the down side, many of the words no longer have the same meaning as when written and many people will read it more slowly than a more modern translation.
The New King James is quote good as an essentially literal translation. ESV is also essentially literal. Essentially literal means they attempted to not force a particular interpretation and leave it up to the reader as much as possible. NASB was also essentially literal but a bit wooden and needed better flow.
Fair enough. I don't have an issue with the KJV, I just have an issue with people who infer that I am sinning by using another translation.
In my experience,Fair enough. I don't have an issue with the KJV, I just have an issue with people who infer that I am sinning by using another translation.
Good point. I should have asked if it is dividing the English speaking church.
I agree with you, and ironically the KJV was deliberately written in the language of the common people of the day and not in some high fallutin language that writing often was. So in the spirit of the original goals of the language of the day I am fine with modern but careful translationsIn my experience,
People with that attitude aren't really much interested in what the Bible teaches. They are more interested in what they believe. It's easier to interpret the Bible the way you want if you insist on a Bible translation in a foreign language.
Which is essentially what the KJV is. Modern English speakers don't use those words any more.
Tom