• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

KJV "OT" quoters: a recommendation ...

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
... actually, two:
  1. Don't.
  2. If you're too too cheap, too lazy, and or too disinterested to acquire a decent Tanakh, at least consult a reasonably good translation from a Jewish source, e.g., Sefaria
For those of us in the cheap seats could you perhaps explain why? Such an explanation could be very useful.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
... actually, two:
  1. Don't.
  2. If you're too too cheap, too lazy, and or too disinterested to acquire a decent Tanakh, at least consult a reasonably good translation from a Jewish source, e.g., Sefaria

I would advise the opposite. I believe that the Christian Bible is authentic and the Jewish version to have been changed after the fall of the second temple in AD 70. I do not believe the Apostles would have put their stamps on an inauthentic version of the Bible.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Looks about the same to me, except an I was dotted they missed in other translations.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The King James Version (I mean honestly, even the title is prideful) is among the worst translations of the Bible. It's creation is fraught with controversy and contradiction. What's more, pretty much all biblical tellings of several things in the Old Testament corrupt the original source; for example a rabbi friend of mine told us that Leviticus in it's original was nothing more than ethic rules for the priesthood and common folk during worship. The bible turns it into "The Very Long List of Things God Hates".
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The King James Version (I mean honestly, even the title is prideful) is among the worst translations of the Bible. It's creation is fraught with controversy and contradiction. What's more, pretty much all biblical tellings of several things in the Old Testament corrupt the original source; for example a rabbi friend of mine told us that Leviticus in it's original was nothing more than ethic rules for the priesthood and common folk during worship. The bible turns it into "The Very Long List of Things God Hates".
Its proper title is the Authorised Version because it was authorized by King James I for worship in churches. Not sure how that's prideful?
 
Last edited:

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
It's his brain-baby. Even calling it the "authorized version" is prideful because he authorized it, rather than the text (as the supposed word of god) being self-authorative.
 

Sanzbir

Well-Known Member
The King James Version (I mean honestly, even the title is prideful) is among the worst translations of the Bible.

Eh... I mean it's no Vulgate, at the very least, so while I think it's bad I don't think I could say it is the worst out there.

Then again, fans of the Vulgate aren't so arrogant and annoying in proclaiming the superiority of their preferred translation.

KJV has the worst fans of any translation.
 
Top