King James Version
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2014, 06:01 PM
King James Version
Most fundamentalists I talk to strongly favor the KJV over other translations of the Bible. The stock answer I get for why is because they feel it's more accurate. I'm not sure how true that is. I've heard it's utter crap, but I don't really know much about the differences in the translations.

That being said, is there something else other than alleged accuracy that draws them to this version? Is there something in it that validates a fundamentalist world-view? I've heard people complain that other translations are "too liberal", but it's never explained why they feel this way.

I'm curious if anyone can shed some light on this for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: King James Version
(15-06-2014 06:01 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Most fundamentalists I talk to strongly favor the KJV over other translations of the Bible. The stock answer I get for why is because they feel it's more accurate. I'm not sure how true that is. I've heard it's utter crap, but I don't really know much about the differences in the translations.

That being said, is there something else other than alleged accuracy that draws them to this version? Is there something in it that validates a fundamentalist world-view? I've heard people complain that other translations are "too liberal", but it's never explained why they feel this way.

I'm curious if anyone can shed some light on this for me.

It's just the thous and sayeths that make them think it's really really old. And we all know that old = true.

Rolleyes

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
15-06-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: King James Version
I'm curious as to HOW they know KJ is more accurate. Compared to what? Were they there? Huh
I'm guessing they think it's the version that most closely resembles what they want to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: King James Version
(15-06-2014 06:40 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I'm curious as to HOW they know KJ is more accurate. Compared to what? Were they there? Huh

Oh, they claim that it was directly translated from such-and-such, and that that thing was the oldest, best-kept Byzantine something-or-other. Now this is in direct contradiction of other things I've heard, but my other authority is a freaking image macro, and I don't like basing my arguments on image macros.


(15-06-2014 06:40 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I'm guessing they think it's the version that most closely resembles what they want to believe.

I have a feeling this is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: King James Version
Eh. So far as I can tell it's just because it's the best* English translation.
(*that's best as in best-sounding)

It's not like, say, the NIV has a lick of poetry in it.

That, plus the facile fundie need to obsess and venerate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-06-2014, 07:23 PM
RE: King James Version
It is not. It is just another english translation like the rest. Every mistake they made in the first english bible is most likely in the kjv(about 98% of mistakes in fact)

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
15-06-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: King James Version
(15-06-2014 06:01 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Most fundamentalists I talk to strongly favor the KJV over other translations of the Bible. The stock answer I get for why is because they feel it's more accurate. I'm not sure how true that is. I've heard it's utter crap, but I don't really know much about the differences in the translations.

That being said, is there something else other than alleged accuracy that draws them to this version? Is there something in it that validates a fundamentalist world-view? I've heard people complain that other translations are "too liberal", but it's never explained why they feel this way.

I'm curious if anyone can shed some light on this for me.

there exist three trains of thought as to how the Bible should be translated from Hebrew Aramaic and Greek into the English language with two being the most commonly proposed.

1. Dynamic equivalence translation i.e. NIV and NLT
2. Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation) i.e. the KJV, NASB, ESV etc.
3. Idiomatic, or Paraphrastic i.e The Message and the Living Bible.

The first two are the ones most commonly used with the third type of translation used less for in depth study and more for casual reading.

The second, i.e. the translations closest to what would be termed "literal" are the ones used by people who want to have a translation closest to the actual original languages.

The KJV was used primarily because of its flowing prose and use of Elizabethan English and when it was compiled represented the best that translators could produce with the knowledge they had at the time. Since then discoveries of such texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls have shed some light on various passages and knowledge of the original languages as time has passed has increased and thus the more recent versions i.e. the ESV and NASB are the ones that are preferred for in depth study by English Speaking bible scholars.

I have at least one version of each translation and I consult them regularly.

A rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew Aramaic and Greek also helps of course!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Jeremy E Walker's post
15-06-2014, 07:57 PM
RE: King James Version
Yea, our church was big on the KJV as well. I use to know why, but cannot remember now.

All versions of the bible = Same shit but in a different outhouse. Dodgy

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. ~Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like CindysRain's post
15-06-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: King James Version
(15-06-2014 07:23 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  It is not. It is just another english translation like the rest. Every mistake they made in the first english bible is most likely in the kjv(about 98% of mistakes in fact)

Do you have a link for that?


(15-06-2014 07:40 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  there exist three trains of thought as to how the Bible should be translated from Hebrew Aramaic and Greek into the English language with two being the most commonly proposed.

1. Dynamic equivalence translation i.e. NIV and NLT
2. Formal equivalence translation (similar to literal translation) i.e. the KJV, NASB, ESV etc.
3. Idiomatic, or Paraphrastic i.e The Message and the Living Bible.

The first two are the ones most commonly used with the third type of translation used less for in depth study and more for casual reading.

The second, i.e. the translations closest to what would be termed "literal" are the ones used by people who want to have a translation closest to the actual original languages.

The KJV was used primarily because of its flowing prose and use of Elizabethan English and when it was compiled represented the best that translators could produce with the knowledge they had at the time. Since then discoveries of such texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls have shed some light on various passages and knowledge of the original languages as time has passed has increased and thus the more recent versions i.e. the ESV and NASB are the ones that are preferred for in depth study by English Speaking bible scholars.

Thanks. So, presumably, one would pick option 1 or 2 based on which they felt was most accurate at conveying the true meaning (if one were to insist one translation was "best")?

I'm assuming this has a lot to do with why a lot of people don't like taking the Dead Sea Scrolls into account.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 09:20 PM
RE: King James Version
KJV fanatics believe that changing certain words has implications like questioning the deity of Christ, gender differences, homosexuality etc. So yes the KJV serves their fundamentalist dogma.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes freetoreason's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: