King James Bible vs Anti-Christ Bibles

[Ratsah]

Bible controversy  

[Ratsah]

What I don't like about this video is how he neglects the previous Bibles before the King James. For example the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles and how they were rendered from the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes political, sometimes just linguistic variations to the author's intent. I'm not a big fan of some of the newer translations as they sacrifice the language to appeal to certain sections of modern society. I find it to be a slippery slope all in all. But that is just me.  

[Garland-Green]

Hamul

What I don't like about this video is how he neglects the previous Bibles before the King James. For example the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles and how they were rendered from the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes political, sometimes just linguistic variations to the author's intent. I'm not a big fan of some of the newer translations as they sacrifice the language to appeal to certain sections of modern society. I find it to be a slippery slope all in all. But that is just me.

The kings James Bible also has its faults, and I don't think it is fair to say that all newer translations are Anti Christ in spirit, a lot, not saying all, of the translators are godly men who hold a quite orthodox view of Christianity, and I feel there is bad research, and a lack of knowledge behind the accusations made towards many of the modern translations, and their translators. One example is the NIV which been treated very unfairly by some of those who hold to the idea that the King James is superior, or the best translation we have. There are quite a few good things that can be said about the NIV. The translation does fall under the category of conservative translations. My suggestion is to visit some of the links I have provided below for further details.

Me - I think language is very important. There are quite a few words in the Original Kings James Bible that today are obsolete, and would not make sense to the modern reader (unless the reader takes time to figure out the meaning). Sacrificing the intent and meaning of the author to please public opinion when translating I find is fare more dangerous than trying to word things in modern vocabulary. I enjoy learning old English, but I can understand that there are people who don't. I think the language is great, and vivid, but I can understand that other people don't and that they do not have the ability to understand, and want it in their own day today language, and I don't think that is wrong
.
We have to remember that a sentence can not always be translated word for word into a new language, structure has to be changed. Directly translating something can sometimes leave the sentence impossible to understand in a new language. Understanding the word of God should be our main objective.

I would like to leave these links here for people to read:

KJV only?
New Age Bible Versions Refuted

The Kings James Bible is also a translation. It is not the original manuscript!
It is not a word for word translation. Why is it the most accurate? Though I prefer the King James I would never go as fare as to say it is the only trustworthy translation, nor would I say don't read any other translations. I would say do research, if something bothers you in a translation dig into how the translation came about, what manuscripts it used etc. Know that translations are done differently.

You Have 3 Methods of Translation

Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).

Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.  

[Rednal]

*Staring at the NABVR page*

...

I think the phrase is "Bile Fascination". That's... *Shakes head* I've actually had formal education in both logic and debate, so I have a natural inclination to insist that people refute things correctly. If you misrepresent what your opponent says, then attack your own creation, it's just a straw argument that is unworthy of serious consideration. If you truly believe that someone is wrong, what you should do is take their claims head-on, not outright lie about things.  

[Ratsah]

Garland-Green

Hamul

What I don't like about this video is how he neglects the previous Bibles before the King James. For example the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles and how they were rendered from the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes political, sometimes just linguistic variations to the author's intent. I'm not a big fan of some of the newer translations as they sacrifice the language to appeal to certain sections of modern society. I find it to be a slippery slope all in all. But that is just me.

The kings James Bible also has its faults, and I don't think it is fair to say that all newer translations are Anti Christ in spirit, a lot, not saying all, of the translators are godly men who hold a quite orthodox view of Christianity, and I feel there is bad research, and a lack of knowledge behind the accusations made towards many of the modern translations, and their translators. One example is the NIV which been treated very unfairly by some of those who hold to the idea that the King James is superior, or the best translation we have. There are quite a few good things that can be said about the NIV. The translation does fall under the category of conservative translations. My suggestion is to visit some of the links I have provided below for further details.

Me - I think language is very important. There are quite a few words in the Original Kings James Bible that today are obsolete, and would not make sense to the modern reader (unless the reader takes time to figure out the meaning). Sacrificing the intent and meaning of the author to please public opinion when translating I find is fare more dangerous than trying to word things in modern vocabulary. I enjoy learning old English, but I can understand that there are people who don't. I think the language is great, and vivid, but I can understand that other people don't and that they do not have the ability to understand, and want it in their own day today language, and I don't think that is wrong
.
We have to remember that a sentence can not always be translated word for word into a new language, structure has to be changed. Directly translating something can sometimes leave the sentence impossible to understand in a new language. Understanding the word of God should be our main objective.

I would like to leave these links here for people to read:

KJV only?
New Age Bible Versions Refuted

The Kings James Bible is also a translation. It is not the original manuscript!
It is not a word for word translation. Why is it the most accurate? Though I prefer the King James I would never go as fare as to say it is the only trustworthy translation, nor would I say don't read any other translations. I would say do research, if something bothers you in a translation dig into how the translation came about, what manuscripts it used etc. Know that translations are done differently.

You Have 3 Methods of Translation

Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).

Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.

Sorry, when I say newer Bibles I'm talking about "The Message Bible", "Thomas Jefferson Bible" and the like.  

[Rednal]

There are so many different versions that I can imagine it helping to specify which versions, and why there are disagreements. rofl  

[Ratsah]

A interesting take of the issue.  

[Rednal]

I tend to wonder about people who say things like "I will never, ever reconsider this issue no matter what happens". Seems a little excessively dogmatic, and... not very good for truly understanding God.  

[Garland-Green]

Hamul

Garland-Green

Hamul

What I don't like about this video is how he neglects the previous Bibles before the King James. For example the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles and how they were rendered from the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes political, sometimes just linguistic variations to the author's intent. I'm not a big fan of some of the newer translations as they sacrifice the language to appeal to certain sections of modern society. I find it to be a slippery slope all in all. But that is just me.

The kings James Bible also has its faults, and I don't think it is fair to say that all newer translations are Anti Christ in spirit, a lot, not saying all, of the translators are godly men who hold a quite orthodox view of Christianity, and I feel there is bad research, and a lack of knowledge behind the accusations made towards many of the modern translations, and their translators. One example is the NIV which been treated very unfairly by some of those who hold to the idea that the King James is superior, or the best translation we have. There are quite a few good things that can be said about the NIV. The translation does fall under the category of conservative translations. My suggestion is to visit some of the links I have provided below for further details.

Me - I think language is very important. There are quite a few words in the Original Kings James Bible that today are obsolete, and would not make sense to the modern reader (unless the reader takes time to figure out the meaning). Sacrificing the intent and meaning of the author to please public opinion when translating I find is fare more dangerous than trying to word things in modern vocabulary. I enjoy learning old English, but I can understand that there are people who don't. I think the language is great, and vivid, but I can understand that other people don't and that they do not have the ability to understand, and want it in their own day today language, and I don't think that is wrong
.
We have to remember that a sentence can not always be translated word for word into a new language, structure has to be changed. Directly translating something can sometimes leave the sentence impossible to understand in a new language. Understanding the word of God should be our main objective.

I would like to leave these links here for people to read:

KJV only?
New Age Bible Versions Refuted

The Kings James Bible is also a translation. It is not the original manuscript!
It is not a word for word translation. Why is it the most accurate? Though I prefer the King James I would never go as fare as to say it is the only trustworthy translation, nor would I say don't read any other translations. I would say do research, if something bothers you in a translation dig into how the translation came about, what manuscripts it used etc. Know that translations are done differently.

You Have 3 Methods of Translation

Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).

Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.

Sorry, when I say newer Bibles I'm talking about "The Message Bible", "Thomas Jefferson Bible" and the like.

Oh, ok. Then we are on the same page. =)  

[Ratsah]

Garland-Green

Hamul

Garland-Green

Hamul

What I don't like about this video is how he neglects the previous Bibles before the King James. For example the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles and how they were rendered from the Greek and Hebrew. Sometimes political, sometimes just linguistic variations to the author's intent. I'm not a big fan of some of the newer translations as they sacrifice the language to appeal to certain sections of modern society. I find it to be a slippery slope all in all. But that is just me.

The kings James Bible also has its faults, and I don't think it is fair to say that all newer translations are Anti Christ in spirit, a lot, not saying all, of the translators are godly men who hold a quite orthodox view of Christianity, and I feel there is bad research, and a lack of knowledge behind the accusations made towards many of the modern translations, and their translators. One example is the NIV which been treated very unfairly by some of those who hold to the idea that the King James is superior, or the best translation we have. There are quite a few good things that can be said about the NIV. The translation does fall under the category of conservative translations. My suggestion is to visit some of the links I have provided below for further details.

Me - I think language is very important. There are quite a few words in the Original Kings James Bible that today are obsolete, and would not make sense to the modern reader (unless the reader takes time to figure out the meaning). Sacrificing the intent and meaning of the author to please public opinion when translating I find is fare more dangerous than trying to word things in modern vocabulary. I enjoy learning old English, but I can understand that there are people who don't. I think the language is great, and vivid, but I can understand that other people don't and that they do not have the ability to understand, and want it in their own day today language, and I don't think that is wrong
.
We have to remember that a sentence can not always be translated word for word into a new language, structure has to be changed. Directly translating something can sometimes leave the sentence impossible to understand in a new language. Understanding the word of God should be our main objective.

I would like to leave these links here for people to read:

KJV only?
New Age Bible Versions Refuted

The Kings James Bible is also a translation. It is not the original manuscript!
It is not a word for word translation. Why is it the most accurate? Though I prefer the King James I would never go as fare as to say it is the only trustworthy translation, nor would I say don't read any other translations. I would say do research, if something bothers you in a translation dig into how the translation came about, what manuscripts it used etc. Know that translations are done differently.

You Have 3 Methods of Translation

Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).

Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.

Sorry, when I say newer Bibles I'm talking about "The Message Bible", "Thomas Jefferson Bible" and the like.

Oh, ok. Then we are on the same page. =)

Not quite. ;D King James Bible believer here. Not of inspiration per-say but in translation practices of Faith and preservation The more I study about it the better it becomes.