Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Huron | 166695 | ||
I really believe that the NASB, and the NASB updated version are the most accurate. When the shortcomings of the NASB are discussed, it usually regards the fact that the NASB may be difficult to read aloud due to the fact that it places the emphasis on accuracy rather than English word order. It has been said that the NASB is so accurate that you could reverse translate it back into the original Greek! The KJV, RSV, NKJV, and the NIV are also very good and have their following. The NIV may at times "interpret" rather than translate, which gives you a translation that tells you what the translators think the Greek "MEANS" rather than what it "SAYS." Usually though, the NIV translators were right on. The NIV is a very readable translation. The RSV has the flow of the KJV, but is easier to understand. It does have its detractors though, usually regarding the choice of the work young woman -vs- virgin in Isiah 7. The KJV has beautiful flow. The language is dated though, and may cause comprehension difficulty. It is a good version for memeory work because it flows so well. While it is a good literal translation, there are verses in the KJV that may not have been written in the original books of the New Testament. Examples are Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. While some people will use no other version and claim that other versions are an abomination, it is important to remember that even the KJV had much criticism when it first came out. The NKJV is also good, but relies largely on the same manuscripts as the KJV. It will include the longer ending of Mark for instance. |
||||||
2 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166728 | ||
"THE GREATEST PROBLEM, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version." ___________________ [Huron: Thanks for providing information that is accurate and informative. To expand a bit on what you've said, I quote from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version. --Kalos] 'A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible -- the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeit, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. 'The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. 'Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.' (Preface to the Revised Standard Version, 1952, 1946, 1971) |
||||||