Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110498 | ||
Taleb, a thoughtful post and your illustrations were superb. .... To be sure, the Authorized or King James Version is a noble translation and ably has stood the test of time, but time itself has become rather a formidable enemy of this distinguished opus. In but seven years hence the KJV will observe its fourth centennial, and during those four centuries the English language has undergone enormous changes as have all other living languages. Many words and phrases that were in common usage in 1611 no longer are; in fact, a large number of them are either foreign to current usage or they have changed dramatically in meaning, so much so that certain words of 1611 meant the very opposite of what they mean today. I have long admired the King James Bible and its merits are commendable, but it is rapidly becoming virtually unintelligible to speakers of modern English unless they grew up with it or are able and willing to devote considerable time and effort to learn the Elizabethan English of the KJV. I suspect that many die hards who doggedly refuse to let go of the King James, at least to a certain degree, and avail themselves of some of the newer and clearer translations do themselves undue harm, for I'm convinced that there are many who adhere rigidly (and perhaps foolishly) to the 1611 version and who are not really equipped with the necessary reading skills to unlock the riches of this older version. Such are they who would profit greatly by reading a more modern version. There is an immense span between the 1611 KJV and, say, the English Standard Version or the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Scripture presents the reader with portions that are of great complexity in any version, even in the "simplified" language of the paraphrases. It becomes enormously more difficult for the reader who is unskilled in 16ll English, because he has the formidable task of wrestlling both with archaic language and complex subject matter. --Hank | ||||||
2 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Taleb | 110562 | ||
Hank, a while ago I obtained a copy of “New Age Bible Versions”. This anti-modern translation book erroneously depicts that ALL translations, except the authorized King James Version, ARE satanic. It even has a hideous picture of a winged dragon on its cover. One doesn’t have to read far to discover how off the wall G.A. Riplinger is in her faulty assessment. She quickly paints a fake picture that the NASV and the NIV are the result of a conspiracy of the New Agers, preparing “Christians” to fall for the schemes of the antichrist. With misquotes and taking other authors out of context, she weaves a path that is actually destructive to the purposes of God. Then, apparently in the hopes that no one really knows what the KJV really says, she quotes verses from various new translations as her evidence. (Huh?) :) On page 17, she lists a few examples where the KJV reads Jesus and the NIV “translated” the name to “he”. What she fails to reveal is the real truth about the matter. The KJV uses the name “Jesus” 983 times. The NIV uses it 1,275 times. About halfway through the book she tries to convince her readers “We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as “the Christ”. This obviously contrived attempt to “prove” they are removing the name of Jesus to make way for the antichrist flopped dead in the water - considering she failed to take into logical consideration concerning the 19 times that the KJV uses “the Christ”. I use the KJV for all my memorization work. I use the KJV for all my “word study definition work”. I use the KJV whenever I want to read Scripture out loud. But, I know that, contrary to what some bumper stickers claim, “We use the Bible that GOD uses-Authorized King James Version 1611,” God’s word is NOT KJV. Blessings, Taleb |
||||||
3 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | TommyS | 110563 | ||
Taleb, I just read what you said, went to dogpatch and typed in New Age Version and up came all kinds of sites. I clicked on this one http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/newagebv.htm. I just glanced over it, but hoped back on this site to let you (and anyone else) know about it. That author also said one didn't have to go to far into the book to see the error of such a "doctrine". TommyS |
||||||
4 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 110578 | ||
Greetings TommyS, I most certainly agree. I have read many books from the "KJV Only" camp, one of which was "New Age Versions" by Gail Riplinger, and many more that I ordered from Chick Publications (www.chick.com). Such publications present a false view of how Scripture came to us and pervert the true aim of what the newer Bible versions are attempting to communicate to us. Perhaps one day there will be an "NIV Only" movement, much like the "KJV Only" movement today, all arguing for the same reasons all over again.. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||