Jump to content
Online Baptist
    • Welcome To OnlineBaptist.com
      • Introduce Yourself
      • Support / Help Desk
    • The Bible and Christianity
      • Questions for Baptists
      • Biblical Issues
      • The Bible (KJV)
      • False Religions
      • Soulwinning Forum
      • Creation / Evolution
      • End Times/Bible Prophecy
      • Music
      • Prayer Requests
    • Christian Living
      • Online Baptist Ladies Forum
      • Relationships/Family
      • Homeschool Forum
      • Salvation Forum
      • Give God the Praise
    • General Forums
      • General Chats
      • The Kitchen
      • Homesteading
      • Current Events / News
      • Writings and Poetry
      • Fun and Games
      • Humor
      • Computer Room
    • Private Forums for Independent Baptists (IFB)
      • Forums For Independent Baptists
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Topics

  • Recent Posts

    • When you use "archaic" in reference any word in the KJV it shows you've already drunk the modernist cool aid and believe in their errant reasoning. I don't say that to be harsh but rather to ask that you reconsider that concept in reference to the words of the KJV. Every trade, and even sub cultures, has words that are more common among that trade than the general populace. The translators used a unique English format so that it could be cross cultural with minimal effort. The problem with modernist logic is that now they must make a separate "simple" U.S. update, a separate "simple" U.K. update, one for Australians, one for teen boys, one for pregnant moms, one for milk men, one for steel worker, etc. Its much simpler to take the time to update yourself and learn the biblical words and grammar that all English speaking people have used for over 400 years than to turn the bible into a Dick and Jane story book that must be updated ever few years to accommodate every generation and subculture's unique quirks. A person who will not learn a few uncommon words nor slightly expand his grammar and reading style will never take the time and effort to grow spiritually either.  As far as simple and accurate updates, publishers have already done as much as they can without making a new translation. Its been found that whenever they attempt to change the words, the "modern equivalent" is lacking in substance and in accuracy and typically would need additional words and a whole new sentence structure. In other words, it would become a different translation and not an update. So, what you are purposing would be neither simple or accurate. 
    • I think you came here with your mind made up already!  Can you give examples of words you consider to be archaic, and the words you think may be an appropriate 'modern' replacement? I'm very curious as to whether your suggested updates would be appropriate replacements. Examples of grammar would be welcome as well.  Also, how do you purport to appropriately replace the oft-maligned thee's and thou's without losing the distinguishing of singular and plural pronouns that is lost with the common modern  usage (i.e. using 'you' for both singular & plural situations)? The word 'archaic', btw, means 'old-fashioned', and is neither a censure nor necessarily a reason for replacement.  (Yes, I am using as many big words as possible to illustrate the precision of language that is gained by their inclusion.)    In answer to this, yes, of course - I want to give them the most reliable translation. I trust them, as adults, to look up any words they don't understand. Remember, too, that the difficulty for non-believers in understanding God's Word is not in the text itself - it's in that the Scripture must be spiritually discerned, and they are spiritually dead. Changing the text will not improve that situation. The Holy Spirit must explain it to them.
    • Thank you for your comments everyone.  In my opinion, the KJV is a wonderful but archaic 400 year-old translation.  Couldn't updating it for the modern English speaker help people better learn God's Word compared to using a version with archaic English?  Many words in the KJV are generally unknown today.  And the grammar is at times very different than what is used in English today.  Is this really necessary or best?  Do you all share the KJV with non-Christians who are not familiar with KJV English?  Wouldn't that make it difficult for non-Christians to read and understand God's Word?  If someone has any additional thoughts on the topic, I am glad to hear it.  It has been great to hear your opinions so far.  And please give your answer in the poll so we can see what more people think (right now only 5 have voted).
    • I would add that I extremely doubt we have any scholars nowadays with the breadth of expertise in the original languages to retranslate at the same level of depth and accuracy. We have also lost manuscripts (both Biblical and otherwise) in the intermediary years that would prevent any new translators from having access to the same breadth of knowledge as the KJV translators. 
    • The problem here is, the language actually isn't 400 years old. The fact is, the language of the King James Bible really never existed in time, it is a mish-mash of styles, many much older than the KJV, used because it was more precise in its interpretation of some of the Greek and Hebrew; it is literally a language style specifically created for the KJV-if you read the introduction written by the translators, you'll notice it is very different from the text of the Bible-this is why I would really not be in favor of it.
×
×
  • Create New...