I use KJV why anything else (other than original text)?

[kirk]

The so called gnostic gospels are vary different than the rest of the books of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament where composed by eyewitness or by interviewing eyewitness. Also, they where circulated during a time when eyewitness would have been around to critique their content. The last book of the New Testament was composed before 90 by the Apostle John, who was probably the only Apostle not executed for his testimony.

[KF6SNJ]

I've read a few of the gnostic books and I must say, I am unimpressed with them. Thomas and Judas both make some pretty wild and historically invalid claims. Mary and the Essene gospels both seem feministic in thier outlook. It would seem that whomever the authors of these so-called "gospels" were, they may have had it as a motive to discredit the accepted and true gospels. Naturally the Apostle Paul put it rather plainly that if anyone were to preach another gospel, to let them be accursed. So, yes, we are fortunate that these gospels which are not gospels have been excluded from the canon.

[muggins]

if certain nuances can't be translated into english from cervantes 17th century don quixote, then you blokes are tilting at windmills arguing about which is the best translation from documents of questionable historicity, translated into english, via greek, from a semitic source.

[cb88]

problem is that the NIV obscures salvation where it is plain in the KJV

and muggins is right it really is beyond our ablity to tell which is the best but I choose to stand on the KJV it may be old and poetic but it is not that hard to understand

the NIV is a "bible" that treats the reader like an idiot and muddles the message if i could get a copy for e sword i'd look up some examples

and the fact is that most "nuances" can be translated i speak portugese (a latin language) and if has more "nuances" but most only need a few more words to convey however i do understand that there are certian ways that things are said that cannot be traslated exactly and must be translated as best the translator can

KF6SNJ your argument about Luke 10:13 is flawed you must remember that the "if" is a conditional that applies to the whole sentence

really the KJV is 5th grade reading just because someone hypes up the NIV doesn't make it right it isn't right if you think about it the NIV is harder to read than the KJV because the message is "hidden"

[KF6SNJ]

[quote="cb88"]

really the KJV is 5th grade reading "[/quote]


Is it? Most college student can barely read the KJV. For that matter, most college students seem to think that when Juliet asks the rhetorical question of "Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo" she is somehow asking about where he is.

Most people I know are the same way. I know people whom when I quote the KJV to them, even those who "swear by it", they have no clue as to what I am saying. It is only when I restate it in modern linguistics that they are able to understand. The simple truth is that none of us speaks the [u]high English[/u] venacular of 1611. Our modern English a bit more gutteral. Now then, how can anyone dare to force upon another a text that they are barely capable of reading, much less understand? I wouldn't dare to think of giving somebody that doesn't speak English a Bible printed in English, regardless of translation. Likewise, if we do not speak nor clearly understand a dialect of English from roughly 396 years ago, why should we be forced to read a Bible that uses such a dialect? It is almost as absurd as insisting upon Wuliffa, Wycliffe, or Tynsdale only, all of which are older than the KJV. If the best of scholars would likely and often do struggle with these texts, and then how much more so the commmoner in the pew? Certainly you can attempt to post "problems" with the NIV. However, your "problems" may actually be more clearly understood in the context into which they are written for the modern man than the same text from the KJV.

Here then is where I think the rubber hits the road, if we don't speak the language, we should not be forced to read something written in it. I don't speak 1611 English as it was understood in England. I speak a variant English used on the Western Coast of the United States that incorporates a mutiplicity of non-English words in the early twenty-first century. Would you like to argue that unless we can read the US Constitution in its original language it is also wrong? I have looked at posters of the US Constitution and I have noticed what would be considered spelling errors (congress is spelled congreff) by today's standards. Our language has changed. Our Bible must be understood in the language of the people of today, not in the language of the people of yestercentury. Besides, the first europeans to live in the US generally used the Geneva Bible, which was the also in the language of the people in its time.

I am beginning to study Greek on a more instensive basis. However, what I have thus far learned has only affirmed my present position. That position is that unless we want to force people to learn Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic, and Latin, we should not try to force anyone to read any particular version of the Bible simply because of our own opinions and/or biases. I can read the message of salvation as clearly in the NIV and ESV as anyone else may in whatever version they so choose to use. In truth, the first time I actually read the New Testament completely through, it was in an NIV and I understood it clearly enough to understand my sinful nature and God's grace as shown at the cross. What trips me up are the manifold references, direct and implied, to the idea of predestination (start with Ephesians, even in the KJV, its there). I have examined it as best as I can and I feel that until I can read the book "Freedom of the Will" by Johnathan Edwards, I won't understand anything with regards to this. This is my last posting on this topic. It lacks any real edification value. It is as I pointed out earlier, senseless.

[darrelljon]

I made a mistake in my last message.
The Bible has no more authority as the true word of God than the Torah, Koran, Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Gnostics, Rigveda etc. Even if you believe in God, none conclusively refute the others claims to be true, so it's irrelevant whether its translated incorrectly.