Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

The above view originates solely from your own subjective ideas.

 

Well excuse me for not splitting that hair down the middle. 400 years = OLD.

It is NOT modern English at all. Most of the KJV English is archaic and not used in speech today. The KJV English is NOT more precise, "you" is more precise than "thou" for instance.

Koine Greek is FAR more precise than you give it credit for. Where did you think the precision of the English language came from, Greek roots. NOT Latin or any other root language, but Greek, where half out alphabet came from. Greek is a technical language !!!!

Did you ever notice the fact that there are fewer italics words in the NT and in the case of some books you will only find one ever couple of verses just for some clarity but it can be read the same without it. This is because Koine Greek of good literary quality can translate directly to English literally most of the time.

Oh well, its not like any of this will actually sink in.

 

Elizabethan English is by definition, modern. Please explain how the alphabet differed.

Me and almost ever scholar of the English language (secular or otherwise) you talk to.

 

In King James English "thee," "thou," "thine," "you," "ye" and "yours" have all been replaced by "you" and "yours." We have two words where they used six specific words to differentiate singular and plural. Thus "thou" is far more precise than "you."

 

Let's define the word, shall we?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry:ar·cha·ic Pronunciation: \är-ˈkā-ik\ Function:adjective Etymology:French or Greek; French archaïque, from Greek archaïkos, from archaiosDate:1832

1: having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses <an archaic word>
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated <archaic legal traditions>
3 capitalized : of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development ; especially : of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture
4: surviving from an earlier period ; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage
5capitalized : of or relating to the period from about 8000 b.c. to 1000 b.c. and the North American cultures of that time

Thou knowest that we no longer converse in the manner of the King, neither do we have our conversation (non-verbal) in like manner. That bewrays us to understand that the mincing of those who claim that the KJV does not contain antiquated English are bestead to prove it. Now I must go because they are coming to tow my Charger because the tires are flat. At least I am leasing. I hope my bosses will not be froward today.

 

I am not an expert in that area but I do know a man who is a professor and teaches literature. He told me that the English used in the KJV preceded what the people were speaking at the time when the KJV was translated.

 

"At least" I hope you didn't leave your Bible in the Charger, regardless of what version it happens to be.













You know how those "'hook'-havens" and "chop-shops" operate! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Thermodynamics is correct: Technically speaking, the AV was written with Modern English. As some have mentioned it was more an Elizabethan style of Modern English of a few prior decades rather than the immediate Jacobean style of 1611.

This not to say that the KJV is contemporary English by any means; some KJV words are now properly considered to be archaic, while other KJV words have clearly shifted their meaning.

 

GB93433 is correct: of course, the words of a translation are not as precise as the original source words. Furthermore (and I think more the point intended), an argument can be made that Koine Greek is more expressive than Modern English. However, the discussion was originally a comparison between past and current English forms.

 

Correct: by borrowing pronoun forms from Elizabethan English the KJV does reflect the 'case' and 'number' inflected in the Greek terms which would be beneficial in principle. However, in practice it is rarely significant (and can be communicated to the reader by other means).

 

I will presume that Rippon is referring to the use of 'v' for 'u' and the tall 's' (similar to an 'f'). I think that these differences are considered typographic, not truely alphabetic.

 

It could also be that he is referring to the Gothic style of typeface used in the 1611 edition (but not from 1612 onwards).

 

You had posted these remarks on 6/7/09. It took less than three months to prove you were wrong in your assertions.

 

I grew up in a KJVO church. I left the liberalism of that church and began to examine the issues regarding translations some time later. After looking at the truths, I began to use MVs like the NIV and a little NASB. I do most of my study from the NASB while I read devotionally from the NIV/TNIV. The ESV has disappointed me, though I still like it. The blessing of this transition is too much to put into words. God is good.

 

The TNIV has now been abandoned but the NIV is being revised. You honestly believe the NIV is being abandoned? Zondervan, CBT, and Biblica would disagree with you :smilewinkgrin:

 

I started with the KJV. I picked up an NIV, put it back down. I picked up the NASB, put it back down but after a few minutes. I've looked at the many translations I have on my computer. The "AV" is my sole resource. I do occasionally look at other versions and by comparison, I always go back to the KJV.

I too love literature, although my vernacular is left wanting. There's just something about the appeal the word of God has when it is given in a form of prose and the poetic graces we find within the KJV. There alone the KJV is superior in style.

I'll stick with the KJV.

Why is it when discussing where the Bible is the thread gets closed when getting right down where the nitty-gritty is?

The very verse which proclaims inspiration gets introduced and then claims against the word of God are made that no translation is inspired?

This line of, "reasoning", is EXACTLY WHY I'll stick with the KJV!

 

Yeah, they're making way too much money off a group largely made up of liberals and evangelicals to abandon it.

 

Hahah!!! That's what I like about you. You're always inventing these amusing works of fiction that make my day.

 

I did. I used the KJV for years. In college, I took languages in Koine Greek and Hebrew, to better understand the biblical source texts. Eventually, I switched to the NIV after looking at numerous translations. I've found that the NIV does quite an accurate job rendering source text content and context in its passages.

I'm currently in the process of reading non-English translations, which is quite interesting. If anyone can recommend a Hindi translation, I'd be appreciative.