|
Post by Brother Ben on Jul 9, 2010 11:24:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robertcolumbia on Jun 5, 2011 20:25:13 GMT -5
Based on my own experiences, no it isn't. It does use some archaic vocabulary and grammar that is no longer commonly used today, but those who speak English well can pick up the archaicisms and incorporate that into their knowledge of the language without horrible trauma.
Also, reading the KJV is a help to understanding Jacobean and Elizabethan English in general, and reading Elizabethan or Jacobean era works cross trains you for the KJV.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Jun 6, 2011 8:29:54 GMT -5
I find my children using advanced verbage because of their exposure to the "archaic" words in the KJV. Like classical music, it strectches the mind and cause one to do something which is missing in modern education, thinking.
|
|
|
Post by jew4jesus on Jul 3, 2011 16:55:27 GMT -5
When a dear friend died he passed on a copy of the 1611 KJV. It is just a copy but it to me is so beautiful in it's language. I actually prefer reading it to reading a newer copy.
It is a blessing to me.
Love Jackie Schlageter
|
|
|
Post by robertcolumbia on Jul 3, 2011 19:39:05 GMT -5
When a dear friend died he passed on a copy of the 1611 KJV. It is just a copy but it to me is so beautiful in it's language. I actually prefer reading it to reading a newer copy. It is a blessing to me. Love Jackie Schlageter Is this an original spellings edition? I have a "1611" edition with the original word spellings, such as "Iohn" and "loue" ("John" and "love"). It is easy to read once you get used to it and understand the basic spelling conventions that they used that differ from those today, though a few words can be tricky.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Jul 5, 2011 9:16:45 GMT -5
Yes it is. I agree, once you get used to the alternative spelling, it is pretty easy to read. When I was in bible college, we had a guest speaker for a week, Dr. Jewel Smith, of Orlando, FL. He taught on the King James Version, the other versions, and where the manuscripts came from. It was the best I'd ever heard. He had ACTUAL ancient copies of bibles like, a 750 B.C. Book of Psams on lamb skin. Copies of Coverdale bibles, and the Great Chained Bible, (the Bishops Bible,) which was chained to the pulpits so no one would steal them. He had pages out of KJV's from the 1600's where the binding was gone and you could buy a page that came with a copy of the original cover page.
|
|
headcovering
Full Member
Serve the Lord with Gladness
Posts: 197
|
Post by headcovering on Oct 3, 2011 10:24:02 GMT -5
Well, I am only ten so I dont have as much knowledge as alot of you on this site. I found the NIV version is easier for me and my brother. all of my family uses the NIV version. I have wanted to use it for a while. I need some opinon about it so if anyone would lend some advise to me I would appriceat it! Jordyn
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Oct 3, 2011 10:52:50 GMT -5
Sister Jordyn, Though you are only ten, here is an article you and your parents can read to consider. It is about the verses that the NIV translaters either OMITTED completely, or left in, but said it SHOULD BE OMITTED in the footnoots. link to article: Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?Very good article.
|
|
|
Post by emilyg on Oct 3, 2011 11:48:45 GMT -5
Well, I am only ten so I dont have as much knowledge as alot of you on this site. I found the NIV version is easier for me and my brother. all of my family uses the NIV version. I have wanted to use it for a while. I need some opinon about it so if anyone would lend some advise to me I would appriceat it! Jordyn Jordyn, I grew up "using" the NIV (I didn't read it much, but I owned one) and have only been using the KJV for about 4 years. It was definitely hard at first, and even now there will be a word here and there that will confuse me. But, to me, it is so worth it! Just knowing that the KJV is translated from far more superior Hebrew/Greek texts and the translators feared God.
I think reading the NIV is just fine, you will read the words of God...but with the KJV, you will read the WORD of GOD! So many things are taken out of the Bible. Key words and verses are taken out because they disagree with the translators' beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Oct 5, 2011 0:57:56 GMT -5
I find in general the KJV isn't hard to read, but I've always been told I use more archaic vocabulary than most. I was raised with the NIV and the Good News versions, but we've always had a KJV and I generally just use whichever is closest. If there's a verse I'm really studying I will look it up in several versions. If I'm memorising a verse, I tend to use the KJV as I think it sounds nicer, more like poetry.
From a purely linguistic point of view, the KJV is more interesting, especially seeing how much like French the spelling is and how like German the grammar is!
I think most of all I'd prefer to read the Bible in the original languages but unfortunately I don't speak either (although I can read the Hebrew alephbet!). I'd like to learn the languages and translate it for myself so I KNOW it's accurate.
|
|
|
Post by robertcolumbia on Oct 5, 2011 6:53:26 GMT -5
I find in general the KJV isn't hard to read, but I've always been told I use more archaic vocabulary than most. .. I think we are kindred spirits in this regard. I also seem to prefer archaic vocabulary sometimes - I think it may at least partially have to do with the fact that I have read way too much 19th century poetry for someone of my generation .
|
|
|
Post by emilyg on Oct 5, 2011 11:58:10 GMT -5
I find in general the KJV isn't hard to read, but I've always been told I use more archaic vocabulary than most. .. I think we are kindred spirits in this regard. I also seem to prefer archaic vocabulary sometimes - I think it may at least partially have to do with the fact that I have read way too much 19th century poetry for someone of my generation . I've recently started using the word "thrice" in my everyday vocab...I really like that word!
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Oct 5, 2011 12:22:02 GMT -5
Rachel, you said:
Though I never would discorage someone from learning another language, even the laguages used in Bible times, if we believe the doctrine of Preservation of the Scriptures, then we can KNOW that what we have is pure. God did say:
Psalm 12 [6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
There is a generation (type) of people who think they are their final authority. As this same chapter says, they boast:
Psalm 12 [4]". . . With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?"
There has to be a final authority, it has to be consistent with the divine counsel of God, and there is. . . it is his eternal word. If God cannot preserve it pure for us, then he is not God.
This is why I believe in the purity of the King James Version. One might say, "Yes, but why the King James Version?" To which I reply, "Why not?" God said he'd preserve his word, and keep it pure. I never have insisted that it HAD to be the King James Version, but strangely, only the King James Version has that claim, the manuscript evidences, and the scholarship to back it.
It really all settles on the "word" itself. God said he'd preserve it pure, so all we needed was for some man or men of God that would be bold enough to point it out. That's what the proponenets of the KJV have done.
Why not the KJV:
1. First and foremost, God promised! 2. Elizabethan English was it's highest form. 3. English is the international business language of the entire world. 4. The manuscripts support it. 5. Godly scholars of the past and present have agreeded. 6. Secular liguistic scholars have said there is no book like it, (the KJV.) 7. It is only logical that God would be a pure (holy) deity, have a pure salvation, a pure church, and a pure bible.
|
|
|
Post by emilyg on Oct 5, 2011 14:00:32 GMT -5
I agree with what Bro. Ben said above
To add, God has always loved common people, and been concerned with simple men and women who love Him. It's fine to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew, but for most common people that is not possible. I believe, the main reason God created the KJV in English is because the common people speak it. Although some parts are hard to understand, it is the most straight foward Bible out there...from what I've read.
|
|
|
Post by beverlya on Oct 6, 2011 15:21:16 GMT -5
Excellent post Bro. Ben. I agree 100%.
The depth of the KJV is beyond understanding. The chapter and verse markings reveal God's hand in every little jot and tittle. The way the language flows has the hand of God on it.
Some books that have been a help are: The Answer Book by Bro. Sam Gipp Let's Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton The Language of the King James Bible by Gail Riplinger New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger
New Age versions is 690 pages of scholarly research presented about the errors of the other perverted Bibles. It's a great book but it is indepth.
The Language of the KJV is a beautiful book revealing some of the details about the actual language! After you read it, you'll read your Bible with a new love.
Beverly
|
|