[Re: Why is the KJV Bible better than modern translations?]
The "proof is in the pudding." The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined. All your great revivals have ended in America since the new version came out. Except for Sunday and Graham who both used KJVs. (We'll, Graham was quoted once as saying, "When I want results I use the KJV").
The men behind the translation. Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally they were some of the holiest and God-fearing men. And they were very, very intelligent. Many of your new versions were had unsaved reprobates and perverts TRANSLATING the bible. (Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV).
The KJV is the only version that claims preservation and has supporters who claim it is pure and without error. You will not find this with any other English version that I know off.
Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND. There is something about the King's English that is very clear and to the point. The English launguage was at its best at this time in history.
69 comments
it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND
No, it hasn't. Citations or it never happened.
I submit that the KJV is what is behind the homosexual agenda, so rampant in today's world. How else can you explain it?
P.S.
The "begs the question" question comes up, though. If all the other translations before the KJV were flawed, and the KJV used them as sources, the question WHAT THE FUCK? comes to mind.
"The English launguage was at its best at this time in history"
I pray, we shouldst pillory this wench for corrupting the humors by writing in this strange and different modern speeche!
Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally they were some of the holiest and God-fearing men.
How the hell do you know? Nobody knows for sure exactly who translated the KJV, so how can you say they were holy?
The fact is that most fundamentalists insist on people reading the KJV so that their fellow Christians won't understand what they're reading. This helps the fundies claim that certain passages don't really mean what they appear to mean, but instead mean something completely different. You're just misunderstanding it. And of course they'll tell you what different passages mean and why.
"(Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV)."
Huh! I'm surprised you realize that. As they say, retarded clock is still right twice a day.
Fun Fact:
King James was gay.
Now you know.
"The KJV is the only version that claims preservation and has supporters who claim it is pure and without error. You will not find this with any other English version that I know off."
Uh...And who gets to make this claim? Well, who gets to make this claim without a very obvious bias? I'm sure the readers of the NIV or whatever, read that because they think it is pure and without error, otherwise they wouldn't really bother now, would they?
"...The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined. ..."
And a lot of nuts, as well.
Anon-e-moose
"Many of your new versions were had unsaved reprobates and perverts TRANSLATING the bible. (Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV)."
But he did authorise it's creation - and made changes as & when he wanted. Oh, and proof that your Bible is perverted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_I_of_England
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. You fundies today project so much, you could make the IMAX format obsolete.
I'm sure the readers of the NIV or whatever, read that because they think it is pure and without error, otherwise they wouldn't really bother now, would they?
Or that they think it has the fewest errors. Or that they actually understand it better than the KJV or other translations. Let’s not set up a false dichotomy here.
I'm so thankful that no-one in Sweden today says we should use the Bible of King Gustav Vasa from 1540. It's barely readable; if I didn't recognize the Bible verses, I would probably not understand it at all. There's nothing clear or to the point about the Swedish "launguage" used for that Bible version, whatsoever.
Anyone who claims any text is pure and without error, is delusional.
First of all, as there are no original manuscripts, or even direct copies of the original manuscripts, for ANY of the books of the bible, the whole issue of accuracy is fairly moot. To claim superior accuracy is to hold the KJV to a non-existent standard. The best you can say is, "The KJV looks like every other version I know of."
Second, if you think the KJV is the best version clearly you must think that your god is "awful." After all, that is how the original KJV describes him/her/it. In the time of King James, they used the term, "awful" to mean "awe-inspiring." If one did not know this, then a modern day reader would assume the KJV was expressing disgust for your god. Whether English was at its "best" at that time or not is a moot point. The point is how well the reader will understand what they have read.
If the KJV is so easy to understand, why to Christians always have bible study groups?
And frankly, if I were a Christian why wouldn't I want a clear English translation of the book I worship instead of one written in an archaic form of English which is difficult to understand?
I'll just never understand these "KJV-only" types.
"Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND."
"it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND"
"scientifically proven to be the easiest"
"scientifically proven"
*drools*
The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined.
It's been around longer.
All your great revivals have ended in America since the new version came out. Except for Sunday and Graham who both used KJVs.
If the book was as perfect as you claim there wouldn't be a need for a revival.
The men behind the translation. Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally they were some of the holiest and God-fearing men. And they were very, very intelligent. Many of your new versions were had unsaved reprobates and perverts TRANSLATING the bible.
Some of these so-called 'unsaved reprobates and perverts' used the actual Hebrew texts to translate their Bibles. How the flying fuck is a translation of a translation of a translation more accurate than a direct translation straight from the source?
Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND.
Ah, then I assume you have the relevant citations for these studies? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
"Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND. There is something about the King's English that is very clear and to the point. The English launguage was at its best at this time in history."
You people really have no idea how science works. You just put "it's been scientifically proven" before every bogus claim you want people to believe. You should seriously stop with that.
Very nice, Wilchbla, you've created a perfect storm of ignorance, chauvinism and very bad writing. Now please never write anything again.
heh, KJV is a modern translation, considerin the bible has been edited many many times.
I can claim that a week old corpse doesnt stink, but that doesnt make it so.
"The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined"
Yes, it produces a lot of delusional and mentally unstable people. That's what you meant right?
"The KJV is the only version that claims preservation and has supporters who claim it is pure and without error"
KJV and its supporters claim it's good, so it must be good!
Let's try that same exact "logic" with something else.
Jeffrey Dahmer and his supporters claim he was good, so he must have been good!
The rest of that is pure failure, too, but I don't feel like breaking it all down piece by piece.
The KJV is the only version that claims preservation...
No... it... DOESN'T! Did you ever read the translators' original introduction? They themselves acknowledged that their work was not inspired by God and that no translation is perfect. In fact, they themselves altered their translation several times. That is why I never understood the King James Only Movement.
> #1240687
> Swede
> I'm so thankful that no-one in Sweden today says we should use the Bible of King Gustav Vasa from 1540. It's barely readable; if I didn't recognize the Bible verses, I would probably not understand it at all.
Some hard-line movements in Finland still use the 1642 Bible translation due to the Vinyl Record Principle ("it conveys the original meaning better"). Of course, these people also shamelessly cheat and use the 1776 revised edition with much modernised spelling. The older version has too many xs. And were typeset in fraktur. Which they can't read, because that would imply some actual love for old texts.
I agree that for quoting purposes the KJV sounds cooler. And that is why you like it, which is a good reason, and I don't see why you let the argument move onto any other turf.
It's all pretty and thundery, and 'yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil.' I would totally rather have that if I was trying to be all supernatural than 'even though I walk through the darkest valley I will fear no evil' (NIV).
But these other arguments are bull. It's like you people have got so used to coming up with lies to justify yourselves you've forgotten how to tell the truth.
Actually because the KJV uses out of date language, many of it's passages have been misinterpreted. The NIV Bible is closer to what those passages originally meant, but that means they violate many of these idiot's preconceived notions on the Bible.
You don't really want to believe in God. You just want the moral authority to back up your prejudices, which the KJV does nicely.
" (Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV). "
I didn't realize English was the same language as Hebrew.
Would that be the unchanged, inerrant KJV with or without the Apocrypha?
Furthermore, how well do you know Elizabethan English? (hint: "help meet" is a noun and adjective, not a hyphenated noun).
For bonus points, explain the KJV's self-contradicting accounts of creation.
...Take your time, I'll wait.
How the hell has it been "scientifically proven" that the KJV is the easiest version to understand?
Trust me, the NIV is much easier to understand because it doesn't apply outdated meanings to words.
"The English launguage was at its best at this time in history. "
Actually, the form of English in the KJV was old even when it was written. They wanted it to sound ancient so that it had authority.
Yes, I'm sure we can all agree that King James didn't actually translate the Bible. Massive history fail on the rest though.
This rant is presumably from someone who thinks that 'helpmeet' is all one word and is an actual thing.
"The men behind the translation. Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally"
And King James I wasn't straight. Period. Thus your Holy Writ, and therefore your beliefs based on such, Wilchbla, is gay.
It's not known as the Queen James Version for nothing.
[Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV]
You don't even know the history of your own religion.
There is NO perfectly accurate translation of the Bible. Such a thing is impossible. You will ALWAYS lose something in translation, or imprint your own biases. The only TRUE version of the Bible is the original Hebrew.
(This post paid for by the International Association of Hebrew Teachers)
The KJV has produced more fruit
I think you're confusing fruit with "intellectual vegetables"
... doh. Ninjar'd by Jezebel's evil sister..
Even though I disagree with this guy's arguments for the KJV, I like it. It's not the best translation, sure, but it's wording, though archaic, has a nice ring to it. I do not believe it is without error- all translations of any work have errors. But, they did a good job. However, this is not the only translation I like. The NRSV is wonderful as well. I would argue it's the best. I'm an agnostic, and I'm not terribly religious. Just putting my 2 cents in.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.