hello, hello!!! *gives you a hug* it's good to see you posting!
and yes, i agree, the KJV is NOT the be-all and end-all of translations. it's decent if you have one with the concordances, and READ the concordances to enlighten yourself further...but if all you do is listen on sunday and get one person's interpretation of that translation, you aren't getting the full set of pixels.
the new american standard is a good translation, as far as i remember it. it always made sense to me, in easy language without going too far to the informal (like the Living Bible did).
Both the KJV and the NASB share one failing in common, and in common with every translation I know of other than Tyndale's (which is also not perfect
( ... )
i have no doubt that what you say is true. i think that most what people think of as Christianity is actually Paulism, going on the words of Paul who never even *met* Christ.
and while what happened on the road to Damascus is a wonderful thing, it still does not take away the fact that the teachings being translated by someone who never heard them from the actual mouth...as you say, it loses the true meaning much as the translations from the greek do.
So, if I hung around here again, would anyone be the least bit interested?
I believe you know my answer to that, but just in the off chance that it hasn't sunk in quite yet, my answer is an unequivocal "HECK YES!". ;)
As to the KJV, I do prefer it over the other so-called translations simply because of the language used, inaccuracies though there may be, which I find quite uplifting. The inaccuracies can be worked around, if one is so disposed, eh? ;)
Liking it is fine, though I find it hard to recommend as an evangelical tool on the grounds that it was written in a language no-one now speaks, and in addition was deliberately retro-languaged even for that time in an attempt to make things sound religious in tone (rather than understandable
( ... )
The difference between church and congregation is as though the rights to what we write on LiveJournal were tomorrow assigned to the company running it, and we could type only what they wanted us to type. In this context LiveJournal is the 'church' and we are the 'congregation'. Who the promises are made to is of the essence. To perpetuate the idea that the church as we know it was known to Paul in any way shape or form is a deceit - and it is made for a very good reason. Fear
( ... )
One very quick argument of substance - many decry the work of Westcott and Hort on account of their spiritual failings. They at once make two mistakes
( ... )
Comments 12
and yes, i agree, the KJV is NOT the be-all and end-all of translations. it's decent if you have one with the concordances, and READ the concordances to enlighten yourself further...but if all you do is listen on sunday and get one person's interpretation of that translation, you aren't getting the full set of pixels.
the new american standard is a good translation, as far as i remember it. it always made sense to me, in easy language without going too far to the informal (like the Living Bible did).
Reply
Reply
i have no doubt that what you say is true. i think that most what people think of as Christianity is actually Paulism, going on the words of Paul who never even *met* Christ.
and while what happened on the road to Damascus is a wonderful thing, it still does not take away the fact that the teachings being translated by someone who never heard them from the actual mouth...as you say, it loses the true meaning much as the translations from the greek do.
Reply
Reply
I believe you know my answer to that, but just in the off chance that it hasn't sunk in quite yet, my answer is an unequivocal "HECK YES!". ;)
As to the KJV, I do prefer it over the other so-called translations simply because of the language used, inaccuracies though there may be, which I find quite uplifting. The inaccuracies can be worked around, if one is so disposed, eh? ;)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment