Is KJV Bible just old english, or perhaps most allegorically correct version?
I found, from studying all versions & perversions of the bible, an Authorized KJV (not RCC nor Protestant perversions) is best for study of biblical allegory, solving mysteries thereof; which is like navigating through the ultimate matrix, with lots of mirrored phrases and twists to the mystery, especially near the end, already written.
I use a pre 1900 KJV simply called Holy Bible, which is neither RCC nor Protestant versions of KJV. It contains an Epistle Dedicatory of Bible Translators, but not Apocrypha. Epistle Dedicatory notes Translators were traduced & maligned by Roman Catholics & Protestants, likely printed their own KJVs.
KJV is translated from 6 bibles already written, is 7th bible, as one made better from 6 good; In the fashion God saw good x6, very good 7th time in Genesis 1. I find no dangerous helps in the KJV.
I find it easier to search phrases, previous mention of such, in the KJV, than in any other version.
What are your thoughts on the Authorized KJV
What does your version say in Galatians 4:24; Is it "allegory"?
What does your version say in Colossians 2:2; Is is "mystery"?
How do we solve allegoric mystery?
Is the script-u-are plural and contrary as scriptures, or perhaps the third part of a two part God shew about a third part?
Be reconciled (thru J-->C) to God?
God is not a man that he should lie?
- JeancommunicatesLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I have the majority of Bible translations from "The Message" to the "amplified version." I agree with you thoroughly; I prefer the King James Version.
The Old English lettering is very easy to read if you've proof read it for forty years. The old English grammar as presented also in Beowulf is quite challenging, but very interesting. The "Thee, Thou and Thy" are fun, but only if you've read it for years. My very first Bible as a child was the KJV so I know nothing different. Fifty years ago the KJV was just about all that we had.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It is important to have a proper understanding of translations and their various degrees of accuracy.
There are two major types of translations:
1. Word for Word: That is the best equivalent ENGLISH WORD for the Original GREEK or HEBREW Word.
2. Dynamic Equivalent: That is the best equivalent ENGLISH PHRASE for the Original GREEK or HEBREW phrase.
Both methodologies of translation are very good and can be very accurate. The reality is most translations will involve a litte bit of both of these methods.
Also its important to have a modern committee translation. That is a translation that has been published in the last 50 years and was created by a committee of various scholars from different religious backgrounds.
The importance of a recent translation is because in the past recent years we have found some more reliable greek and hebrew manuscripts that modern translations reflect in their works. (the AV, does not!) The most famous example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I believe they are the oldest collection of Old Testament Manuscripts to date. Not sure about that last statement though.
So the BEST translation for a WORD for WORD methodology is
NASB: The New American Standard Bible (1995 update) (really no debate about that)
The BEST translation that uses a DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT is
NIV: The New International Version
There is probably a little bit of debate about the NIV being the best of dynamic equivalents, but manys scholars will use the NIV for their study. The New Living Translation is also a very good translation, but I personally think it takes a few too many liberties with the text.
I personally use the NIV and the NASB primarily.
Also, a easy to read version is THE MESSAGE, however this is NOT a translation!!! It is a paraphrase.
- grnlowLv 71 decade ago
While I agree it is a fine translation, it is not the be all and end all. You need a translation in modern English to be able to understand the scriptures. Also a couple other translations help to get the full sense of what the original writers meant. No translation is without errors. Going from one language to another in different time periods ALWAYS cause some errors. Even the difference between British English and USA English is great. It is not an accident BBCAmerica warns USA audiences about closed captioning.
- 4 years ago
KJV cannot be the only English translation wherein the Word of God is preserved because there is no Bible wherein the Word of God is preserved. The Word of God is not preserved in any Bible. Bible is the Word of God. If Bible is the Word of God, why so many error in it? For example, in Genesis 32:30, Jacob had seen God face to face. In John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12, John wrote "No one has ever seen God". So if the Bible is the Word of God, why did John write "No one has ever seen God" twice, once in his Gospel, once in his Epistle, while in Genesis Jacob had seen God FACE2FACE? Because apparently Apostle John had never read Genesis 32:30 and he did not know Jacob had seen God. Moreover, John was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Bible including Gospels and Epistles is not the Word of God. Make Sense!!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- bocasbeachbumLv 61 decade ago
And this is why we atheists think you christians have a problem with conscious rational thought. You talk about a 1900 version of the bible as being accurate. How about the other 1900 years of revisions. Try reading the Greek Orthodox version. It has not changed in 1700 years. That might be a bit more accurate, but then you would discover many things the modern christians don't want to hear.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I believe that we indeed have the promised, purified 7 times, the more sure Word of God in the Authorized Text. There has come a point where sound doctrine has become fables. Those whom study, know they have the more sure Word of God in the King James Version. Also, know that is the only one that is not copyrighted! For the time will come when man will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers having itching ears, and the truth will be turned into fables.Source(s): rememberance
- synopsisLv 71 decade ago
if you believe that king james was god's representative on earth (as he did) then obviously you will prefer his bible.
in fact you will prefer it to the original, since it comes directly from god's representative (king james), and not from a bunch of scruffy apostles.
it is full of mistranslations (john 1.1 for example), but heyyyy ...
it also has some wonderful homoerotic moments which are missing from all other translations.
perfect for american protestants.
does jesussaves really not know why it is called the 'authorised' version? (james made it illegal to use other versions because he needed to protect his own agendas).
or is he just pretending to be stupid?
- Doc OccamLv 71 decade ago
It's not Old English, it's Early Modern English.
I'll wager you can't read Old English.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
1) I would be interested to know which edition or revision of the King James Version (KJV) you are using. It sounds to me as if you are using the de facto standard revision, the Oxford Revision of 1769, and it appears your printing has abridged the "Apocrypha" and appended an "Epistle Dedicatory of Bible Translators" - something not included in the original edition. I wonder, where is this from, who wrote it, and why is it in your edition?
2) There is no Roman Catholic (RC) version of the KJV, and the RCC never printed or approved of any edition of the KJV. A RC would likely consider the KJV an entirely Protestant bible. The RCC would certainly never approve of any KJV edition, regardless of the inclusion of the addition "Epistle Dedicatory of Bible Translators". Indeed, the RCC was likely wholly uninterested in any such appendage to your particular edition.
3) KJV is actually *translated* from the original languages, not from "6 bibles already written". It is true that other versions were used as reference - their (well-recognized) wording was used when in agreement with the new translation.
I decided to look up the 2 verses you mentioned in my favorite translation, The New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition.
There is an allegory here: these women stand for the two covenants.
It is all to bind them together in love and to encourage their resolution until they are rich in the assurance of their complete understanding and have knowledge of the mystery of God
Since the verse in Gal refers to Hagar and Sarah as an allegory of the 2 covenants, and Col 2:2 refers in general to the mystery of God, I fail completely to understand what one has to do with the other - other than they are both part of the world of God. The verses in Gal are speaking specifically of the 2 covenants - not of the mystery of God. The verses in Col are speaking specifically of the mystery of God - not of the 2 covenants. Apparently, the way "we solve an allegorical mystery" is by recognizing that there is none.
"Is the script-u-are plural and contrary as scriptures, or perhaps the third part of a two part God shew about a third part?"
May *I* mumble dog face in the banana patch?
My thoughts on the KJV (my thoughts on the authorization of that version is that it was never formally authorized):
There are 3 aspects of English bible translation which change over time:
1) The English language changes
2) Our knowledge of ancient languages improves (i.e. translation becomes more accurate)
3) More ancient (presumably more authentic) manuscripts are discovered by archaeologists
The KJV fails to take advantage of these 3 advances. Indeed, if you read the "Translators to the Reader" http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html - written by the translators of the KJV itself - you will see that the 1st two of these things were of very great importance to them. The translators themselves saw the need to update the language of the bible - less than 50 years after a previous version. I think it no great leap to claim that they would feel that this shortcoming is even more apparent in the 400-year-old KJV.
Likewise, the translators of the KJV were (apparently) well-educated biblical language scholars of their time using the source texts most highly-regarded (and available) of their time. I don't think that it is much of a reach to believe that they would only approve of a translation today if it were done by scholars educated in the best (of modern-day) ancient languages techniques using the best of available manuscripts.
However, if you do not put your faith in the translators of the KJV (I do not - although, after reading their foreword, I recognize their wisdom), it seems only logical that you would arrive at the same conclusion - that the most accurate English bible translation requires
1) That it be translated into modern English
2) That it make use of the latest discoveries in ancient language scholarship
3) That it make use of the most authentic (i.e. closest to the original) manuscripts available to us
Again, the KJV fails in all 3 of these areas.
Does this mean that the KJV is a useless version? Hardly. What it means is that there are several versions that are *more accurate* than the KJV. *More accurate* means closer to the true word of God. To me, it seems as if the purpose of a bible translation is to transmit (as well as possible) the word of God to its readers. The better a version does this, the better it fulfills its purpose. This means that a version which is both more accurate and more comprehensible is, in my opinion, a better version.
That being said, there are editions of the KJV and there are editions of the KJV. Here are the 3 I recommend to those who have to have one:
KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&loc...
A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.
KJV (Oxford) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&loc...
Similar to the above, this edition lacks only the marginal notes and is much cheaper (and paperback). It is pretty well-put-together for a paperback.
This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.Source(s): New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition, Copyright (c) 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. and Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
- jesussavesLv 71 decade ago
The authorized version (what its real name is) is 100% perfect
the makers of other bibles sued to have the name changed because their "versions" didnt sell against the authorized bible