Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[catsmate]

It was not a bad translation for the time, but it's long been surpassed for accuracy. It is strange how there is a minority of Christians who are "King James absolutists", you would have thought any Christian would want a translated text that was as accurate as possible.

True, few of the translations had access to a complete set of sources. But the political bias drips from the volume.

 

[Mojo]

They come up from time to time when I am researching a verse or passage.
I will prefer the wording in the KJV.

I primarily use the New International Version. (which has its own issues)
But it works well for me.

How do you identify them?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For the avoidance of doubt @Gawdzilla Sama is NOT the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

I could summons a lot of hookers who would disagree with that.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Again, rubbish. Try a better translation.

Why limit yourself to one set of translators on a specific version.
Compare to see what best speaks to you.

How do you identify them?

In comparative study they bring out a subtle or blatant difference.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

And back to cafeteria christianity...

 

[catsmate]

And back to cafeteria christianity...

It's not even cafeteria, it's the scraps left over.

 

[catsmate]

Why limit yourself to one set of translators on a specific version.
Compare to see what best speaks to you.

So make it up, whatever appeals to your prejudices.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

It's not even cafeteria, it's the scraps left over.

True; I just liked the alliteration.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

And back to cafeteria christianity...

Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?

If so, who should decide what those beliefs should be?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

It's not even cafeteria, it's the scraps left over.

No. It skipping last century's meatloaf and salad.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?

If so, who should decide what those beliefs should be?

If you're talking about religious beliefs, I don't have any, so your question is meaningless.

But it's strange to claim to be christian and then pick and choose which bits of christianity you want to believe in.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For the avoidance of doubt @Gawdzilla Sama is NOT the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

"Hey, I resemble that remark! Nuck nuck nuck."

 

[Dave Rogers]

They come up from time to time when I am researching a verse or passage.
I will prefer the wording in the KJV.

I primarily use the New International Version. (which has its own issues)
But it works well for me.

This informal logical fallacy is called "Cherry Picking."

Dave

 

[Mojo]

Why limit yourself to one set of translators on a specific version.
Compare to see what best speaks to you.


In comparative study they bring out a subtle or blatant difference.

How do you identify the "few passages where the KJV shines some light on the issue"?

How do you tell whether these "subtle or blatant differences" make them better or worse?

Is it just confirmation bias?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More likely someone made those claims and he's kipped them.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Doesn't answer Mojo's question. But is an indication of how long it's taken us poor failiable human's to get this far, an actual all knowing supreme beingcould have handed down a fair and moral system of law and government fair and equal to all, instead we had the power and prejudices of tribal priests and leaders framed as their imaginary gods.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"God, in his love, allows humans to make mistakes in the hope they'll learn from them."

I nearly threw up on the preacher lady who said that.

 

[Mojo]

"God, in his love, allows humans to make mistakes in the hope they'll learn from them."

I nearly threw up on the preacher lady who said that.

"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly." - Peter Cook

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How do you identify the "few passages where the KJV shines some light on the issue"?

How do you tell whether these "subtle or blatant differences" make them better or worse?

Is it just confirmation bias?

By way of confirming my own bias, here are three reasons I often prefer the Authorized Version (aka KJV) to more modern translations:

1. The KJV is in the public domain, so I don't have to worry about copyright status or fair use.
2. The KJV occasionally uses an idiom that persists in modern English.
3. Some of those idioms are more interesting in the KJV than in the corrupted form seen in modern English.

Example: Job 19:20 says "I am escaped with the skin of my teeth." In modern English, the "with" is often changed to "by", which diminishes the impact of the phrase. Job is saying he was lucky to escape with his gums* intact. Changing "with" to "by" emphasizes the close call (missed by the thickness of that skin, whatever it may be) rather than the luck that preserved a treasured body part.

*Whether "skin of my teeth" refers to gums or to enamel or to whatever is itself a question, but that question isn't much affected by changing "with" to "by".

 

[P.J. Denyer]

They come up from time to time when I am researching a verse or passage.
I will prefer the wording in the KJV.

I primarily use the New International Version. (which has its own issues)
But it works well for me.

Of course you could refer to the works of experts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek who have studied the earliest known copies of the documents and can translate the disputed words accurately and with knowledge of how they were used at the time. Or, you can go with the feelz.


It's the feelz, isn't it...