Mandylubug Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 Could you just pick up second hand King James bibles to take to church? We could do that, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freckles Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 My favorites are ESV and NAS. The NIV is okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 We could do that, I suppose.It sounds like the best option if your pastor isn't going to start reading your preferred version any time soon. Before I became a KJ only person I would opt for the same Bible as everyone else for church and bible study, so that I could easily follow along. It makes sense. (And if it's hard for us to follow along as adults, it's going to be even harder for your children.) And at home you could all use your other Bibles and be on the same page. At least you won't leave, or lose, their new good ones at church :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It's implied once you start discussing bible versions. I don't see what the problem is. Honestly. Its only implied if you believe one is Best and others are Worst, etc. I am just reading preferences. I said I didn't like the NIV and that was probably the most negative. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it is compared to a wet noodle. It is still the Word of God. And THAT is what the Bible says is the Sword. Not the King James Version. That does feel over the top negative and likely to shut down anyone listening on the subject. Even someone like me who really does like the KJV and agrees with you to some extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Honestly. Its only implied if you believe one is Best and others are Worst, etc. I am just reading preferences. I said I didn't like the NIV and that was probably the most negative. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it is compared to a wet noodle. It is still the Word of God. And THAT is what the Bible says is the Sword. Not the King James Version. That does feel over the top negative and likely to shut down anyone listening on the subject. Even someone like me who really does like the KJV and agrees with you to some extent. Many people (who believe that all bibles are the word of God) can still have preferences, and will often debate over which bible version is superior. It's really not a big deal. Read any preface of a modern bible and it will give you reasons why it is the better bible. I do believe that the King James Bible is by far the superior sword. Yes, it may offend others that I've called their bibles a wet noodle by comparison, but that's my personal conviction and conclusion on the matter. The original post was about having to make a choice between the KJB and two other mentioned bible versions. I'd choose the King James, because of its superiority. God says in the King James Bible that he has preserved his word, (Psalm 12:6-7), and that's what I believe. (I agree that I've probably got people offside by the wet noodle comment. I find it funny though, trying to be light-hearted while at the same time making a point.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Love my NASB. My older kids now use ESV and my youngest niv. My kids have ESVs, KJVs, NIVs and NASBs. They switch around based on what a curriculum calls for or teacher prefers. You can get parallel bibles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 PS here we sit arguing over translations. I am honestly just darn thankful that a translation is available in English. Not every people group has this privilege. Not intending a hand slap here. Truly, deeply thankful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Many people (who believe that all bibles are the word of God) can still have preferences, and will often debate over which bible version is superior. The same is true of many of those (like myself) who believe the Bible is the word of men. I believe the KJV is a literary masterpiece, where versions like the ESV and (worse yet) the NIV are like stakes driven into the heart of the English language. Who would release versions of the text that are so utterly artless and devoid of poetry? For those seeking an easier-reading alternative to the KJV that manages to maintain very high literacy standards, I recommend the oft-overlooked New Jerusalem Bible. This one is a joy to read. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Please share links of information on why to pick what version if you have any. I was thinking about your main concern, with dyslexia. While I don't know much to help you there, I did think to look up some links that help to show why the King James Bible isn't too hard for children to understand. Maybe some of these qualities will be helpful for your readers(?) I've found a few of these things true for myself. (I realise that you did say that you find modern versions personally easier, and prefer them for that reason, but this is just to give you some confidence if they do end up reading the King James Bible in church.) http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-understanding-kjv http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html The Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a list of 618 antiquated words. It is called Bible Word List. That is not very many, and most of them can be understood by considering the context. There are only about 300 antiquated words in the KJV that are so difficult that you really need a dictionary to understand them. "Why is the KJV easier to read? The KJV uses one or two syllable words while new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases." less syllables per word less letters per word less words per sentence smaller percentage of long words greater percentage of short words than the NKJV, NIV, NASB and NRSV "While Shakespeare used a vocabulary of roughly 37,000 English words, the King James Bible used only 8,000" I've also learned that when I come across a word that I don't know, that the word either self-defines itself (from what it sounds like), or it's meaning is repeated within the same verse, or a nearby verse. The 1611AV becomes its own self-defining dictionary. Young ears pick up on this even without being aware of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 less syllables per word less letters per word less words per sentence Someone needs to give these language mavens a lesson in the proper usage of "fewer" vs "less." :D Good grief. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The same is true of many of those (like myself) who believe the Bible is the word of men. I believe the KJV is a literary masterpiece, where versions like the ESV and (worse yet) the NIV are like stakes driven into the heart of the English language. Who would release versions of the text that are so utterly artless and devoid of poetry? For those seeking an easier-reading alternative to the KJV that manages to maintain very high literacy standards, I recommend the oft-overlooked New Jerusalem Bible. This one is a joy to read. Bill God is an artist, the best there is. Why wouldn't he be poetic? :laugh: Besides being a literary masterpiece, it also has a certain sound to it. Due to the poetic nature, but also due to the biblical words used. (I've heard this described as biblical language, but there may be a better term for it.) It doesn't just read like your average story book, and it is easily identified as "bible" when one hears it. And while this may hold little meaning for a non-believer, I'd like to bring it to the attention of any Christians reading along. A lot of words that hold doctrinal meaning are simply taken out of modern versions. The translators of the 1611 had to invent certain words at times to fulfill a specific need so that they remained true to the text, and we've carried these forward in time, only to have the modern bibles remove them. A few examples of words that are often removed from modern bibles - Godhead, Regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, sodomite, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit. ETA: More examples of what is taken out - http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teannika Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Oh man, there aren't enough likes in the world for this. I was just thinking today about a comment I heard that, though Christianity in China is exploding and they are even printing bibles there, only about 25% of those printed are actually intended for use in China - the rest are exported. And we have missionary friends working with Wycliffe as translators in Thailand who just finished a translation in one of the natives languages about a year ago, and now the precious Word of God is being read by them for the first time. It makes me went to cry in joy for them, and feel immense gratitude myself. And if I trust the Wycliffe translating team and missionaries to do their job for this previously unreached people, why would I have less faith in the ability of God to protect and preserve the transmission of His word in my own language? Thinking about all those who would give anything for a bible, especially in highly oppressive countries, makes me want to weep for the blessing of being born in a country where, despite some persecution, we can still preach without criminalizing ourselves, study the Bible first hand, and gather together publically without fear of losing our lives. Back to the topic at hand - I did say my favorite translation was the ESV, and I purchased bibles for my 6 and 7 year old girls accordingly. They haven't had difficulty with family reading or personal devotions and study with them. They're really quite readable. Another perspective is the amount of wasted effort and however many millions of wasted $$$$ are going towards writing new English bible versions, instead of just using and accepting what God did well enough in the first place when bringing his word into English. I mean, we are talking 300 odd modern English bible versions, and I'm sure they will just keep pumping out more. Do they really have the people at the heart of this? They'd be better off making more non-English translations for non-English speaking people as you point out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 OP- maybe a parallel bible would be a good solution. That would allow your children to follow along in the KJV during services but have something a little easier to read while reading on their own. The versions I have seen have the different translations on facing pages so it is easy to compare. I chose the NIrV for my 6 year old, it is not the best translation. However he will read it on his own and is attempting to read it cover to cover. In a year he has read up to Numbers 17 without any prompting from me or my husband. I do not have him use that version for memory work or family bible study, just personal reading. When I was stressing out over which version to purchase, I asked my grandfather, a pastor of 60 years who can read Greek and Hebrew. He told me to pick a translation my son would read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixpence1978 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Although I am aware of its downfalls, my personal favorite is still the old 1984 NIV. The new 2011 NIV is just okay to me. My second personal choice is the ESV. My son uses an old 1984 NIV and likes that best. My daughter is dyslexic and can get caught up in unfamiliar language, so she has a NLT that reads very nicely for her. It may not be the most "accurate" but at least she understands what she is reading. As far as following along in church, I can see that benefit. But I have just explained to my kids that there are many different translations of the Bible. They can try to follow along if they'd like, otherwise I tell them to just focus on listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttichen Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Our church uses New King James, which I can't stand. At first we planned to use that for our kids, but I realized that it was very difficult for early readers. A lot of it is just word order -- the syntax isn't what they're expecting to see so it throws them off. My kids could read the NIV as soon as they were reading. We decided to stick with NIV at home and let them use a pew Bible to read along in church. I love the old NIV and disagree with Spy Car - I think the English is beautiful and poetic. I also think it's a more reliable translation than the KJV, which was based on an incomplete manuscript. (There are whole chapters that Erasmus back-translated from the Vulgate because Greek texts were not available at his time. Now we have those texts. It also includes very dubious passages that aren't in any reliable Greek manuscript.) But unfortunately, I think they have ruined the NIV with the gender-neutral language. Aside from the theological problems, it drives me CRAZY when "their" is used for a singular. So we are transitioning to ESV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFG Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Just adding this for food for thought, but my personal preference during Scripture readings at church is just to listen and not try to follow along in the text at all. I find it helps me to concentrate on the passage. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slache Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Morris made a few study KJVs with notes about the archaic language directly in the scripture if you want to get KJVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Seriously? KJV is NOT the only valid option out there. Many would say the opposite, if they know the history of King James. Your family, your choice but that's kind of rude of others choices, in a pretty major way. No kidding. Rude and laughable, IMO. (See point number six in this concise article: https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyR Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The church I attended until I was nearly an adult only used the KJV, so that was my first Bible. The Bible versions I currently have in my home are: KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NASB, NLT, and CEV. But now I do most of my reading with my Bible app (YouVersion). I use the NASB and the AMP, which are my favorites. In addition to daily scripture reading, I am also using a plan to read through the whole Bible in 1 year. For that I use the NLT. In addition to those 3 versions I’ll occasionally check out the text in the NET and YLT. That’s what I love about that Bible app - it’s easy to switch between versions. My daily scripture reading with my 13-year-old is with the NLT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 No kidding. Rude and laughable, IMO. (See point number six in this concise article: https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today) The link doesn't work because the closed parentheses is part of it -- it just goes to a general-nothing-on-it page as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.