What is so special about the KJV?

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Is it really superior to other versions?

Most common excuse is: the "beautiful" use of language. By "beautiful", they really meant language familiar to the aristocrats and priviledged class of the time. The beautification went so far as mentioning unicorns..

 

[dothackjhe]

Sabi ng advocate ng JKV na nabasa ko, dahil daw sa yan kasi yung unadulterated at pinaka-faithful translation ng Bible to English. Yung ibang versions daw kasi may "dagdag-bawas".

 

[Frustrated Burger]

Sabi ng advocate ng JKV na nabasa ko, dahil daw sa yan kasi yung unadulterated at pinaka-faithful translation ng Bible to English. Yung ibang versions daw kasi may "dagdag-bawas".

Tama ito

 

[In Depths of Silence]

Sabi ng advocate ng JKV na nabasa ko, dahil daw sa yan kasi yung unadulterated at pinaka-faithful translation ng Bible to English. Yung ibang versions daw kasi may "dagdag-bawas".

Exactly.

 

[NOUGHT]

kahit na ganun hindi ibig sabihin nito superior na ang kjv kumpara sa ibang versions dahil gaya ng ibang versions may mali din

 

[sanskuro]

Recommended daw ito compare to other na paraphrasing ang ginagawa.

 

[In Depths of Silence]

kahit na ganun hindi ibig sabihin nito superior na ang kjv kumpara sa ibang versions dahil gaya ng ibang versions may mali din

Dun ka nagkamali. Superior na ang KJV doon pa lang sa part na wala halos dagdag-bawas. May mali man iilan lang. Kahit ako sa KJV pa rin tumitingin ng mga sitas.

Kumpara mo naman sa Lamsang mali mali ang pagkaka translate karamihan.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Ano ba ang basis natin para sabihin mali yung iba at tama ung sa KJV? It is not like meron satin naka witness ng totoong nangyari noon para malaman kung alin ang tama at mali. Lahat ng author, kagaya ng sa KJV ay nangangapa lang sa mga obscure texts.

Looking through history, marami lang yata nagsasabi nyan kasi nahulma na ng KJV ang isip nila, kaya noong magkaroon ng ibang translation like NIV which was based on the original text and also considered historical contexts, nireject ito ng KJV readers dahil "binabago" daw ang BIble. The choose to stay with their old mistaken version.

Recommended daw ito compare to other na paraphrasing ang ginagawa.

Recommended by who?

Sabi ng advocate ng JKV na nabasa ko, dahil daw sa yan kasi yung unadulterated at pinaka-faithful translation ng Bible to English. Yung ibang versions daw kasi may "dagdag-bawas".

Unadultered? On verses na may mention ng "tyrant" , King James changed it to "terrible" or avoid mentioning it at the least, to justify his rule as a king. Hindi ba ito ang pinakamalaking red flag kung unadultered ang hanap mo?

 

[dothackjhe]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

The point of the question is to see why some people still prefer the KJV despite the ridiculousness of the claims about it, and the known truths about KJV.

-It is made out of a King's desire for supremacy.

-due to the above, it is definitely manipulative.

-its beauty is subjective, and is based on the judgement of the english aristocrats.

-the lack of edit, though claimed to be more accurate, makes the book less accurate if we consider that most edits were due to translation deficiency.

 

[NOUGHT]

Dun ka nagkamali. Superior na ang KJV doon pa lang sa part na wala halos dagdag-bawas. May mali man iilan lang. Kahit ako sa KJV pa rin tumitingin ng mga sitas.

Kumpara mo naman sa Lamsang mali mali ang pagkaka translate karamihan.

basta ako di ko winoworship ang kjv