Acts 9:5
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS.
Stref:
languages change. In British English and in my home country New Zealand, which is fairly close to British English but diverging all the time the word PRICK, as a noun, has an extra meaning which is something quite obscene.
Its not a good idea to use an archaic word when the same word in modern has a totally different meaning even if it is alongside other more common meanings.
I have never seen this word appear with the meaning i am talking about in American English, but here in NZ, Australia and England it is obscene.
I wil tell you if you really dont know, which would prove my point, actually
but maybe by PM. Seriously, even though i find it uproariously funny
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/smilies/th_smiley_ROFL3.gif
(01-03-2009 02:17 AM)strefanash Wrote: [ -> ]Acts 9:5
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS.
Stref:
languages change. In British English and in my home country New Zealand, which is fairly close to British English but diverging all the time the word PRICK, as a noun, has an extra meaning which is something quite obscene.
Its not a good idea to use an archaic word when the same word in modern has a totally different meaning even if it is alongside other more common meanings.
I have never seen this word appear with the meaning i am talking about in American English, but here in NZ, Australia and England it is obscene.
I wil tell you if you really dont know, which would prove my point, actually
but maybe by PM. Seriously, even though i find it uproariously funny
Gonna 
ya 
Here in America, the word also has obscene connotations. People use Jesus Christ and God as swear words and the word "a ss" is automatically removed from posts as is "b astard" [I put a space in to keep them in text], which are both used in the Bible and are considered "four letter" words as well 
So what what's the solution? 
I am curious which version you find acceptable or one that you use?
I was being whimsical, Im afraid. A facetious sense of humour in this instance.
But why complicate comprehension of a text by presenting it with archaic english usages. I have posted on this before,
"the same they case in his teeth" - teeth is not any where in the Greek, but it was the thieves railing at christ as he hung on the cross before one changed his mind and repented
"the goodman of the house" no meaning "good" appears in the Greek.
I used to say that if you can sit through a Shakespeare (died 1616 cf KJV 1611) and perfectly understand it, then, by all means use the KJV.
That can in part be answered by appeal to the fact that teh Bible has a much smaller vocab than any Shakespeare, but even so, why confuse those who are not scholars of old fashioned language?
Then there is the "did you receive the spirit since you believed" appearing in acts somewhere. The greek was "And believing, did you receive" the whole sense of "since" as in a time after you believed, is a mistranslation, did you receive WHEN you believed" is correct, and pentecostals make heresy on the KJV reading.
I have also noticed readings were KJV uses NOT but other versions do not. I have also notivced that different versions of the KJV differ on this. The meaning is changed diametrically, of course.
I flatly deny that the KJV is inerrant and I regard KJV only-ism as pure idolatry
As for which version i use, I have a KJV because an old lady friend gave it to me years ago, and I have a NIV. For various reasons, to do with connotations associations and despair, i got rid of my NASB.
But I did say on another thread that I dont read the Bible at all, as I still really cant bear to. I only use it as a brief reference from time to time
I started using KJV when I was 14. Never read a Bible before then and don't know why my parents had it in the house. The Holy Spirit opened my understanding. It wasn't about me. It was about wanting to know what He has to say in it. Jesus said:
Mat 7:7-8
(7) Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
(8) For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
I don't find it archaic but quite beautiful to read. Especially in the Psalms. I am no scholar of higher learning, nor seek after book after book or teacher after teacher to explain it. 
Maybe that's the problem. 
We did use the NIV when our children were growing but were often troubled with the changes in phrasings and then doctrine. So went back to KJV. I do believe it is the best english translation, but some like the Geneva or similar.
Me, I just like to read and study it to find what God would have me know and understand. It's really so simple. It gives us instruction and encouragement and so it goes. 
I have and use several versions of the bible, and I have no problem with most translations ( it is the Spirit that interprets). But I do have an opinion, stated as such, on the KJV.
Stref...I remember in grade school when such words when spoken would be followed by snickers by the children; and reprimands by the adults. Words are just that, and as the mind matures...the negative implications of words should be in their proper perspective." when I was a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child, and spoke like a child; when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1cor13:11)
It does not surprise me that you have foud versions of the KJV translated in different ways. Most cults that do not spout their own translation of the bible often rely on the KJV simply because of the difficulty of understanding...the more convoluted the translation, the more the "faithful" need an interpreter. And as long as people are too dependent on the interpreters understanding, rather than allowing the Spirit to interpret by reading it themselves, they may find themselves on the road paved with good intentions.
the best bible to use is the one that you will use. If the fellowship you attend has a different translation...compare theirs with the one you are comfortable with. Personally I have found that regardless of the translation, God is Faithful in enlarging our understanding of His Truth.
(03-02-2009 10:36 AM)milordsheep Wrote: [ -> ]I have and use several versions of the bible, and I have no problem with most translations ( it is the Spirit that interprets). But I do have an opinion, stated as such, on the KJV.
the best bible to use is the one that you will use. If the fellowship you attend has a different translation...compare theirs with the one you are comfortable with. Personally I have found that regardless of the translation, God is Faithful in enlarging our understanding of His Truth.
The version issue is definitely a hot one these days 
Just to get some discussion going - do you think that a version of the Bible can be considered "corrupted"? I suppose I should define that a bit. What I mean is, do all versions accurately represent what is written - and I will specify the NT? From what I have seen, there are different sets of manuscripts that do not agree with each other. Does accuracy matter? Hope I didn't make that too complicated 
:anyone:
If four people are questioned about an event...four different versions that are different yet accurate should result. Indeed, if the same four used the exact same words...one may think it rehearsed. However, the content of the incident...and its accuracy should remain. Also, because of regional orientation, one may say something one way...while I say it another. Because of that...subtle differences in translations are not really a major problem for me.
But then again, there are certain cults with an agenda, who intentionally mistranslate God's word and intentionally mislead... IMO..those "shepherds" will have an accounting for their actions.
One more opinion here...if God intended all to read from the origional text, in the origional language...why is the Septuigent so prevailent in the NT?
(03-02-2009 03:58 PM)milordsheep Wrote: [ -> ]If four people are questioned about an event...four different versions that are different yet accurate should result. Indeed, if the same four used the exact same words...one may think it rehearsed. However, the content of the incident...and its accuracy should remain. Also, because of regional orientation, one may say something one way...while I say it another. Because of that...subtle differences in translations are not really a major problem for me.
So then, if a "translator" chooses to make a verse say it the way he thinks it should be read, then how does one know the truth - or what God really wants to say?
Quote:But then again, there are certain cults with an agenda, who intentionally mistranslate God's word and intentionally mislead... IMO..those "shepherds" will have an accounting for their actions.
ok - so how does one know if the Bible they have has not been "adjusted" by someone who is intentionally misleading people who read it?
Quote:One more opinion here...if God intended all to read from the origional text, in the origional language...why is the Septuigent so prevailent in the NT?
Could you explain that a little more - not sure what you mean. From what I have read the NT was written in koine Greek 
the key word there is chooses...I have found that willful misdirections are easily discerned, when compared to scripture...and mistranslations can easily be cleared the same way.
what I meant was that the writers of the NT themselves used the septuigent. If a translation was acceptable then...why not now?
(03-02-2009 06:28 PM)milordsheep Wrote: [ -> ]the key word there is chooses...I have found that willful misdirections are easily discerned, when compared to scripture...and mistranslations can easily be cleared the same way.
If one does not have an authoritative translation to hold as a plumb line, how can mistranslations be "cleared up"?
Quote:what I meant was that the writers of the NT themselves used the septuigent. If a translation was acceptable then...why not now?
I have heard of this before, but it puzzles me. Do you have some research or links to look at that promote this idea? If Jesus and the disciples read and spoke Hebrew, why would they quote the Septuagint? 
