The is BIG difference in the modern rendering of this verse as it also is with others I have found. Can you spot it?


34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 13:34-35 (KJV)

34 I give you a new law: Have love one for another; even as I have had love for you, so are you to have love one for another.
35 By this it will be clear to all men that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.
John 13:34-35 (BBE)

[ICT7133]

I like the KJ translation as well, not that there are no other translations equally faithful to the principles being laid out in God's wonderful word, so I wonder what the groovy dude will say ?

[thelowlyfisherman]

I Bought a New American Standard back in 1980 and used it as my main study bible for 25 years. Of course, I've had a King James for as long as I can remember.
I also have an Englishmans Greek, an NIV, a New Jerusalem, a Jerusalem, and a New King James. I think I still have a Living New Testament around, too.
My biggest concern with most of the translations is that they aren't fully translated. Christ, Messiah, aren't translated, "The Annoited One". Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit aren't translated Holy Breath.
And some things are mistranslated. For instance, God is a jealous God. Then, Paul says that love is not jealous. How can it be? Love is not envious, maybe?
I'm knit picking, I know. I just love the Word and I wish everyone did. Maybe if it were easier to understand, but, then again, I guess the search is what makes the gem so rewarding when you find it.

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by Ormly

The is BIG difference in the modern rendering of this verse as it also is with others I have found. Can you spot it?

Is the difference between "command" and "law"? Whatsomever, I see no BIG difference and such an assertion seems to be extremely legalistic.

Originally Posted by gruvEdude

Is the difference between "command" and "law"? Whatsomever, I see no BIG difference and such an assertion seems to be extremely legalistic.

Nothing remotely legalistic here. It all lies with the tiny prepositions "to" and "for". I don't want to come right out and explain it because if you see on you own you will remember as you read other passages to compare renderings of the passages for best understanding. For that reason I ask that you all re-read both renderings and ponder the "preps" and what significance they play? This is extremely important in the scheme of things; understanding what God is after in and from us. I hope you will persevere. I will give you several like this one to discuss where the KJV stands out when emphasizing what the writer is implying..

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by Ormly

It all lies with the tiny prepositions "to" and "for".

It seems that

if ye have love one to another

and

if you have love one for another

is the biggie.

Your point seems valid in that one can show love to their enemies even if one doesn't have love for their enemies. This contradicts Matthew 5:43-44, NLT: “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!"

Then again, this was said to the disciples whom weren't enemies. This certainly seems like a legalistic nitpick to me.

The real biggie, that I ignored before in this topic, is that the KJV represents Jesus as using an archaic word, "ye". It's a lie that living people communicate to each other with archaic words.

[quote=gruvEdude;4570]

It seems that and is the biggie.

Your point seems valid in that one can show love to their enemies even if one doesn't have love for their enemies. This contradicts Matthew 5:43-44, NLT: “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!"

How about love "to" or "for", God? You haven't addressed that.

Then again, this was said to the disciples whom weren't enemies. This certainly seems like a legalistic nitpick to me.

Yeah, I know. You keep pressing that issue.

The real biggie, that I ignored before in this topic, is that the KJV represents Jesus as using an archaic word, "ye". It's a lie that living people communicate to each other with archaic words.

Anyone with sensibilities knows the language of the day was used to write KJV translation. What bearing has any of that to do with the inspiration with which it was translated? None, I would suppose.

[AFI]

Ha. The strongly pro KJV and strongly anti KJV posters square off.
I think I will stay out of this one but it will be fun to watch.

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by Ormly

Anyone with sensibilities knows the language of the day was used to write KJV translation. What bearing has any of that to do with the inspiration with which it was translated? None, I would suppose.

Total agreement that the KJV was written in the language of the day. This accurately represents our always timely God.

Anyone with sensibilities also knows that 1611 words are not the language of today.

Originally Posted by gruvEdude

Total agreement that the KJV was written in the language of the day. This accurately represents our always timely God.

Anyone with sensibilities also knows that 1611 words are not the language of today.

So what? That is why we have a plethora of commentaries? May I suggest reading the Bible in the KJV and write your own commentary? There are many helps today that will enable you to see the inspiration in it? Oswald Chambers comes easily to mind.
I sometimes use a modern translation to get in the ballpark when for instance, Paul's sentence structure is difficult to understand and I am looking for clarity. After reading the Mod Trans and then re-reading the KJV, most all comes clear unless the problem lies with Paul's explanation. Romans 3 is a startling example of what I am getting at.

In that light, the modern translations are more of a commentary then they are Bibles.