I've seen that the boss uses the KJV (as do I). Are other translations such as the the American Standard Version and Revised Standard Version okay? My partiality for the KJV comes from its wondrous language and I've personally never much cared for "modernism" when it comes to Christianity.
Emmett Fox, who was well educated in Scripture, wrote that the KJV is the most accurate translation. If that helps. It’s certainly the most eloquent.
I don’t think there’s any necessary preference for the translation.
I generally quote the King James Version (Authorized Version) because, as you say, the language is wonderful. And also, it was the Bible used, quoted, and referred to by just about every English writer for hundreds of years.
I grew up Episcopalian and converted to the Catholic Church, but I still have a personal preference for the KJV. Realizing that there are just a few minor places where the translation wasn’t quite right—but not really enough to worry about, IMHO.
When I taught the Bible as Literature at NYU, I used the Revised Standard Version. It’s based on the KJV but slightly modernized, and a few minor corrections. Plus, the translation was agreed to by a panel of Catholic and Protestant scholars, with a few notes added to explain disagreements. And including the Apocrypha, with a note explaining that those books are considered part of the Catholic Bible.
Unfortunately, the RSV was updated by the NRSV, which is a piece of cr*p. Politically correct, and full of stupid and misleading changes. I really missed using the Oxford RSV for my Bible course, with its very helpful notes at the bottom of the page, including many citations from the Church Fathers.
“Somewhat topical to this thread, I’m curious which translation of the Holy Bible is preferred when quoting Scripture here on Free Republic?”
Probably any version except the ones like “New World Translation” that are published by cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Most modern translation actually pretty good.
I don't see what's so "accurate" about KJV.
| Ephesians | |||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | English: King James Version | |
| Ephesians 1 |
|||
| 6. | Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son. | εις επαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω | To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. |
"εχαριτωσεν ημας" = "made us accepted"? Seriously?
| 1 Corinthians | |||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | English: King James Version | |
| 1 Corinthians 11 |
|||
| 27. | Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. | ωστε ος αν εσθιη τον αρτον τουτον η πινη το ποτηριον του κυριου αναξιως του κυριου ενοχος εσται του σωματος και του αιματος του κυριου | Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. |
These are just nonsensical translations, I leave alone choices biased against Catholicism.
Post from any translation you choose. Be careful, however, because some translations (e.g. The Message) claim a copyright interest whereas others are well past all that (e.g. the KJV).
The King James is a fine translation. I use it for most purposes, but I also like the New King James, which retains the majestic form and cadence of the original but avoids English words that are no longer used. This can be good, but there can also be some loss this way, because, for just one example, the old English captures personal pronouns in a variety similar to the Greek, whereas modern pronouns are not as expressive.
For example, Greek has an analog to the singular thou versus plural ye of English. For modern translations, the ye would have to be rendered “you all” (or y’all, depending on where you live) to maintain the Greek sense. So it’s not all sweetness and light to leave behind some of those alleged archaisms. Some of them were pretty useful.
As for “accepted” versus “graced” in Ephesians 1:6, both are acceptable renderings of the root idea, but “accepted” does a better job, IMHO, expressing “favor” in its passive form in a way that connects it meaningfully to finding such favor “in the Beloved.” For a 15th Century Englishman, having your person “accepted” by the King through an intermediary was to discover you had the King’s favor. Somewhat a paraphrase, but a powerful and legitimate communicator of the sense of the original.
(BTW, I should point out that a number of the scholars doing the translation for the KJV had studied the Hebrew and Greek and Latin from their preteen years, along with many of the cognate languages that were tributaries into the main Biblical languages (Persian, Chaldee, etc.). (John Bois, for example, was reputed to have learned to read the full Hebrew text by age 5. That’s five.) They were the cutting edge scholarship of the day. One needs to be quite sure of one’s footing before picking a fight with them.)
Another thing which separates the KJV (and the NKJV) from modern versions is the commitment to the Byzantine text form. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were discovered only relatively recently, and have many significantly different readings from the Byzantine, hence the many confusing conflicts between most modern versions and the KJV.
The argument is made for the modern translations that older is better, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do make a claim to being physically older. Sinaiticus was found in Saint Catherine’s monastery in the 19th Century. It is thought by some it survived because the active church simply did not use it. Whereas the wide geographic distribution of the Byzantine suggests it was the text form most widely used by the active church.
You probably opened a big can of worms. People are often very dedicated to their particular version.
Me, I was raised on and memorized huge swatches KJV, but for accuracy my fave is the NASB. I simply think it is the most accurate in modern English word for word while retaining much of the poetry.