Replies

Short of learning the original languages, they best convey Biblical concepts and help communicate Biblical principles.

I have a working knowledge of Greek. Many of those words are antiquated in that they are no longer used in English, and they are attempts to translate broader Greek words.

For instance, "fornication" is a word I have yet to hear a teenager who hasn't been brought up reading a King James Version (a very tiny minority of teenagers, believe me) use that word. Say "sexual immorality," and they will be able to understand it. In the Greek, pornea encompasses that broader concept, anyway.

Similarly, "lasciviousness" is a word I have never encountered outside of the King James Version; "hedonism" would be a fair approximation.

They need to learn. Give them enough credit to be able to learn new vocabulary. What would you advise if teenagers are completely illiterate?

My point is that we should not be too attached to the antiquated King James renderings when there are equally, or more, valid renderings that are more easily understood. Frankly, I could care less if they don't know the King James' terms. Firstly, illiteracy isn't a religious issue, but rather a educational, economic, and societal one. Christianity endured 1400 years before the invention of the printing press; it does not require universal literacy. Secondly, I would argue that someone who doesn't recongize a word that passed out of usage 400 years ago is not illiterate.

The Bible was not given merely for light reading or entertainment value. It is meant to be studied, memorized, meditated upon, and applied.

True enough; however, antiquated renderings are not the Word of God. Rather, it is the meanings of the words (i.e., the thoughts they were meant to convey). Strictly speaking, the King James Version is not the Word of God; it is, rather, a fairly good approximation of what the Word of God is in Greek and Hebrew. There are other fairly good approximations out there too; we should not be overly attached to any.

My basic point is this this: words and language chage; God's laws and his teachings do not. We should not be so slavishly devoted to mere English words that we actually obscure the clear teachings of God. Anything that conveys the truth of God in language people actually use and understand is okay in my book.

I agree that the original is what was inspired.

The example set by the apostles in handling the Septuagint is revealing. Often the New Testament quotes it as a translation of the Old Testament. Often the New Testament quotes differently than the Septuagint. They used it but did not treat it as the only correct way to express the meaning of Old Testament scriptures in the Greek language.

There is value in making the Bible accessible in the common language. I am convinced that the translators of the KJV, based on their preface to that version, would be in favor of a revised translation for today.

The problem is that most modern translations do much more than improve the translation. They often make the wording more complex not less. They often use terms that are ineffective, like the examples I cited. And there are many, many more.

Additionally, many translations use translators who should not be allowed to participate. There are people who have been involved in mainstream translations who were involved in homosexuality. These same people contributed opinions about the best way to translate passages that deal with this issue.

Further, translations cannot dictate the reading level necessary to understand them. If a passage can be understood by a second grader, fine. If it requires college level comprehension, fine too. There are some scriptures that are hard to understand, period.

My point about literacy is that the primary reason why literacy is so prevalent today is that the Bible was made available to people in their language. It has spread through the world due to financial benefits, but the ability of masses to read and write came about as a result of the Bible. Most of the colleges of this nation (including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton) were founded to help people understand the Bible better.

Yes, Christianity has survived with many illiterate people, but that does not make it desirable. God does not want His children to be ignorant. Part of Biblical New Testament teaching is to equip believers with the ability to learn from scriptures for themselves. Doesn't it make more sense to educate and equip believers with the ability to comprehend (or at least look up) the meaning of difficult words, than to try to dumb down the scriptures so that it will be understood by those at a lower reading level. The latter does not constitute translation but commentary.

"My basic point is this this: words and language chage; God's laws and his teachings do not. We should not be so slavishly devoted to mere English words that we actually obscure the clear teachings of God. Anything that conveys the truth of God in language people actually use and understand is okay in my book."

I agree with this statement. The problem is that many modern translations do not make the meaning clearer, they obscure and dilute the meaning. The are less precise in many cases.

One last point regards money. Many of the modern translations are about money. While there are missionaries who are underwritten in their efforts to make the scriptures freely available in other languages, there are some here who see Christians as nothing more than a marketing demographic. They "make merchandise" of believers. Why do these translations need copyrights? Why are they not underwritten by voluntary contributions? Making new Bibles is big business in America. It is why there is this special Bible for teenage girls.

Many translations are compromised by trying to adapt the meaning of the Bible to current cultural views. Rather than allowing the Bible to speak out against the wickedness of a culture, there seems to be an effort to try to make the teachings of the Bible fit within certain ideologies. What the Bible has to say about distinctions between the sexes, alcohol, ownership of property, marriage and sexuality, etc. should be taken at face value rather than trying to accommodate modern thinking. Once money becomes an issue, trying to appeal to the target audience results in telling people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear.