Posted on 09/01/2009 12:31:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Good, thanks for the heads-up. Those are exactly the right questions to ask. It'd be nice to see this as a rational conversation, rather than people shouting "your translation is the devil" and plugging their ears when you respond.
I am a conservative Christian in doctrine, theology, and in my personal life. I am not an expert in the realm of Biblical manuscripts, but I am pretty well read on the accuracy and dependability of the Bible.
The King James Version is an accurate and dependable translation. Many people don't realize that there was not just “one” King James Version. There were updated versions after the original one in 1611. I'm not sure how many, but there were several.
Part of the argument about which translation is “right” revolves around the manuscripts from which the KJV and other more modern translations were made from.
The KJV was translated from the best existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available in 1600 - these manuscripts are called “Textus Receptus”. They are very good manuscripts. However, as time passed, older New Testament manuscripts have been discovered that allowed for greater accuracy in translation of certain words or phrases. Also, archaeological excavations have revealed historical facts, ancient commercial terms (words used in everyday language), and artifacts that help us understand some Hebrew and/or Greek words/phrases that were obscure.
Let me emphasize that none of these discoveries changed any orthodox doctrinal beliefs. There is no manuscript saying Jesus was born in Jerusalem or Damascus. There are no manuscripts that say he wasn't crucified or risen from the dead - or that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born, etc.
Most of the newer/older manuscript discoveries have clarified some place names or verbs/nouns/phrases that were a bit obscure. I don't have this info at the tip of my fingers right now because I am at work. But, if you are interested, I could give some of these later.
All these things just help “sharpen-up” the Word a bit. In fact, when the Dead Sea scrolls were found, the oldest Isaiah manuscript we had was from around 1200-1300 a.d. The Dead Sea scrolls contained the book of Isaiah that dated back 400 B.C (I may be off some, but I do know it was several years before Christ). When they compared Isaiah of the Dead Sea scrolls with the 1200 a.d. version, they were found to be practically identical. The only variations were a few manuscript errors such as copying a word or letter more than once. This is a wonderful testament to the painstaking procedures the Jewish scribes utilitized in making copies (by hand) of the Scriptures.
My point is, the NIV is a good translation. The KJV is a good translation. The New American Standard Version is a good translation. Some translators tried to make their translation more readable, others tried to make theirs word for word from the Greek and Hebrew. There are some bad translations out there, but most are pretty good. If you read something in one that looks suspect - check it out.
I think without studying ancient Hebrew, Greek, and the Classical Period, the KJV is the best you can get.
“I think without studying ancient Hebrew, Greek, and the Classical Period, the KJV is the best you can get.”
Is that good enough?
Will it be the New new International Version.
If the King James was good enough for Paul and Silas it’s good enough for me.
I'm not sure how much the dead sea scrolls were used, but the NIV was translated from Hebrew (OT) manuscripts, and Aramaic and Greek (NT) manuscripts. The KJV isn't wrong, exactly, but it isn't a particularly good or accurate translation either. This is largely because it was translated from Latin translations instead of original-language manuscripts. It was also translated into a form of English that is materially different from English as it is used today, and as such many words and expressions are used differently than they were then. It adds more confusion than clarity.
Imagine taking an English text, translate it into French. Then translate the French into Russian, then translate the Russian back into English. Chances are that it will say similar things as the original, but without a doubt the two texts will be different. Perhaps in material ways. That's the biggest weakness in the KJV.
That said, *any* translation is going to fuzz-up certain meanings from the original language. In truth the only way to truly study the *correct* bible is to learn hebrew, aramaic and greek and study those. It just isn't practical for most people.
But for people to argue that the KJV is the "only" correct bible is nonsense. It wasn't written in Olde English.
Back when, at Terri Shiavo’s hospice facility as we were all praying and protesting the death doktors, there was this one guy with a bull horn. He paraded himself up and down the street, screeching to everyone everywhere about how everyone there was going to hell, except him of course, because we didn’t read the KJV. According to him, we were all followers of satan because we didn’t read his personal version.
He did an excellent job of dividing the sheep, misrepresenting the Body of Christ to the watching media (who were obviously looking for a freak like him to paint everyone wiht the same brush)much as a wolf would have, and generally falsely accusing the sheep of following satan.
Your post reminded me of that guy.
I would not want to be that guy.
Jesus said some pretty hefty things to legalists who would stumble God’s children from God’s grace through their legalistic demands.
...something about those leagistic converts being twice the son’s of hell that the pharisees were. ouch!
just saying
Jesus referred to God as his FATHER. End of debate.
Sorry, but you’re just plain flat wrong. The KJV was translated from the Hebrew and Greek. But the manuscript base was limited—what they had available in 1600. It tracks the Latin Vulgate and the Douay translation from the Vulgate most of the time, but that’s largely because they are working from the same basic text whether in Latin or Greek/Hebrew.
Since that time, a number of much older manuscripts have been discovered (Tischendorff’s Codex Sinaiticus etc.). The Revised Standard Version, the NIV and all other recent translations operate from that new manuscript base. That accounts for some of the differences.
I don’t think the differences are deal-breakers. But it’s just not true that the KJV was translated from Latin. The Douay-Reims was and in my view, it’s also a darn good translation. I use the KJV, Douay, RSV freely. The NIV I can take or leave, but not because it’s a bad translation.
The revision, undoubtedly, will use feminist PC language, which is stoooooooopppppiiiidddd.
Huh...actually as a conservative christian, I prefer an NASB or if not unavailable a NKJV. Have you ever checked the Net bible, that is pretty good too.
No, they shouldn't use the NIV because it's corrupted.
Based on what?
See #59.
Questions of authenticity and excellence will differ for each book.
Another thing to consider: stylewise the KJV is written in the King’s English, the English that Shakespeare wrote, and—like Dante did for Italian— it made English. Today’s English is governed by media and education outlets.
The NIV was definitely not translated directly from the Dead Sea scrolls. The texts of the Dead Sea scrolls were very fragmented. Isaiah is the only nearly complete text recovered.
The conservatives have a problem with the NIV because it is not a word for word translation. It is a translation done phrase by phrase. Given basic differences in languages, either method has problems and advantages.
I used to only use the KJV. However, King James English is clearly not our current language. Note that prior to the 1850's, it was recognized that the Greek used by the NT writers was different than the Greek found in the secular classical literature. Biblical scholars noting the differences spoke of a "holy Greek" to account for the differences. Then, in the mid 1800's, archaeologists discovered graffiti and street signs from ancient Greece. Low and behold, many of the "extra" Greek words could be found! At that point, scholars decided that the NT had been penned in "street" Greek. This is now referred to as "Koine", or "common", Greek. This makes sense since it was the language of the man on the street.
For me, this meant that if I wanted to be able to relate my faith to today's "man on the street" I should be using a version which employs common language. Even though is love the language of the KJV, it clearly is not understandable to most people.
I would still stay with translations as opposed to paraphrases in order to get faithful text.
Therefore, I use: ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, in order of preference. BTW: My background and bias is conservative evangelical.
For many years I volunteered at a men's shelter in Phoenix. When asked to suggest the best Bible version, my reply was similar to the above post with the parting line: The best Bible version is the one you will faithfully read!
LOL
Agreed. I'm not currently saying any popular version is "wrong" (other than the PC, gender-altered versions).
My point in this discussion is that the NIV is necessarily more inaccurate than the KJV. It may be more accurate.
I just don't like people denigrating a version with epithets like "satan's version" without telling me why, in concrete terms, providing examples, and proving that the counter examples are the correct (or incorrect) translation.
Again, I have nothing against the KJV.
“The Bible of choice for conservative Christians is the KJV.”
Absolutely! And KJV aren’t always easy to find any more.
Since we’re on a Bible thread, can anyone recommend a company that does a good job re-covering older Bibles? Have had mine since ‘68. The binding is good, but the cover is in terrible shape.
Absolute rubbish. The KJV is a word-for-word translation, which sounds swell, but in reality, word-for-word translations distort an awful lot of stuff.
The NIV translates more conceptually, with more insight into what phrases mean in context. It is simply a more accurate way of translating things.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, the KJV is far from a word for word translation.
In my younger days, I set out to update Acts from the KJV into modern English (OK, so I have strange hobbies.) It involved not just updating the words, but comparing the KJV translation to the underlying Greek (I actually purchased a Greek text and looked up words one at a time to translate them.)
It quickly became apparant that the KJV is not a literal word for word translation. In many places it uses the same translation philosophy the NIV does, paraphrasing the original text.
I corresponded a few times with Jay P. Green (translator of Green’s Literal Translation) and he was kind enough to send me some material on Bible translation differences. If you are really interested in seeing what a true literal translation looks like, get his interlinear version that has his English translation next to the Greek/Hebrew text (literally the English word on top of the origianal word, line by line along with the Strong’s number.) It can be difficult reading at times, but it brings home the point that EVERY popular translation (including the KJV) is a long way from a literal, word for word translation.
It would be fascinating to see how the translation committee members voted in the elections!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.