Posted on 08/30/2003 11:01:30 AM PDT by Commander8
The following transcript is one of Ronald Reagan's famous radio addresses. In this address (which aired September 6, 1977), Ronald Reagan, the great orator, eloquently gives his thoughts on the "Good News Bible" (also called the Good News for Modern Man and Today's English Version) in comparison to the Authorized Version or the King James Bible. emphasis added
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved? I'll be right back. . .
Writing in the journal "The Alternative", Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.
Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote "make the Bible more readable & understandable" unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, "For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper." He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language."
They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it's peak of richness & beauty.
Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, "the natural English of everyday adult conversation." I'm sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.
Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said "How forcible are right words!" [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying "Honest words are convincing." That's only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow". Is it really an improvement to say instead, "The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts."
In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read "The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way." [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, "Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready." It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.
The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, "The Lord is my shepherd" but instead of continuing "I shall not want" we are supposed to say "I have everything I need."
The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words "Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" has become, "Don't be afraid! I am here with good news for you."
The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
— aired September 6, 1977
“ Indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book. — Ronald Reagan The King James Bible, Newsweek, Dec. 27, 1982 p.46 ”
What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved? I'll be right back. . .
Ronald Regan was a great orator and arguably a great president. Despite those strong attributes, this is a logically fallacious argument. This equates providing a new translation of a work with "rewritimg" a work. Consider the following: A popular translation of John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" was done by Henry Beveridge. If someone decided to do a new translation to reflect changes in common English usage, would they be accused of "re-writing Calvin?" Not by somebody who was familiar with tranlation issues. Might the two translations be compared by those who could also read the original to see which more faithfully conveyed the author's ideas? Very likely.
Sounds to me like Reagan was arguing for the beauty of the text, not necessarily the meaning. I don't think that there's any question that there is beauty and poetry in the KJV. Doesn't make it more accurate tho.
It's sort of like arguing that because we have Romeo and Juliet we shouldn't have West Side Story.
The way I read this, Reagan was more concerned with how the new Bible would sound rather than what it actually said.
I love Ronald Reagan but he was far better at politics than at religion.
C8, is the KJV a perfect translation?
Throughout the Bible, God repeats himself. This repetition serves two purposes:
1. God shows us how important something is by repeating it, similar to how parents often have to repeat things to their children.
2. God, through repetition, preserves his word. A bad bible translation is exposed as contradictions and errors are created by attempts to alter His word.
The first Bible I truely sat down and read was a New living Translation. I thought it was wonderful, and God kept his promise (those that seek him with all their heart will find him). But I have found where there are times when it seems to be "vague" or somewhat "contridictory" with itself. I have not encountered that with my King James. I will grant that this could be caused by personal preferences, or because of reading skill (or lack thereof). My suggestion is that if you are going to use a bible other than the King James, have one handy for reference.
Is the KJV inspired like the original autographs were?
No. ONLY the Originals were inspired. ALL copies after the originals are preserved. The King James is the Preserved word of God, but it itself is not inspired (even the writers of the King James claim that it was not inspired).
I agree with Reagan. The Good News Bible wasn't very good. But he wasn't making a case that the KJV was better than all other Bibles just the GNB.
Different translations have their good and bad points. Again my suggestion is that if you are going to use a bible other than the King James, have one handy for reference.
It's sort of like arguing that because we have Romeo and Juliet we shouldn't have West Side Story.
I've read both Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story and enjoyed both. but one can't say that if they have read West Side Story that that means they have also read Romeo and Juliet. While they have many plot twists in common, they are different stories. Same with Bible versions. Some (perhaps not all) translations are so twisted or corrupt that they are almost as different as Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story.
The Operating system used in Hell
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.