• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Authorised King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Thunderchild, Feb 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    So God speaks english huh and no other language?
     
  2. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    And here I thought that God was looking for Adam and Eve and said (with perfect accent) "Wo bis du?" :D
     
  3. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    amen
     
  4. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    There is nothing wrong with doing an intense study on manuscriptu evidence and comming to a conclusion that a person feels the KJV is the ONLY bible that is not corrupted. May I ask how long of a study of manuscript evidence anyone else has done? Lewis?? Thunder?? anyone?
    I think ED wears his sword well and uses it well. I think the reson he feel compelled to go into such through postings is because he was called on....I cannot remember who it was but he has every right to defend what he believes and should have that right. ow just sit down and agree to disagree......or accpet what he is saying! Ed didn't start this post...someone else did...moderators please can you take that into concideration??
    GEL
     
  5. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "May I ask how long of a study of manuscript evidence anyone else has done? Lewis?? Thunder?? anyone? "

    Well 1. the guy that orgianly wrote KJ version didnt have as many manuscripts as we have today-fact he wrote it as directed by his kind to usurp the popal athority, not to make it avaliable to the people -fact these and a hand full of others kinda give me the idea the KJ isn't the only translation out there. I would stick solely to the greek and hebrew if I could..but I"m not greek or hebrew...that I know of?? :) Ed is a great poster. I believe in some of the ideas he posts...this doesn't happen to be one of them :) He just started posting things without replying to people without a source.
     
  6. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Lewis...from you comment I can tell you have NOT done a intence study on manuscript evidence. Do you really think that ONE man traslated the KJV???? I mean come on.....No one is that smart and I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that ONE man worte especially in bible translations. I think it would be very very biased!
    I encorage you to do YOUR OWN studies on manuscript evidence and let GOD laed you where HE wants you to be. Manuscript evidence is like an onion...it has many layers!

    GEL
     
  7. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Do you really think that ONE man traslated the KJV"

    Check your christian history :) I took a course on it AND have read a few books, so either 1. he was the head translator or 2. it was just him...I'm thinking it was more along the lines of him translating and others taking dictation for him..I'll check my books again.
     
  8. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Lewis....May i suggest that you read something other than those books you have. Just do a search on the KJV translators....and STOP reading biast material..Look at both perscpectives before you make a decision!
    GEL
     
  9. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    GEL, I don't think historicans are biased..and if they are I usually recognize them with in the first few chapters and account for it. The fact of the matter is that the guy tranlated it as dictated to him by his king as a way to defy the pope and he didn't have anywhere near the amount of manuscripts to draw from as we do. Read any christian history book and it will tell you that.
     
  10. MatthewDiscipleofGod

    MatthewDiscipleofGod Senior Veteran

    +261
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    There were 50+ translators for the KJV from the sources I have read up on. I don't know of ANY translations that only had one translator. With so many out there I'm sure there could be one but none that I'm aware of at this time.
     
  11. Navigator

    Navigator Pizzagator...

    337
    +1
    Protestant
    I think what Louis is alluding to isn't the KJV but the Textus Reptus that the translators used as their source for the NT. If memory serves, Erasmus was the sole compilier of the TR.

    But I could be mistaken... The actual translation was done by a team, just like modern translations.
     
  12. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Yup, thanks nav..I was wondering if anyone had done their homework..socratic method ;)
     
  13. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    yup, but your translation is only as good as your source. The first english KJ was done this way and didn't have the manuscipt evidence that we have today :)
     
  14. MatthewDiscipleofGod

    MatthewDiscipleofGod Senior Veteran

    +261
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Ok LouisBooth I get ya. Sorry for misunderstanding you. This post has been around for a while and has gotten very big. Can't even recall if I have posted at all on it. Just to give you all input from me is that I have read both NIV and KJV. I have read a little bit of a few others but I mainly stay with those two. Currently I have 2 Bibles. Both NIV, one is a study Bible. I'm looking to get a KJV one though. I think NIV is easier to read since you don't go into researching terminology as much. I do though not like some changes to NIV. For example sexual immorality is in NIV, with KJV it's fornication. Fornication is clearly sex before marriage. Sexual immorality can mean anything. People could take it to mean what's immoral by today's standard. Which you could probably say many out there think sex before marriage ISN'T immoral anymore. That creates a problem. Of course I think reading sexual immoral in the NIV you should think what was immoral at the time of writing. Just some things to think about.
     
  15. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "I think NIV is easier to read since you don't go into researching terminology as much. "

    And thats exactly what they were shooting for...let me post a short summary a friend of mine found. Its a little long..but worth it..see next post..
     
  16. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    King James Version:
    The King James Version is unsurpassed in its sheer beauty and literary value, a masterpiece of the seventeenth century English language in which it was written. Unfortunately, this seventeenth century language is the language of a bygone era.

    Many words found in the KJV are obsolete today, while others have a totally different meaning than they did then. Moreover, discoveries have been made in the last 350 years in the field of linguistics, history and archaeology that justify further translations of the Bible.

    Indeed the King James Version was itself a mere revision of the Bishops Bible, not a new translation. As new knowledge came to light, and the English language changed, the church felt obligated to produce a more accurate translation of the Word of God. Revision and correction of past translations was thought not only desirable, but absolutely necessary to communicate the Word of God.

    Revised Version:
    The great value of the Revised Version is that it set a precedent for further translations which could incorporate the latest manuscript and linguistic and historical evidence into their versions.

    No single translation is perfect, and as new discoveries come to light improvements can and should be made. The Revised Version has limited value in the fact that it does not have the advantage of the great linguistic advances and manuscript discoveries of the 20th century. Moreover, the revisers leaned too heavily on the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism which has been seriously challenged in the 20th century. Although upon its release the Revised Version enjoyed immediate popularity, it is not commonly used today.

    American Standard Version:
    The American Standard Version was the product of the best American scholarship of its day. It has the advantage of being published twenty years after the New Testament of the Revised Version.

    Limitations exist, however, because the American Standard Version is still a product of its own time, not having the advantage of the wealth of discoveries and advances made in the 20th century. As was the case with the Revised Version, the language was not modernized, leading to such archaic ways of stating things as, “The abjects gathered themselves together against me” (Psalm 35:35), and “He assayed to join Himself to the disciples” (Acts 9:26).

    Nevertheless it was the best translation of the day and served as the basis for two other revisions, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. Although the American Standard Version is somewhat uncommon today, its positive contributions were widely enjoyed through these two revisions.

    Revised Standard Version:
    The value of the Revised Standard Version lies in the fact that the language was brought up to current usage. The biblical story was made much more understandable to the masses. Also the translators had the advantage of the great discoveries in the study of comparative languages.

    Near Easter religious texts unearthed in the 20th century shed much light on the meaning of certain Hebrew words., and the unearthing of Greek papyri demonstrated beyond all doubt that biblical Greek was not some unique Holy Ghost language but rather the common vernacular of the first century.

    But the Revised Standard Version is not without problems. Many of the Old Testament passages which prophesy the coming of the Messiah are obscured in this version. For example, Psalm 45:6 is rendered, “Your Diving throne endures for ever and ever,” rather than the better translation, “Thy throne, O God.”

    In Isaiah 7:14 the Revised Standard Version has, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive,” rather than the better translation, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive.” Since the New Testament cites both those passages as referring to the Messiah it would have been better for the Revised Standard Version to acknowledge unity between the Testaments. These inconsistencies take away from an otherwise good translation.

    Phillips Translation:
    The Phillips Translation is valuable because it restates the New Testament in a fresh, readable way that provides new insights into the New Testament for even the most knowledgeable reader. The readability is enhanced by the format which contains headings for each section and omits verse numbers. The layout of this work lends itself to easy reading.

    But easy reading does not necessarily signify something desirable. Phillips, contrary to the claim, presents a paraphrase, not a translation. His revised edition has improved somewhat on this weakness, but his work is still interpretive and highly questionable at points, reflecting his inadequate view of Scripture.

    British expressions which sound peculiar to American ears also limit his edition in some places.

    The Phillips New Testament, like The Good News Bible, is a fine way to introduce someone to the biblical story. But it should not be relied upon for critical study.

    The Modern Language Bible:
    The Modern Language Bible has many commendable features, not the least of which is its faithful rendering of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament (as stated in the preface to the 1959 edition):

    “We are in tune with the “Authorized Version” of 1611 in fidelity to the Messianic Promise, first made as soon as man had sinned, renewed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, narrowed to Judah’s offspring and later to David’s descendants. This promise remained the hope of the worshiping Hebrews, whose prophets stimulated their faith, and Jesus reminded the Emmaus pilgrims of it, ‘starting from Moses and through all the prophets… in all the Scriptures that referred to Himself.’ To be faithful to this everlasting Evangel we needed to be faithful to the original Scriptures.”

    (This is in contrast to the Revised Standard Version which, unhappily, is inconsistent in translating prophecies referring to Jesus.)

    Another good feature of the Modern Language Bible is the accomplishment of its desire to be a literal translation of the Greek and Hebrew, rather than an interpretive paraphrase. The result is a faithful rendering of the original. However, in places it is too literal to be completely readable.

    The notes, a product of the highest evangelical scholarship, provide great benefits to the reader. The Modern Language Bible is an excellent translation done with the highest reverence for the Scripture and can be of great value to anyone who desires to read and study the Word of God.

    The Amplified Bible:
    The value of The Amplified Bible lies in its ability to expand the meaning of the original texts. Its service is more that of a commentary than a translation.

    Although The Amplified Bible can be helpful in bringing out some of the meaning of words and expressions, several weaknesses limit its effectiveness. For example, in some of the passages it is difficult to follow the thought of the writer. This is due to the added, expansive words put into the text. In this sense, the amplifications are a hindrance rather than a help.

    For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, the repetition of amplifying the word “blessed” (Matthew 5:3-11) is not only unnecessary; it is monotonous.

    Furthermore, the Aplified Bible suffers from the same problems as the paraphrases: It is highly interpretive. The theological bias of the amplifier cannot help but show through when the meaning of words and expressions are given. Although the preparers of The Amplified Bible have a high view of the Bible, many of their “amplifications” are totally subjective and open to argumentation.

    The Amplified Bible should be used only alongside a good translation, never studied by itself.

    The Jerusalem Bible:
    The value of the Jerusalem Bible, besides being an easy-to-read translation, is in its extensive notes. These are a helpful aid to better understanding the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that this is a Catholic Bible. As such, the notes have definite leanings toward Roman Catholicism.

    Although the notes are not as objectionable to Protestants as have been notes in other Catholic Bibles, they still contain teachings with which Protestants respectfully disagree. These include the Doctrine of Purgatory, the Primacy of Peter, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (for example, notes on 1 Corinthians 3:15, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 1:25). Hence, in most cases Protestants will not find this translation satisfactory, although Roman Catholics would receive it wholeheartedly.

    The Good News Bible:
    One of the great values of the Good News Bible is its ability to put the Word of God into understandable English. Those who know English as a second language will find the Good News Bible easy to follow. The simplifications of technical terms also will be of great benefit to those who have no background in Christianity.

    Moreover, the translation is aided by the many line drawings by Mlle Annie Vallotton which accompany the text. The message is graphically portrayed by both the effective drawings and the clear simple English contained in the translation.

    However, there are serious limitations in this work. The concept of “dynamic equivalence” is a highly questionable way of translating the Scriptures. By giving the meaning of the text rather than a translation of what it literally says, the translator goes beyond his role and becomes an interpreter.

    Accuracy is sacrificed at the alter of readability, and the reader is left with the false impression that the “dynamic equivalent” rendering is what the text actually says. The idea of simplifying expressions is fine. But sometimes they can be made too simple. Furthermore, the Good News Bible, in its interpretations, sometimes renders a verse totally wrong.

    A classic example is 2 Corinthians 5:21 which reads, “Christ was without sin, but for our sake God made Him to share our sin.” This statement is in no way accurate, for God put our sins upon Christ on the cross. He did not in any way share sin with us.

    The Good News Bible, like The Living Bible, is a good way to introduce someone to the basic story of the Bible. But it should not be uses as a study Bible or as a source of establishing Bible doctrine.
     
  17. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    New American Bible:
    The value of the New American Bible is its readability for Americans. The English is clear and easy to understand. Please exercise caution in the use of this translation for 2 reasons. First, the notes found in the introduction to each book are liberal in tone, accepting some of the higher critical theories with regard to date and authorship of certain books. Second, although not blatant, the notes do reflect Catholic theology, aspects of which Protestants find highly questionable.

    New English Bible:
    The prime value of the New English Bible is its literary style which makes for interesting reading. The printing also is attractive. However, the limitations far outweigh the values. Attempting to reproduce a meaning-for-meaning translation usually results in a paraphrase, and that is the case with the New English Bible.

    There is entirely too much interpretation as opposed to translation. Moreover, Americans, though finding the New English Bible colorful, will find the British words and expressions quite difficult. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:8 reads, “But I shall remain at Ephesus until Whitsuntide (Pentecost).”

    Also, some words and expressions do not meet the intended purpose of communicating to the common people: “I broke the fangs of the miscreant” (Job 29:17). “Not for him to swill down the rivers as cream” (Job 20:17), “and they laid an information against Paul” (Acts 24:1). With its British flavor and interpretive translation, the New English Bible will not enjoy much popularity among Americans.

    The Living Bible:
    The Living Bible has experienced tremendous circulation since its initial publication in 1971. Its great value lies in the ability to communicate the message of the Bible in an understandable fashion. It is an excellent way to introduce someone to the story of the Bible.

    There are, however, factors regarding The Living Bible which readers need to be aware of. For one thing, it is not a word-for-word translation but a paraphrase or commentary. Consequently, the reader should avoid drawing theological or doctrinal conclusions based on a paraphrase without additionally consulting and comparing the original texts or a word-for-word translation.

    Still, The Living Bible is probably the best way to introduce someone to the biblical story.

    New American Standard Bible:
    With the helpful cross-reference system, and the painstaking efforts made by the translators to bring out the distinction between the Greek tenses, the New American Standard Bible is an excellent study tool for the serious student of Scripture. Although it is not as readable as some translations, its accuracy is second to none. If one desires to study Scripture, the New American Standard Bible is perhaps the best Bible available.

    New International Version:
    The value of the New International Version can be found in its readability. The goal of the translators for clarity and literary quality has been accomplished.

    The New International Version, however, is not without problems. This translation is an attempt to bring out the thoughts and meanings of the biblical writers. When this is attempted, the possibility of paraphrasing becomes great. In too many instances, the New International Version is guilty of trying to get across the meaning of the author rather than directly translating what the writer said. When this is done the reader is locked into the meaning provided by the translators (which may be the correct meaning, but also may be an incorrect one).

    The reader, moreover, has no way of knowing what is merely the translator’s interpretation and naturally assumes everything to be part of the sacred text. While some degree of interpretation is necessary, the job of the translators is not to use the text to tell the reader what is meant. Margins or footnotes are better suited for such commentary. The text should be a translation of what the writer says.

    Even difficult expressions are to be translated accordingly, or the product becomes a commentary instead of a translation. Some readability may be sacrificed in avoiding paraphrasing, yet accuracy should always take precedence over readability.

    The task of translating the Bible is not easy, and in spite of the problems mentioned above, the New International Version will continue as a popular and readable translation.
     
  18. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    There have been many. Jerome is perhaps the first of what we would call "translators"; he translated what is called the Vulgate.

    Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German (1522) in an astounding nine months, using Erasmus' first printed Greek NT. He also translated the Old Testament into German (1534).

    More modern translations:

    Williams (NT only) 1937
    Beck 1962/1976

    Beck's accomplishment was quite phenemonal in terms of modern translations. He was one of the few who was conversant with recent (1960's; he died in 1973) scholarship in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, archeology, and mansucript evidence. It's one thing to have a knowledge of these areas, it is quite another to have a working and useful handle on such issues.

    Beck's Bible eventually became the predecessor of the translation today known as God's Word.
     
  19. AngelAmidala

    AngelAmidala Legend

    +617
    Methodist
    Single
    Wow...thanks for all that Louis!

    There are a lot more translations out there that I had no clue about!
     
  20. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Green Eyed Lady>

    The translators of the King James Bible added to the text from which they THEMSELVES were translating, in 2 Samuel 21:19 - changing "slew Goliath the Gittite" to "slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite." The very texts that the translators of the King James were using do not include the words "the brother of," nor any words or phrases that can give rise to such an interpretation, in that particular passage - in another passage, yes, but not in this one.

    The translators of the King James Bible changed the meaning of the original text in Acts 17:22 from "god fearing" to "too superstitious"

    Where is this un-adulterated translation that EdJones is referring to? The King James is no better than (the best of) other mass market Bibles in circulation, and does not achieve the high levels attained by at least a couple of the intensive study versions available. It is as good as, but no better than, the New American Standard - which itself has a couple of glaring errors.

    As to those who consider that translating the Bible is a task beyond the capacity of any one individual - 9 months for one person who is thoroughly versed in the Koine Greek is not difficult to believe. It could be translated (by a person who knows the Greek thoroughly) in just so long a time as it took to write the translation down.... Of course, it COULD BE that a diligent student of Koine Greek might take around 20 years to attain the necessary levels of profiency to do so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...