- Oct 7, 2010
- 1,668
- 1,086
- 30
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I say no.
For one thing, it's a biased translation written under an inferior scholarship; it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English, in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well. The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.
For another, more modern translations are better-organized and less biased projects with solid attempts at uncovering the meaning of the words and less blatant bias towards one opinion or the other. They are open to criticism by the scholarly community and people are more free to disagree.
Of course, you've got certain things which don't seem to be in any Bible but are still valid and controversial such as the translation of 'virgin' as referring to Mary really meant 'young woman' and not 'a person who has not had sex', bringing into question our actual dedication into revealing truth instead of pandering to those with common, but very possibly inaccurate, opinions.
(Not that the whole 'mary=young woman' thing is definitely correct; I'm just saying that there seems to be solid reasoning for why it could really mean that and that it's telling that nobody's even so much suggested as to put it into canon.).
James
For one thing, it's a biased translation written under an inferior scholarship; it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English, in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well. The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.
For another, more modern translations are better-organized and less biased projects with solid attempts at uncovering the meaning of the words and less blatant bias towards one opinion or the other. They are open to criticism by the scholarly community and people are more free to disagree.
Of course, you've got certain things which don't seem to be in any Bible but are still valid and controversial such as the translation of 'virgin' as referring to Mary really meant 'young woman' and not 'a person who has not had sex', bringing into question our actual dedication into revealing truth instead of pandering to those with common, but very possibly inaccurate, opinions.
(Not that the whole 'mary=young woman' thing is definitely correct; I'm just saying that there seems to be solid reasoning for why it could really mean that and that it's telling that nobody's even so much suggested as to put it into canon.).
James
Last edited: