|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Why the King James Bible?
|
Lolly O'Hara
Apprentice
# 16777
|
Posted
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
When I was a child and a roman catholic I read the good news bible and when I accepted Jesus into my heart I was given a english standard version after I was baptised by full immersion.
I dont really want to get rid of my esv unless it is doctrinally faulty.
[ 02. July 2015, 23:39: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
Posts: 14 | From: Croydon | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
The ESV is a fine translation and incorporates 400 years' worth of scholarship since the KJV. There are some folks who insist that the KJV is the only "real" translation, but there is virtually no objective justification for this affectation that I can see.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
does it burn you when you lift it?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
KJV was produced in a very particular political climate. It had to be a good translation because there already was a good translation out there (the Geneva) that it was designed to beat. The problem with the Geneva was that it had foot notes which diminished the kings position. It therefore also has a political bias in its translation.
So no it never has been accepted by all Protestant churches, as someone raised in English Dissent I come from a tradition that always handled it with caution.
Jengie
[ 27. November 2011, 18:32: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Get a new pastor (or a new church).
And, anyway, the KJV was translated by a committee (a very learned committee, of course) and not by King James VI/I.
Personally (and YMMV) I can't stand the KJV. We use it at Matins (weekly) and Evensong (monthly) and I just hate the outdated language........however beautiful others may find it.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
I'm with Bishopsfinger, the language is so out of date I find it hard to follow.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And it was authorized for use by the Church of England (since the powers-that-be asumed there would be no other churches worthy of the name) ISTM that things have changed a bit since then.
They are even talking of allowing RCs to be in the Line Of Succession to the throne. What heresy will be next? (Not that the use of the KJV has much to do with it at this time.)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I on the other hand really like it. I used to be a Bible memorizer, and I find the AV more memorable, and still know swathes of it by heart.
However, I think it is now more commonly used by those who view it as an art object, or a book of myths. I.e. the less you believe it to be as true as todays newspaper (Daily Mail for instance ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ) the more the archiaic language suits. If you get any quote from the Bible by St Stephen Fry, it'll always be the AV. Shouldn't that be enough to put of the fundies!
Also a few people prefer it, or other older translations because you don't get so much of the PC agenda, like gender-neutral words.
Then people like to believe in an authoritative text. Which is bollocks of course, but you can pretend it isn't if you read the KJV, 'cause you don't get all those footnotes saying "other texts add: Father forgive them for they know not what they do" and the like. And you can believe in the long ending of Mark.
It is otherwise a bit odd of God to spend so much time inspiring every word and then losing the autographs. Still I've done similar so maybe I shouldn't complain!
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
As I said in Ecclesiantics, the 1611 KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul and it ought to be good enough for you. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
The King James Version has its benefits. It is written in flowery early Modern English prose and its turns of phrase have contributed enormously to the English language. If your chief goal to is add a sense of majesty and inscrutability to a biblical text, KJV's your man.
But the kind of people that insist that the 1611 KJV is THE ONLY acceptable translation of the Bible have an agenda, and are suspicious of any more modern biblical translation, because these translations came out around the same time that we started letting the queers hold hands in public or treating Africans as more than chattels or allowing women to speak or the time we stopped burning heretics and magicians.
For certain fundamentalist Protestants, the 17th century was the golden age of the true Church, and any innovation in the intervening years is causally related to the liberal, egalitarian, godless wastes in which we now sojourn.
Be suspicious of anyone who tells you KJV or the highway. They either don't want you to be able to think too hard about the Bible or want a version of a Bible that represents the old social order.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And it was authorized for use by the Church of England (since the powers-that-be asumed there would be no other churches worthy of the name) ISTM that things have changed a bit since then.
Actually it wasn't. It was authorised also for the CofS which was not Anglican but Presbyterian.
Whether the Scots paid any attention is a mute point, but it was clearly intended that they should i.e. the Geneva was popular in Scotland at the time.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There are parts of the world where there are people who say 'King James Only" but as far as I know, it's rather a rare foible in the UK. If anything, there are probably more people around who are AV because they claim they prefer the grandeur and majesty of the C17 language, and can feel superior to those of us who usually these days read their bible in modern English, than there are theological eccentrics who claim it is the one true translation, the touchstone of spurious orthodoxy.
The AV is a good translation. It's accurate. But its New Testament is based on more recent manuscripts than some that have been discovered since. It is in a language which is sufficiently far from modern usage often to conceal its meaning from modern readers. Also, its quaintness means it is easier for us to leave the message locked up in a holy' enclave where we don't have to do anything about it.
Much though I am, of course, reluctant to come between a pastor and a member of his or her flock, I'd also be reluctant to recommend that you surrender your own judgement on this issue to him or her.
There are a lot of translations these days, probably too many. There are hardly any I'd want to dissuade a person from using.
As tclune says, the ESV is a fine translation. I'd say, if you like it, stick with it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oreophagite
Shipmate
# 10534
|
Posted
Any modern translation, as long as it was produced by a committee, should be OK for general reading.
The KJV follows the Hebrew and Greek a bit more closely than the modern translations, but it uses lots of words whose meaning has changed in 400 years. Furthermore, modern translators have access to better original language sources.
If you're really serious about Bible study, you can get a computer program that will put the Hebrew or Greek in one column, and multiple English translations in other columns. Where they agree, all is well. When they differ, you can learn from commentaries and academic papers.
Posts: 247 | From: The Klipoth | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
When I was a child and a roman catholic I read the good news bible and when I accepted Jesus into my heart I was given a english standard version after I was baptised by full immersion.
I dont really want to get rid of my esv unless it is doctrinally faulty.
Tell the silly man (oops, your pastor) that he needs to go take another course somewhere. King James did NOT translate the AV. They had a set of scholars to do that, being sensible people. And it was NOT authorized by all the churches--it was a purely Brit thing done AFAIR to resolve the fact that there were several translations running around at the time, and they wanted a set one to use in all the English churches instead of the miscellany they had previously. You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
I really don't get these KJV (really AV) only people. Do they not understand that the originals were in Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic)? Which means a need for translation and the best scholarship you can scare up when it comes to choosing which manuscript sources are the best. In 400+ years, a lot of new manuscripts have come to light. If we could raise them from the dead, the KJV scholars would be first in line grabbing at the newly discovered stuff to improve on their work. They knew better than to think that any translation is "best" forever. Unless someone turns up the autograph copies of all Bible books hidden in a closet somewhere...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, calming down a bit. Sorry--brought back bad memories of abuse by a KJV-only person. Never mind.
Anyway, to the point. The ESV is fine. As others have said, basically any real translation (not the so-called "New World Translation" then) will do you just fine. If you don't have the original languages, get yourself a big thumping Bible with four versions in parallel columns, so you can see how four different sets of scholars handled a passage. Even without Greek and Hebrew, you can get a really good sense of what the original must have been like.
One of my original reasons for studying Greek and Hebrew in school was paranoia. I worried that perhaps "someone" (anyone, whatever) was trying to pull a fast one on me, and perhaps the originals of God's Word said something quite different. I quickly found out that wasn't so. The people who do this work tend to be humble, painstaking, and dreadfully conscientious (as they should be!), and they agonize over getting it right to the best of human ability. Nobody who reads English has any reason to complain about a lack of good translations. We have them coming out our ears. I only wish it were so for a lot of African and Asian languages, some of which have nothing, or only a couple of books...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
The Authorised Version is rightly regarded as a fine example of 16th/17th English prose, composed perhaps in a self-consciously archaizing register. Many of its most memorable phrases are, however, lifted from the earlier version of William Tyndale, whose rendering, if less polished, can be, one might argue, more immediate.
I know no Hebrew, so I cannot compare the OT with the text from which it has been translated, but as a sometime classicist I can cope with the Greek original. The stylistic quality of NT Greek varies from one author to another; Luke writes fairly respectable koine, but none of the Greek is of any particular literary merit, compared with the major classical authors. Some is no more than rough and ready.
Leaving aside questions of accuracy of translation: in the case of the NT at least, is a collection of singularly elegant pieces of English prose a faithful reflection of something that was written with no such literary aspiration? I do wonder.
[ 27. November 2011, 20:33: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English?
Well if the French Catholics (drc) can... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Probably bad history showing)
one argument I've seen is that god kept us the Greek texts of the kjv and wouldn't have left 1st mil Christians in error...so using the other texts will only make things worse. (Vaguely similar to papal infallibility i guess)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
Hi Lolly.
In some circles, the "King James" or Authorized Version is thought to be superior because it it is based on the "Received Text." This is an edited version of the Greek and Hebrew Bible. It was based on the earliest and most accurate manuscript copies of the Bible known to scholars in the 16th century.
In the 19th century, very early manuscripts were discovered that differed from the "Received Text" in crucial ways. For example, scholars learned that the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai Desert had a copy of the Greek Bible (with some other books included) made between AD 325 and AD 360. This came to be known as the Codex Sinaiticus.
A number of important passages in the Received Text (and the AV) are omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus: Mark 16: 9-20, the so-called "Long Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, for example, or the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).
Now scholars already knew that the "Long Ending" of Mark and the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery were not to be found in the earliest copy of the Bible available in the 16th century, the "Codex Vaticanus." But, because both had appeared in many other manuscripts, they had been included in the Received Text. Their inclusion was challenged when it was found that the Codex Sinaticus did not include them either.
The "King James Only" movement is surveyed here.
To be honest, I think objections to translations of the Bible not based on the Received Text are by and large objections to the methods and presuppositions of 19th century textual scholarship. (When they are not simply based on the familiarity of the AV, that is.)
Most of the Codex Sinaiticus is now in the British Library, and there's a story there....
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I have been told that Christianity would be a much stronger religion if we insisted that every Christian should learn to read the New Testament in Greek. I suspect that this would be stronger mostly in the Gideon's-army sense, though.
The obvious position for a scholar is that no translation is as reliable as the original text in the original languages. Most of us are not scholars of such languages and must trust those who are. I think that dogmatic assertions that one translation is incontestably better than another tend to weaken the Christian community.
Having said all that: I have no problem with the language of the KJV--much of which is indeed beautiful and has enriched the English language-- but it is not the version I read under normal circumstances.
Are there similar controversies about the preferred translations into French, German, etc.?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
One thing that puzzled me about "KJV only" people - as most people do not have English as a first language, what are they supposed to read? The original Hebrew and Greek, a translation in their own language of KJV as the authorised word of God, or a translation in their own language of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
If the latter, then why should KJV be the only translation in English - is English the only language in which new translations are not allowed?
But then, of course, the KJV only "debate" is not about logic or truth, and I can only wish Lolly O'Hara well in her spiritual journey. BTW, the ESV is a fine translation, as are most modern translations - none are perfect, but most are good, though (like others have said above) steer clear of the New World Translation (and the Life Application Bible) which is woeful.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You might also want to tell your pastor that there were non-Latin translations of the scriptures before the Reformation and that the monks in the Venerable Bede's time used to have Anglo-Saxon translations of the Psalms as well as Latin ones.
It's a myth that the RC Church proscribed all translations except the Latin Vulgate. They weren't against the principle of versions in the vernacular, they had particular issues with some of the English translations such as those by Wycliffe and Tyndale because, rightly or wrongly, they thought they were faulty.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Doctrinally unsound? The New World Translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses is a translation that is doctrinally unsound. That thing also has the delightful property of lighting itself on fire.
The ESV is in the Tyndale translation family, the King James Version is a earlier member of this family. The ESV was produced by a good committee of scholars (as the KJV, noted above) and as also noted had the benefit of four centuries of research. Put bluntly we have had 400 years to actually dig up earlier biblical scrolls and editions as well as learn more about the communities that used the biblical scrolls in question.
The ESV is an accurate, modern translation meant for general use by most churches and it is generally and widely accepted.
I think your pastor is riding a hobby-horse.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
Tangent Alert:
Re-reading, my previous post is ambiguous in its side-swipe at some versions of the Bible. The New World Translation is the JW translation, and is notoriously in error. The New Living Translation (and Life Application Bible based on it) is in my opinion a poorer translation, but clearly not of the same ilk as the NWT. My apologies for mixing the two translations together.
End Apology and Tangent
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English?
I was responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me ... it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin.
The pastor in question apparently has a shortsighted view of the worldwide extent of the Church. Besides some faulty ideas about history, but let's not nitpick (more) here.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Lolly, as someone whose German ancestors believed that the Luther Bible was "the" authoritative Bible translation, and who were highly suspicious of the KJV translation when they came to the US (my grandmother insisted on reading the lessons from her own Luther Bible)...I'd like to ask your pastor what Bible translation(s) he feels is/are authoritative for the millions of Christians for whom English is not a first language and/or whose translations of choice predate the KJV. Are/were these people not Real Christians[tm]?
My opinion of the KJV: I love the sound of it, and there are certain times of year (Christmas Eve and Passion Week) when I just want to hear the KJV read aloud. My advice to you is to find a translation that you find easy to understand, and with any luck in a study-Bible version with lots of helps, and use that in your personal study; save the KJV for your church, if you still think that your pastor is someone whose professional gravitas you trust.
Sidebar: You mention "accepting Jesus into your heart." I would not be the cranky Lutheran curmudgeon that I am if I did not gently point out that Jesus accepted you into his heart long, long ago. Saving faith is a gift of God. Just sayin'.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
The Best Translation for anyone is the one s/he will actually read -- frequently -- and study, and actually understand without having some preacher/teacher/high hair display head explain it first.
And, oh squeal oh joy whatta miracle, the Best Translation for anyone is the one s/he will (*gasp*) live by.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Are there similar controversies about the preferred translations into French, German, etc.?
In my very limited experience, some Germans view Luther's translation as infallible, but I think it was a modern, updated version of Luther that they were using. (I am not sure exactly how that worked as, IIRC, Luther translated the Vulgate.)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
{PS: I have never no never not once ever met a KJV-Only proponent who actually used The Original King James. You know, the actual first-published edition?
When any KJV-Only person I've met has allowed me to look at their Bible -- it ain't the original. All the "pisseth" has been wiped up.}
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
Today my pastor told me that my Bible was not as good as the one that King James translated and that I should get a King James bible as it is the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
When I was a child and a roman catholic I read the good news bible and when I accepted Jesus into my heart I was given a english standard version after I was baptised by full immersion.
I dont really want to get rid of my esv unless it is doctrinally faulty.
With respect to your psdtor, he is wrong.
On several counts 1- it was translated froim fewer Hebre & Greek texts than current treanslators have 2- It s authority was only in England 3 Its English is Shakespearn so way out of common understanding in this century
one its raeson fopr being was to be scripture in the common language . So using that as a kick off point take a look at the NEB, NRSV, NIV anyt6hing that is written in English one can understand without doing mental gymnastics. And good reading is ahead. Oh I used to be a church librarian so this not a new subjecy. blessings ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Get a new pastor (or a new church).
And, anyway, the KJV was translated by a committee (a very learned committee, of course) and not by King James VI/I.
Personally (and YMMV) I can't stand the KJV. We use it at Matins (weekly) and Evensong (monthly) and I just hate the outdated language........however beautiful others may find it.
Ian J.
I also hate the KJV but on the other hand, our pastor and church uses The Message which is a little on the opposite spectrum. It tries too hard to be "with it" and makes me cringe sometimes.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I had a member of the Gideons in my Sunday School class. He was of the opinion that the KJV/AV was the only true bible. The basis for this was that God had decreed it had to be the correct translation because God would not have let it hang around so long if it wasn't.
I asked him if that meant the Vulgate was even more accurate.
I actually like the KJV for things like the psalms. The language is, at times, exquisite.
Somewhere, I read about the folks who wrote the KJV. The idea was that the translation would come from the Greek, and not the tainted Latin of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, no one could find an original enough Greek version of the Revelation. So, one of their number was sent off to translate the Vulgate Revelation into Greek so the committee could translate it into the KJV from the Greek.
Maybe I should check Snopes.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pasco
Shipmate
# 388
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You might also want to tell your pastor that there were non-Latin translations of the scriptures before the Reformation and that the monks in the Venerable Bede's time used to have Anglo-Saxon translations of the Psalms as well as Latin ones.
It's a myth that the RC Church proscribed all translations except the Latin Vulgate. They weren't against the principle of versions in the vernacular, they had particular issues with some of the English translations such as those by Wycliffe and Tyndale because, rightly or wrongly, they thought they were faulty.
Wycliffe and Tyndale were deemed heretics - where the issue lay. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Moreover, the Venerable Bede's translations were probably of little use during the time of Wycliffe, by which time the language would have changed and the differences more pronounced than KJV is to us today. By then also, the Latin Vulgate was in vogue much as Sanskrit is with Hindus today re with mantras, which is almost exclusively in the 'sacred' tongue.
Posts: 997 | From: Domiciling 'ere, living locally. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
I think that the KJV is important because of its beauty, yes, but there is another more overlooked quality. It is the only English translation the ever had or has the least bit of hope of becoming a truly universal and common translation. If anyone suggested that the NRSV or the NIV or the NAB or the Douay-Rheims should be the standard by which all else is judged, we would think him rather mad... but those who say the same of the KJV have at least some measure of respectability.
With the plethora of modern versions, we have lost the sense of specific words and phrases immediately hearkening the mind back to the biblical text. And I think that's a real shame. Now, even someone quite familiar with "the Bible" in general might not recognize a given allusion, because it's not from the version he tends to read. For example, when I hear "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity", then I immediately think "Oh, this must be from Ecclesiastes!". But on the other hand, something like "Utterly meaningless!Everything is meaningless" (the NIV rendering) is just a bunch of common English words strung together. It conveys the same idea, sure, but not in a memorable way, and can easily be missed.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In some circles, the "King James" or Authorized Version is thought to be superior because it it is based on the "Received Text." This is an edited version of the Greek and Hebrew Bible. It was based on the earliest and most accurate manuscript copies of the Bible known to scholars in the 16th century.
Thank you Grammatica! I was waiting for someone to say that.
The issue is the text, not the outdated language.
My denomination insists on the use of the "Recieved Text" in whatever translation it can be found. NKJV is the one we use.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
A number of important passages in the Received Text (and the AV) are omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus: Mark 16: 9-20, the so-called "Long Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, for example, or the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).
These are only the most important omissions. In my book they are enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
To be honest, I think objections to translations of the Bible not based on the Received Text are by and large objections to the methods and presuppositions of 19th century textual scholarship.
That's it exactly. The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I said in Ecclesiantics, the 1611 KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul and it ought to be good enough for you.
"Ha, ha" (Job 39:25, KJV) "Ho, ho" (Zechariah 2:6, KJV)
[ 28. November 2011, 02:57: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
... With the plethora of modern versions, we have lost the sense of specific words and phrases immediately hearkening the mind back to the biblical text... even someone ... familiar with "the Bible"... might not recognize a given allusion, because it's not from the version he tends to read...
That all depends. Does he tend to read for understanding, or does he tend to read because he likes to memorize the pretty words?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
A number of important passages in the Received Text (and the AV) are omitted from the Codex Sinaiticus: Mark 16: 9-20, the so-called "Long Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, for example, or the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).
These are only the most important omissions. In my book they are enough.
On what basis do you assume they were there originally and dropped out, rather than were added later? particularly given the dates of the manuscripts they do and do not appear in?
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
How do you know that's why they were discarded?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I concluded that the KJV is a disaster for modern ears ever since I lost the plot of a reading in a service from Ephesians as a teenager: if I, as a reasonably intelligent person who'd grown up in church, couldn't immediately understand its obscurities, then someone with no church background was very likely to be deterred by it. On the Archbishop Temple principle that 'the church is the only institution that exists for the benefit of those outside', this, to me, excludes it from routine use.
The debate over textus receptus v the product of modern text criticism is slightly more open, but the reality is that the difference are pretty small in terms of the implication for how we actually live. It is however interesting to note the way that the woman taken in adultery story is treated compared with the long ending of Mark. The former is popular - it fits with our modern emphasis on forgiveness and restoration for all. By contrast Mark's long ending is largely ignored because its content is far too challenging - the church is expected to prove the truth of its claims by visible signs. Funny that...
[/tangent I did once demolish a JW by pointing out that they claimed to believe the bible but ignored the long ending of Mark despite it being IN THEIR OWN VERSION. Worth considering if you want to give a JW a hard time]
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think I prefer to challenge JWs by referring to the high Christology of Hebrews and other texts that support Trinitarian belief and the deity of Christ, Ender's Shadow. When was the last time you picked up a snake or drank deadly poison without it doing you any harm?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
@Pasco: indeed. I wasn't saying that people in Tyndale's time, or even Wycliffe's time, could have used and understood the Anglo-Saxon translations, of course they couldn't. All I was saying was that the RC Church wasn't against the idea of vernacular translations in principle - provided they weren't deemed heretical. Although I suspect they set the bar pretty highly on this one.
You are right, of course, that Latin became the language of sacred discourse/worship in a similar way to how Church Slavonic or older forms of Greek have become the default liturgical language in Russia and in Greek. A Romanian Orthodox friend told me, though, that the Romanian used in their services is generally understood by everybody.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow
I concluded that the KJV is a disaster for modern ears ever since I lost the plot of a reading in a service from Ephesians as a teenager:
Quite large parts of the epistles are difficult to follow in the AV. But particularly in the case of Ephesians, is this entirely the translators' fault?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
{PS: I have never no never not once ever met a KJV-Only proponent who actually used The Original King James. You know, the actual first-published edition?
When any KJV-Only person I've met has allowed me to look at their Bible -- it ain't the original. All the "pisseth" has been wiped up.}
My KJV has "pisseth" in the text - I know this because I have actually read it all the way through. I like it though it's not the version we use at church because it has pictures in - for me pictures make up for any amount of difficult phraseology and I rather like the phraseology anyway.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
My KJV has "pisseth" in the text - I know this because I have actually read it all the way through. I like it though it's not the version we use at church because it has pictures in - for me pictures make up for any amount of difficult phraseology and I rather like the phraseology anyway.
To clarify (missed edit window) the pictures are not of the "pisseth"-ing...
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Has anyone noticed that Mr Gove intends to send a copy of the King James to every school. Presumably because it is an anniversary year. I do hope that is the only reason.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I said in Ecclesiantics, the 1611 KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul and it ought to be good enough for you.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva
To clarify (missed edit window) the pictures are not of the "pisseth"-ing...
Pity. I've never seen an illustration to that particular text. The nearest is one of Bewick's vignettes that go at the bottoms of the pages in his natural history books.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My opinion of the KJV: I love the sound of it, and there are certain times of year (Christmas Eve and Passion Week) when I just want to hear the KJV read aloud. My advice to you is to find a translation that you find easy to understand, and with any luck in a study-Bible version with lots of helps, and use that in your personal study; save the KJV for your church, if you still think that your pastor is someone whose professional gravitas you trust.
I largely agree. There are some passages in the KJV that are bad translations but glorious poetry - perhaps due to the influence of the Holy Spirit on the translators? "Underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut.33.27) is far better poetry than any modern (but more accurate) translation; so is "If I take the wings of the morning" (Ps.139.9).
On the other hand the 1611 translators of the epistles failed to use language that makes the meaning of the writers as clear as it could be (Ephesians is only one example); and since the epistles are largely teaching and not poetry, one needs to use a modern translation. Personally I find the Jerusalem Bible translation of the epistles about the best; but there are many that are better than the King James Version, and readings from the epistles, whether in church or at home, should be such as to make the meaning as clear as possible to the hearer or reader.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On what basis do you assume they were there originally and dropped out, rather than were added later? particularly given the dates of the manuscripts they do and do not appear in?
I think that continuity of usage is a more compelling argument than date of manuscript.
The story of the woman taken in adultery would have been in use throughout the Christian world at any point between the beginning of Christianity and the 20th century. The fact that it is missing from the majority of the oldest manuscripts found is a good reason to delete it, but not the most compelling in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
How do you know that's why they were discarded?
It's just Green's theory. It could be wrong. It makes sense to me that the manuscripts that were most avidly read and copied would disintegrate. It also makes sense to me that a manuscript was such a valuable thing that even if it was faulty it would be set aside and preserved even if not used.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Are there similar controversies about the preferred translations into French, German, etc.?
In my very limited experience, some Germans view Luther's translation as infallible, but I think it was a modern, updated version of Luther that they were using. (I am not sure exactly how that worked as, IIRC, Luther translated the Vulgate.)
Not the Vulgate. I can't speak to the Hebrew, but the Greek I believe he got from Erasmus' new edition of the Greek NT.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lolly O'Hara:
... the only Bible that has been authorised by all of the Churches after the reformation and people were finally allowed to read the Bible in languages other than Latin. It is sometimes called the authorised version because of that.
Next time tell him that the AV was published nearly a century after the Reformation, that Bibles in English had been in every church and every village in England for about eighty years, and that despite being "authorised" is didn't become the normal Bible in everyday use in England till probably the 1670s or 1680s - the Geneva Bible still outsold it for years, and lots of churches read from the old Bishop's Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll not find the German Lutherans involved, for example.
Why would German Lutherans be involved in translating the Bible into English?
Dunno, but some of them were, so Lamb Chopped is wrong on that one! Just as at least two Lutherans were involved in writing the English Prayerbook. And there were German Lutheran churches in North America in the 18th century where both the AV Bible and the BCP were used in their English-language services. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Tell the silly man (oops, your pastor) that he needs to go take another course somewhere. King James did NOT translate the AV.
You could try telling him that King James was a gay Episcopalian. Or perhaps for some reason these folk don't mind about them when they are dead?
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Now scholars already knew that the "Long Ending" of Mark and the story of the Woman Taken in Adultery were not to be found in the earliest copy of the Bible available in the 16th century, the "Codex Vaticanus."
IIRC the Church Fathers knew that the story about casting the first stone was not originally in John. (Or some of them did).
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Somewhere, I read about the folks who wrote the KJV. The idea was that the translation would come from the Greek, and not the tainted Latin of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, no one could find an original enough Greek version of the Revelation. So, one of their number was sent off to translate the Vulgate Revelation into Greek so the committee could translate it into the KJV from the Greek.
That's not true either! They did have Greek texts.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
