posted
Some people apparently believe the KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible.
I even mentioned that it is not once to a person in passing and they yelled at me for saying God's Word is not perfect, then left, and I've never heard from the person again. I didn't even have a chance to explain.
What is it that cause people to believe an inferior version is perfect, that a human translation CAN somehow be perfect (what is that but hubris?) and react with such anger at the mere mention of truth? I didn't even intend to discuss it, I just mentioned it in passing!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who made you the arbiter of which version is least imperfect?
So in you view then the original copy written in whatever language is actually perfect? And by perfect you mean what exactly?
Why should they discuss it? Large parts of church are somewhat ritual-like, so why shouldn't they use the bible that makes them feel like they are worshiping?
I don't think accuracy is the only goal here.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: I don't think accuracy is the only goal here.
Perhaps, but there are a lot of people who do make some pretty hard accuracy claims regarding the KJV.
quote: So in you view then the original copy written in whatever language is actually perfect? And by perfect you mean what exactly?
No, but it does seem reasonable that translations will have a higher probability of errors, since you have whatever errors were present in the original material, as well as any that were introduced in the translation effort.
Personally, I don't really understand the preoccupation with the KJV, so I can't help much in answering the original question.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen multiple translations, know how they're made, and know they have better information and better sources available now.
Some peopl eactually call the King James Version the absolute truth, that all other versions of the Bible, or at least most of them, are in fact creations made to take people away from Christ. That all others are deception, adn the King James translation in and of itself is the perfect Word of God. That sort of idolatry bothers me.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: ... that a human translation CAN somehow be perfect (what is that but hubris?)
At least the Muslims do not have this problem since their Qur'an is the exactly word of god as revealed to their prophet Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One would really have to be a big fan of the "Committee" way of doing things to even give the KJV a nod for accuracy. But, there were poets on that committee, and it is the most beautiful English translation. The KJV and Shakespear, together, played a big part in polishing a rough low german dialect into a real literary language.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a member of a Southern Baptist chruch when the complete NIV version was being touted; some of the people in our congregation were incensed that someone would dare change the words of the Lord from the "original."
I was maybe 10 at the time and even then I was wondering why people thought Jesus spoke in Shakesperian English.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never quite like the NIV version. Perhaps because it is not as spiffy as the KJV which is more... romantic.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: So, we're moving away from Mormon-mocking to discussion of favorite versions, then? Good.
I'm new here so I must be missing something. I only saw one statement referring to Mormons and they claim to be a Mormon.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use the NLT. It's readable, without being droll. By readable, I mean reading out loud. I can understand the KJV.
The fact is every version of the Bible is a paraphrase.
And there is something lost in the translation. I remember doing a study on the armor of God (Galations 6), and looking at it in the Greek added such a depth to it. Whereas in one verse the Bible talks about Jesus having victory, in the Greek it actually had to do with a battle ritual that meant intense humiliation to the loser, and absolute victory to the winner of the 'war', with a huge feast and everything. That's quite a change.
I love people talking about the Kings James Version. Ah. This is my forte. I have soooo many stories.
I mean, we have people who say that if the Kings James Version was 'Good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me'.
Or, those mystery passeges like 'God helps those who help themselves', or 'A tub must sit on its own bottom', or 'Cleanliness is next to Godliness'.
Oh! Oh!!!!! (Excuse my excitement.) I had somebody quote from the Westminster Confessions and say it was from the Bible.
Another said that if Jesus Knew I was reading a version other than KJV, he 'would roll over in his grave'.
My favorite experience was with the one girl (I wish I was kidding), who when walking in on a discussion about the 'K.J.V.', asked why we were talking about nazis.
Classic.
Sorry. I know it's a serious thread, but it's a topic that I find extermely humorous. No fault of yours, just a conglomerate of experiences has made me numb to indignation, and immersed me in humor.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't waste any time with this person. If they are that venemous there's no hope. Just avoid the topic. You'll just end up frustrated if you bring it up again. I could be wrong though. People can surprise you.
Some people just can't exist without an objective morality (Wasn't there a topic about this?). I believe that each of the books of the Bible are the objective standard, when taken in their context. For example, it gets on my nerves when somebody says that the Bible should not be added to, or taken away from, when really, John said that about the book of Revelation. (Rather, the scroll of Revelation.)
I'm personally unsure about the apocrypha.
Some people that the Bible can modify itself. I don't.
"Judas killed himself."
"Go and do Likewise."
Just an example of the Bible taken out of context.
The four canonical works are considered to be an Objective Moral Standard (I think.). The Qu'ran is another. I think I've misspelled 'Qu'ran'. Sorry.
I think people just don't like the idea of being guided by something as subjective as a conscience.
I don't. And I believe the Bible is the objective moral standard. But I think that most people just believe in an objective moral standard, because they 'need' an objective moral standard.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I even mentioned that it is not once to a person in passing
I don't understand this statement. Not once what?
OK, you can always find somebody to be way too enthusiastic for just about anything. There are even people who like Friends. I would be more interested in KJV's actual value.
There does not seem to be significant difference between the versions I have looked at in terms of what is said. They are different in the dialect it's said in, and also in the beauty of the language. I like KJV because it's beautiful, but I know it is too hard for many modern readers. NKJV maintains the beauty of the language while making things a lot easier.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, for the Old Testemant, I think the Hebrew versions are most accurate. Something about the original language et al.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Judaism, for instance, a story goes as follows:
One of the foreign kings (was it a Greek ruler?) wanted the Torah written in his language, so he took 70 great rabbis and locked them up. He told them that they had best produce identical translations for him.
The trouble was that they wanted to make a translation that would avoide certain issues that -- Judaism explains -- but in a literal sense are problematic, such as God saying "Let us make Man." The story goes that they all produced versions that matched, but it is still a tragedy because the Holy Text had been marred by translation and would now be approached in a less holy level.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, people, the deepest questions of life can always be found on bumper stickers. A friend of mine almost drove off the road when he saw this one, and he just told me about it yesterday:
If it ain't King James, It ain't the Bible
So there you have it. Discussion over.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen, where did you get any ideas that the Mormons would be mocked? The only person who even mentioned the association was DSH (unless you were talking about a continuation from another thread).
Frankly, DSH was absolutely correct. You talk about versions of the Bible that are most correct and you will run the length of Mormons who think the KJV might as well be the original untouchable Word of God and those who think any translation should be scrapped and simply learn Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
"I even mentioned that it is not once to a person in passing and they yelled at me for saying God's Word is not perfect, then left, and I've never heard from the person again. I didn't even have a chance to explain."
Believe me, Mormons know this better than most. One of our teachings is that the Bible (any Scripture for that matter) is flawed and imperfect because it was written by people who were influenced by God. Because we believe in the falibility of Scripture, any scripture, we are instantly and with force accused of hating God's words - period! It is frustrating because its not an if/then proposition. Rather, its an idea based on the human condition of imperfection, no matter if God is the one ultimately in control. He has to communicate to humans who never have had a perfect language.
By the way, the above goes for any kind of original if we ever had them. Language is limiting no matter who uses it.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Some people apparently believe the KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible.
That wouldn't be saying much even if it were true. No translation is really accurate. At most, it can be an approximation.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: In Judaism, for instance, a story goes as follows:
One of the foreign kings (was it a Greek ruler?) wanted the Torah written in his language, so he took 70 great rabbis and locked them up. He told them that they had best produce identical translations for him.
The trouble was that they wanted to make a translation that would avoide certain issues that -- Judaism explains -- but in a literal sense are problematic, such as God saying "Let us make Man." The story goes that they all produced versions that matched, but it is still a tragedy because the Holy Text had been marred by translation and would now be approached in a less holy level.
Right. It was Ptolemy II, and the translation was the original Septuagint. From that point until the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, the anniversary of the day of the translation was commemorated as a day of fasting and mourning each year.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, it has to do with the MS that the English version is translated from. The KJV was translated from something called "textus receptus", I think.
From my own experience, I find that consulting all available, relevant MSS is the best way to go about a translation, but the KJV was single-source, and that particular MS copy was inerrant.
That's the best I could figure out when I was trying to figure out a previous boyfriend's prejudice. He didn't know why the KJV was so important, either. I really had to dig. I'm personally a fan of the NRSV, but I like to keep multiple versions around for consult when studying. If I want simple poetics, I don't see much wrong with the KJV, though I prefer the Jerusalem Bible for that.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So in your view then the original copy written in whatever language is actually perfect?"
"My people do. We believe any translations to be, by their nature, flawed."
Unfortunately, one is still dealing with copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of...
Even if we assume that none of the scribes "edited" nuance/connotation/texture to one more politically correct--pleasing to the leadership--for their times, there is still the problem of a lack of vowels. eg "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..." is a visual pun because some words are spelled the same in the original even though they are pronounced differently. So filling in the vowels is interpretation via tradition.
And there is the change in the meaning of words themselves over time, eg: 'awful' useta mean 'filling with awe'; 'pompous' useta mean 'majestic'; 'artificial' useta mean 'of the cleverest and most cunning human creativeness'. Which is how KingJames praised St.Paul's Cathedral upon completion less than 300years ago. Over a few thousand years, I'd suspect the meaning of many words would change enough to mislead. eg The word translated as 'year' appears to have shifted in meaning from the early 'lunar cycle' to the later 'solar cycle'. Comparing the contemporaneous biblically mentioned lifespans with the archeologically revealed actual lifespans in the NearEast of the same era, Methuselah would have been considered extraordinarily ancient if he had lived to be 969/12.37 or 78years old.
Add that languages don't really translate directly--with some phrases uninterpretable--because a language is always the product of the mindset within a specific social group. So unless one experiences that mindset directly, an exact translation is impossible and even an interpretation can be HIGHLY misleading.
Then of course there is still the problem of knowing when passages were written with the intent to be taken literally versus when they were written with the intent to be taken figuratively/allegorically. And that is pure translation&interpretation.....unless ya wanna argue that women's breasts really did look like young deer in the good ol' days (Song of Solomon).
posted
For anyone interested in the problem of determining the "correct" text, I *highly* recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus." It explains, in great detail, how ancient texts were reproduced and the methods used to try to glean the most correct text from the differing versions of the texts that are still available.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"For anyone interested in the problem of determining the "correct" text, I *highly* recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus."
Me too I don't agree with some of his conclusions, especially his ultimate one about the existance of God because of his textual studies. If he would have been more careful with his biases there would have been less problems. However, the history of Biblical development and translations is great. I also highly recommend his other book about early Christian movements.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: Wasn't the KJV translated from the vulgate?
But what MS? I'm fairly certain we don't have the St. Jerome Original around anymore, and they didn't, either. Most people don't realise it, but the Latin of the "modern" Vulgate has actually changed a small but noticable amount from more ancient sources.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "So in your view then the original copy written in whatever language is actually perfect?"
"My people do. We believe any translations to be, by their nature, flawed."
Unfortunately, one is still dealing with copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of...
Countless copies, all checked painstakingly against master copies, 13 of which were the originals written by Moses, one of which was kept in the Holy Ark in the Temple. I don't see the problem.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Even if we assume that none of the scribes "edited" nuance/connotation/texture to one more politically correct--pleasing to the leadership--for their times, there is still the problem of a lack of vowels. eg "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..."
We don't have that.
quote:The word translated as 'year' appears to have shifted in meaning from the early 'lunar cycle' to the later 'solar cycle'. Comparing the contemporaneous biblically mentioned lifespans with the archeologically revealed actual lifespans in the NearEast of the same era, Methuselah would have been considered extraordinarily ancient if he had lived to be 969/12.37 or 78years old.
No offense, but that's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. That would mean that Mahalalel and Enoch, who are both listed as having been 65 when they begat their sons, were actually less than 5.5 years old. No, I'm sorry, but a year is a year, and there isn't the slightest bit of evidence anywhere that it was ever a month.
quote:Add that languages don't really translate directly--with some phrases uninterpretable--because a language is always the product of the mindset within a specific social group. So unless one experiences that mindset directly, an exact translation is impossible and even an interpretation can be HIGHLY misleading.
posted
Well, the most accurate version is the original Greek and Hebrew. But for English speaking people the KJV certainly has lasted the test of time and is accurate. An interesting note is the re publication of the Geneva Bible that the KJV was based on. http://www.tollelegepress.com/ Basically King James didn't like the Calvinistic margin notes it contained, but if you compare the two they are very similar.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, the King James Version was made with inferior versions of previous translations. (Best they had at the time, though, so it's not an insult at all. They worked hard on it!)
Today we have better, more clear, earlier versions of those original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Which are still copies of copies. But closer to the original.
You would, I hope, agree that having better copies of the original Word of God would allow us to translate it better, right? Because that is what has been done.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DSH: You came to the right place with that comment.
Now the resident Mormons will begin debating among themselves how inaccurate the KJV really is!
<--- is a Mormon
Are you aware that Joseph Smith said the German translations of the Bible were superior to the KJV? He also suggested learning Hebrew so that the bible could be read in its original language.
Many of his sermons feature discussion of how many translations of the original Hebrew are obviously wrong as they were rendered in English.
I remember being very confused that in the Chinese Bible, James and Jacob both have the exact same name. Joseph Smith in one of his sermons states that James' name is incorrect and that "Jacobus" is the correct rendition. He used his German bible as support of this statement. I found out some time later the Chinese Bible was translated from German editions of the Bible not English, and it all came together.
Having said that, the KJV may not be the most correct but heaven knows the writers tried their darndest. But in terms of powerful prose nothing beats the KJV for me. Modern English translation just feel so plain and mediocre when passages are compared to the KJV. But hey, whichever edition makes the truths in the text plain to you is the version you should go with, that's the reason the book exists in the first place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the KJV for the familiarity and poetry of it. I've been meaning to look at other translations - Matt informs me that the Old Testament is a whole lot more fun if you aren't slugging through it in middle English, and apparently Paul makes a lot more sense in other translations as well.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you aware that Joseph Smith said the German translations of the Bible were superior to the KJV?
That's not quite accurate. He said that one particular German translation of the Bible was superior to the KJV. I don't know the name of that particular (or any) German translation, but I understand that that translation is much more problematic for modern speakers of German than the KJV is for modern speakers of English, and thus that translation is rarely used, even by LDS German speakers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you aware that Joseph Smith said the German translations of the Bible were superior to the KJV?
That's not quite accurate. He said that one particular German translation of the Bible was superior to the KJV. I don't know the name of that particular (or any) German translation, but I understand that that translation is much more problematic for modern speakers of German than the KJV is for modern speakers of English, and thus that translation is rarely used, even by LDS German speakers.
Pretty sure he said the German translators treated the text with more respect and accuracy.
Its in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Ill try to find it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"I find it to be the most correct that I have found." -Joseph Smith(Spoken in regards to Luther's German translation.) (Lawrence Cummins, “Martin Luther—Defender of Justice and Seeker of Truth,” Friend, Oct 1984, 34).
"I have been reading the German and find it to be the most [nearly] correct, and to correspond nearest to the revelations I have given for the last fourteen years." -Joseph Smith (King Follet Discourse)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't agree with some of his conclusions, especially his ultimate one about the existance of God because of his textual studies. If he would have been more careful with his biases there would have been less problems. However, the history of Biblical development and translations is great. I also highly recommend his other book about early Christian movements.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
