• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Do Versions Really Matter?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Member
The Bible is originally translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Since every language has shades of meaning depending upon context, the task of translating can be accomplished only by Holy Spirit led diligence, language acuity, checking word meanings, and crosschecking manuscripts.

There are hundreds of dialects of English alone. Think of that we have dictionaries, lexicons, and thesauruses with varying definitions and synonyms for any given word. Get two people together, one from Louisiana who speaks "Creole" and an Englishman who speaks "the Queen's English," and they would be hard pressed to fully understand each others' verbal expressions.

My first thoughts about the thread included that we need different versions because of the confusion of language from the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:9 - Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. (NASB)

I also balked at what seemed the unfounded, nonsensical argument against the NIV, so checked the web for any background on the NIV translators and the process for bringing the translation to fruition. Here is what I found from The American Bible Society:


ABOUT THE NIV BIBLE
"More than 100 scholars from six English-speaking countries, as well as editors and English stylists, worked on the NIV. The scholars represent more than 20 denominations.

In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri.

It took ten years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968.

The system for editing each book is one of the distinctive features of the NIV. The procedure was as follows:
Initial Translation Team
Intermediate Editorial Committee
General Editorial Committee
Stylist and Critics
Executive Committee (or Committee on Bible Translation)
Final Stylistic Review
Executive's Committee's Final Reading

The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.

The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation."

BIBLE TRANSLATION
"At IBS, we hold the ministry of Bible translation as a sacred trust. As a Bible society, we understand the importance of preserving the integrity of God's Holy Word by accurately translating the meaning of the original biblical texts."


I was also amazed to find at the same site that there is a book, ©1999, regarding the very thoughts that had occurred to me about Babel. This surprising concurrence leads me to believe that my initial direction to Genesis 11:9 was from the Holy Spirit. The subject is in straight relation to the thread query, and thus it seems fitting to share the title and the site's synopsis of the book.

Bible, Babel and Babble
The Foundations of Bible Translation

By Dr. Scott Munger

The Foundations of Bible Translation
"Babel’s effects continue, and not only among modern 'tower builders.' Misunderstandings related to the nature of language also confuse the Church, whether in missionary work, cross-cultural dialogue or the use of the Bible itself. Sadly, there is a great deal of babble spread around concerning the essence of Bible translation. Intra-church strife, and even carnage, result from Babel’s confusion. This work, drawn upon the study of numerous languages and cultures, is an attempt to dispel some of that confusion."



scrappy said:
a question

in all the differing views on this and that version or translation of the Bible, and with the differing ways that these can and do show the living word of God, at no point has the jerusalem or new jerusalem versions/translations been mentioned.

so my question is this, why?

and to further expand the question, is it because we haven't read or studied it, or because we have read it and found it flawed?

God bless

scrappy
Scrappy, greetings with our Lord's blessings.

Originally, God used an NIV New Testament as the instrument for my salvation. It was a wonderful entrance, because its style allowed me to read cover to cover to get a seamless overview. When I went to find a complete Bible, I purchased the New Jerusalem Bible for two reasons. First, it contains the Apocrypha, something which piqued my curiousity. Also, the language style of the New Jerusalem is uniquely beautiful.

Ultimately, I was inclined away from the NJB. The Apocrypha is primarily known as a part of Catholic doctrine, and is not generally accepted in the Christian community. The NJB also has many scholarly introductions to Bible text. The commentaries make statements about source of Scripture and authorship. Eventually those academic insertions seemed flawed, especially after my adding the KJV and NKJV to my reading.

Now I use the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NKJ regularly, and compare quite a few other versions in online searches.

One closing note - there is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. Two lovely paraphrases are the Living Bible and The Message. Neither "pretends" to be a translation.
 
Member
imready4thelord said:
What about the lesbian Virginia Mollenkott that was on the NIV translation staff.
Was she led buy God?
What about Mollenkott’s influence on the NIV?

In an interview Virginia Mollenkott explained her role in the NIV translation process:
"I worked mainly in solitude. . . they would send me big swatches of translations. . . and `my job' was to read them with an eye as to how this would communicate with the modern reader, and to indicate if I thought there were any infelicities [inappropriate, or awkward] in language that could be corrected... So, I would write notes all over manuscripts which I was sent, both praising phraseology that I thought was wonderful and raising questions or asking-for instance something I would typically write would be, `Would the Greek or would the Hebrew permit this word' which would seem to me to be much more understandable or clear to a modern reader?..."

Now, what do you suppose Virginia Mollenkott wrote if she received 1 Corinthians 6:9, or 1 Timothy 1:10? Possibly "homosexual OFFENDERS" rather than a general condemnation of "homosexuals"? Not surprising, the NIV completely removes the word "sodomy".
Regarding Ms Mollenkott, I appreciate you correcting my assumption that they are all evanglicals.

But, you know, the Old Testament shows a number of instances where God used people outside the realm of believers to get His stuff done.

It also may be POSSIBLE that her work in being part of the preparation of the NIV was, perhaps, the beginning of her re-thinking her beliefs, if not now, then sometime in the
future.

I believe that, indeed, "With God, all things are possible".
 
Member
Regarding the partiality attempt in this thread - judging the NIV because of a named sin of a named individual:

As a old anti-feminist girl who believes in male superiority, it took a long time for God to convict me about my particular dislike of female homosexuals. "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

A person's transgressions may have no bearing on their intellectual impartiality and credentials for a task. God does indeed use those who are not His people for His purpose. A notable Biblical reference is Cyrus.

"'For Jacob My servant's sake, and Israel My elect, I have even called you by you name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.'" (Isaiah 45:4)

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: 'All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up!'" (2 Chronicles 36:23)
 
Member
SpiritLedEd said:
Regarding Ms Mollenkott, I appreciate you correcting my assumption that they are all evanglicals.
that is all it was...and the more i check out virgina mollenkott the more interesting things i find...here are a few
In 1993 Mollenkott published a book entitled Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (New York: Crossroad), in which she reflected on her rejection of fundamentalism, her lesbian "coming out," and her belief in a female God. Mollenkott concludes that "in a very physical sense we are all gay, we are all lesbian, we are all heterosexual, we are all bisexual--because we are all one" (p. 153). Her view of the kingdom of God on earth is a society in which "lesbian women, bisexual people, and gay men are going to be accepted as first-class citizens in the church and in society as a whole" (p. 153). She defines sin as "the absence of trust" (instead of disobedience to God's law) and defines salvation as "being brought back into a trusting relationship by remembering Who We Are: God's children, never actually separated from God's love even though we had imagined we were" (p. 157). Her view of the new birth is as follows: "In the instant of remembering our true identity, we are at-oned, restored to a trusting relationship with God, with our Selves, with other people, and with the universe" (p. 157). Mollenkott claims that providing mutual sexual pleasure, whether it be homosexual or bisexual or whatever, is one of the most important things in life. "Learning to love ourselves and others (including mutual pleasuring) is the greatest contribution we can make to the creation of a just society. And I am confident that the day will come when most Christian churches will teach a creation-positive method of glorifying God and enjoying Her forever" (p. 158). Mollenkott turns sin and righteousness upside down by claiming that it is the "pleasure haters" (those who believe God made the sexual relationship for heterosexual marriage only) who are the "unjust" (p. 158). She claims that her lesbianism "is simply a good gift, as all sexuality is a good gift" (p. 162). She admits that when she first started admitting her lesbianism publicly she "felt slightly soiled, as if I needed a good shower," but later she recognized "that the soiled feeling was residual heterosexism" (p. 162). Mollenkott worships a [wo]man-made idol she identifies as "our tender Father and our demanding Mother and then again our loving Friend, faithful Companion, and cosmic Lover" (p. 166).
 
Member
evangeline said:
I think it is important to differentiate between a translation and a paraphrase.

The Good News Bible and the Living Bible do not claim to be translations and may be useful to new believers with poor reading skills, or as an extra resource.

My favourite translations are the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version.

My least favourite version of all is "The Message" It is extremely popular in Aistralia and I feel it has the potential to undermine the pure truth, power and heritage of Christianity. It worries me that people even regard it as a "Bible." It is simply one person's very loose interpretation - It is NOT a translation.


evangeline
evangeline, I previously missed this post, and agree that paraphrases are best left as supplements. Although I am not sure about their use for "new believers with poor reading skills." My perception of the NIV is it is a translation that serves the very purpose of providing inspired Word in everyday language for those with lesser reading skills.


imready4thelord said:
In 1993 Mollenkott published a book entitled Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (New York: Crossroad), in which she reflected on her rejection of fundamentalism, her lesbian "coming out,"
It seems the date of this book would indicate that during the NIV work, completed in 1978, the fundamentalism of this particular translator was in effect. Then too, with all the other workers and time in development, there were plenty of checks in place to insure a translation in the Truth. As with every God-inspired Bible work, I am wholeheartedly certain that our Lord used every person involved for His unerring purpose.

My introduction to Christianity was reading the NIV New Testament cover to cover. The second time reading through I accepted Christ Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, my Lord and personal Savior. (His profound presence especially manifested from John1:1-5.) Previously, due to my background, I had been under no religious law. Even as an atheist, I was very concerned about right conduct and kindness toward others, so initially the idea of sin was a hard concept. With the influence of this translation of The Bible, I realized that out of obedience to the LORD, I had to ask God forgiveness for everything in my life that His word describes as sin. Indisputably, nothing was missing for the Holy Spirit to work in me on every necessity for becoming and being a Christian. All in all, the NIV as God's Word is entirely meritorious.

Alas, there may be an element by which I am remiss to extend such a dubious debate with small personal focus. Still it seems not unfounded to offer experiential relevance.

Lord, forgive me any prideful motivation for my communications. Enable my brethren to forgive my annoying displays of pride. Give them the courage to confront me about anything that may hurt them or grieve Your Spirit. Thank You for being in our midst to keep our fellowship in Your love. With praise and gratitude for the cleansing of my sin through Christ Jesus. Amen.

"How priceless is your unfailing love! Both high and low among men find refuge in the shadow of your wings."(Psalm 36:7)
 
Member
I have as many different versions as possible.

KJV at home
GOOD NEWS version in the car.
NIV on my person at all times, it was the smallest one I could find.

I love them all :love:

The version I love the most, is the one God written on my heart :love:

Just to add about homosexuality, I too hated this recently. God sent two homosexuals into my life and learnt me how to love them. Hate the sin, not the sinner. :thumbs_up
 
Last edited:
Member
Hi To Christ,

thankyou for you contributions to this thread, they have been very helpful to me. I think the important thing to remember is that all translators are human with faults, i.e. sins, some it would seem with more serious than others???
Sad to say - but true i.e. translators are sinners.

I have wanted to stay out of the debate because I do not want anyone to lose faith in their Bible if it is a adequate translation.

Their are minor shortcomings in the KJV too. And I didn't want to bring them up because of the immense value the KJV has been to Christians for centuries.

You mention that the KJV translators only used manuscripts from one source for their work. They were quite late manuscripts too, in which minor additions had been introduced over time. Most of the additions I actually agree with from a doctrinal point of view, because they were mostly added by well meaning monks who wanted to emphasise some point of theology. Even Martin Luther added a few phrases to the Bible. (An extremely dangerous practise I might add, and even though I may agree with their theology I certainly do not condone tampering with the Word of God- Revelation 22:18-19)

One of the more amusing things that the KJV translators did was to transliterate the name "Jacob" into "James", in some sort of effort to please King James! So the Apostle James should really be known as the Apostle Jacob.

The KJV version is unnessasarily biased against women too, reflecting the understanding of the 1600s, more than then the New Testament reality. But that is another subject - another thread

All in all, I believe most true translations to be trustworthy.

If people are really keen they can learn more about the words used in the original languages. For absolute beginners, the Strong's Concordance and the Vines Expository Dictionary is a good place to start; but people must learn how to use them correctly! You can even learn Greek on-line, but it still comes down to what Hebrew or Greek sources are used.

:love:
evangeline
 
Last edited:
Member
evangeline, thanks for your kind words. Your knowledge in posts around the board is exemplary, so quite a compliment!

I must point out that the posted words about the KJV source texts are quoted from a website (note diacritical enclosures).
 
Member
Dear Anabaptist;

Thank you for opening up this topic. I feel we all were blessed by the participative posts of our brothers and sisters. I suggest you print this thread, read and meditate on the different views, then pray, asking our Father to guide you to be a more effective witness. As you introduce Jesus Christ to other persons and they ask you about different "versions" or "translations" you will be better prepared to answer them for God's glory and purpose.

I would not suggest not recommending certain bibles. New believers are already just trying to understand LOVE to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and LOVE to our brothers and sisters. Instead, pray with them openly that God will put the right bible in their hands. What may be a "meat and thirst quenching" reading of the translation for you, Anabaptist, may not be the translation for them.

The bibles everyone mentioned that they are reading in this topic are acceptable translations, even the paraphrases. However, this remains debatable on the questions of language, structure, verbal, and grammatical. This has been going on for centuries with theologians and the translators of these books.

For example, the KJV, which has the word "version" in its title is as close to the form of the Hebrew or Greek, both words and grammer, as can be conveniently put into understandable English. The closer the bible stays with the Hebrew or Greek, the closer one gets toward the "theory" of translation. This is called the Formal Equivalence or the Textus Receptus, meaning the historical distance kept intact at all points to the Hebrew and Greek. Many are fed with the KJV. Others, however, have a hard time grasping this translation. Its ok. I learned by praying and seeking God put the right translation that is best for me to study and grow.

I don't agree that Good News Bible, New International Version, New American Standard Version, New English Bible, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, The Living Bible, were all translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

The New American Standard Bible (not version), New King James Version, and the Revised Standard Version are from the Formal Equivalence, or Textus Receptus.

The New International Version and Good News Bible are the Functional Equivalence, or Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus keeping the meaning of Hebrew or Greek but to put their words into would be the normal way of saying the same thing in English. These translations keep historical distance on all factual matters but "update" areas of language, grammar, and style.

The Amplified, New English Bible, and The Living Bible are the Free Translations, or the paraphrase attempts to translate the ideas from one language to another, not using the exact words yet is still faithful to the original text.

When I started reading the bible it was the Amplified. It took me 8 years to finish. I was not in a hurry, obviously, the Amplified has extended sentence structure. Perhaps this is why I am long winded in my sentences when I write. lol!

Today I am studying from the NIV, cross reference with the KJV, and doing a comparable analysis study of Daniel 4 in the New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible.

It took me years to learn to enjoy God's Word. So I prayed asking for God's help and today I LOVE reading with God alone in my devotions. I feel that it shows in my witness to my brothers and sisters in the community. Oh, what translations have I recommended to them? The Message, NIV, and to the avid reader seeking who God is, the KJV.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
 
Last edited:
Member

Eve

I have a 150 year old year old King James bible my husband bought for a fiver in a Charity shop. I have a New International translation and a New Living translation. Out of the three I prefer the New Living. The latter was given to my daughter when she moved from Junior Church up to POGS because it was snazzy with a silver metal cover and 'Thirsty?' punched on the front. My daughter uses the Street Bible at POGS (people of God). I tried to read the Street Bible (you know 'cause I'm hip and all that'), it was all Greek to me!!!!
 
Member

xr6

Eve said:
I have a 150 year old year old King James bible my husband bought for a fiver in a Charity shop. I have a New International translation and a New Living translation. Out of the three I prefer the New Living. The latter was given to my daughter when she moved from Junior Church up to POGS because it was snazzy with a silver metal cover and 'Thirsty?' punched on the front. My daughter uses the Street Bible at POGS (people of God). I tried to read the Street Bible (you know 'cause I'm hip and all that'), it was all Greek to me!!!!

Hi Eve, interesting this debate about which bible to read.
does your 150 year old King James bible have a preface or an introduction?
if it does what does that say about the accuracy of the King James translation?
thanks Xr6
 
Member
Eve said:
I have a 150 year old year old King James bible my husband bought for a fiver in a Charity shop. I have a New International translation and a New Living translation. Out of the three I prefer the New Living. The latter was given to my daughter when she moved from Junior Church up to POGS because it was snazzy with a silver metal cover and 'Thirsty?' punched on the front. My daughter uses the Street Bible at POGS (people of God). I tried to read the Street Bible (you know 'cause I'm hip and all that'), it was all Greek to me!!!!
Dear Eve;

Thank you for sharing about your husband's old King James. I wish we could see this copy!

God bless you.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
 
Member
Bond_Servant said:
As far as versions go......You will have people debate that the KVJ is the only way to go.....the orginal.
The original?
The first English translation of the Bible was actually written by John Wyclif who lived 1320-1384, well before the King James Version was written.
 
Last edited:
Member
Greek or Latin?

Bobinfaith said:
Dear Anabaptist;

Thank you for opening up this topic. I feel we all were blessed by the participative posts of our brothers and sisters. I suggest you print this thread, read and meditate on the different views, then pray, asking our Father to guide you to be a more effective witness. As you introduce Jesus Christ to other persons and they ask you about different "versions" or "translations" you will be better prepared to answer them for God's glory and purpose.

I would not suggest not recommending certain bibles. New believers are already just trying to understand LOVE to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and LOVE to our brothers and sisters. Instead, pray with them openly that God will put the right bible in their hands. What may be a "meat and thirst quenching" reading of the translation for you, Anabaptist, may not be the translation for them.

The bibles everyone mentioned that they are reading in this topic are acceptable translations, even the paraphrases. However, this remains debatable on the questions of language, structure, verbal, and grammatical. This has been going on for centuries with theologians and the translators of these books.

For example, the KJV, which has the word "version" in its title is as close to the form of the Hebrew of Greek, both words and grammer, as can be conveniently put into understandable English. The closer the bible stays with the Hebrew or Greek, the closer one gets toward the "theory" of translation. This is called the Formal Equivalence or the Textus Receptus, meaning the historical distance kept intact at all points to the Hebrew and Greek. Many are fed with the KJV. Others, however, have a hard time grasping this translation. Its ok. I learned by praying and seeking God put the right translation that is best for me to study and grow.

I don't agree that Good News Bible, New International Version, New American Standard Version, New English Bible, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, The Living Bible, were all translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

The New American Standard Bible (not version), New King James Version, and the Revised Standard Version are from the Formal Equivalence, or Textus Receptus.

The New International Version and Good News Bible are the Functional Equivalence, or Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus keeping the meaning of Hebrew or Greek but to put their words into would be the normal way of saying the same thing in English. These translations keep historical distance on all factual matters but "update" areas of language, grammar, and style.

The Amplified, New English Bible, and The Living Bible are the Free Translations, or the paraphrase attempts to translate the ideas from one language to another, not using the exact words yet is still faithful to the original text.

When I started reading the bible it was the Amplified. It took me 8 years to finish. I was not in a hurry, obviously, the Amplified has extended sentence structure. Perhaps this is why I am long winded in my sentences when I write. lol!

Today I am studying from the NIV, cross reference with the KJV, and doing a comparable analysis study of Daniel 4 in the New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible.

It took me years to learn to enjoy God's Word. So I prayed asking for God's help and today I LOVE reading with God alone in my devotions. I feel that it shows in my witness to my brothers and sisters in the community. Oh, what translations have I recommended to them? The Message, NIV, and to the avid reader seeking who God is, the KJV.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
Brother Bob, I love the clarity and unifying nature of your presentation:note:.
It answers questions that were on my mind.

Bible translating and source have not been part of my repertoire, so upon seeing some of the terms earlier in the thread, I didn't know whether it was Latin or Greek to me. The word that stood out was Vaticanus which made me think of the Catholic tradition of reading The Holy Bible in Latin. (i.e. Vatican ---> The Pope)

Is the New Catholic Edition related to the St. Jeromes? I have not read the St. Jeromes, but once asked a Catholic about it and was told that it is "the same" as other Bibles (outside of the Apocrypha).

:love:
 
Member
Dear Sister To Christ;

Yes, The Saint Jerome translation goes back to the 4th Century, AD, and is comparable with The New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible. I am discussing this and learning from a senior priest at Saint Augustines in San Diego. Its very dry information but will help me with my mid term paper later this month.

Thank you, Tanya.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
 
Last edited:
Member
The Authorised Version (KJV) is a very quirky case, actually. In the UK, the modern version is under perpetual copyright, which is vested in the British monarch (ironic, I know), so technically, permission must be sought from the Queen of England to republish anything from it in the UK. However, the original spelling version is NOT, considering as it reads so differently. Once you know the rules of 17th-century printing (interchangeble v's and u's, long s's, etc), then a facsimile of the original publication is not difficult to read.

The KJV is by far not a landmark translation in a scholarly sense. People familiar with the Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale, etc translations will notice that 60% of the King James version actually incorporates large sections of earlier translations. You can understand the predicament of scholars of the time, who were anxious to publish a translation which would be used uniformly throughout the Anglican Church (which is why it was published in the first place, because of the discrepancies between versions in the Churches of England, Scotland, Ireland and other places under the political jurisdiction of the monarch of the time). It is ironic that some American and other denominations adopt a policy of 'King-James-Only'ism, considering that it mirrors the 'Vulgate-Only'ism adopted by the Roman Catholic church of the 16th and earlier centuries. The truth is that no translation is 100% accurate, considering that with each change of language, one moves further away from the original. For example, some sections of the Textus Receptus (used by the KJV committee to prepare that translation between 1607 and 1610) are now known to be erroneous, or apocryphal. Such as the last sentence of the Gospel according to John. Does this affect the truth of the message? Probably not. As we all know, God influences more than we could ever imagine on this planet. And those who hear his call to be born again will inevitably hear the same message, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew, in Aramaic, in French, German, Latin, English, Dutch, Swahili, Welsh, Esperanto, etc.

As a very wise poster already said, as long as you DO read the bible, it doesn't really matter. God will get the message to you in the end.
 
Member
Dear Irishmaestro;

Excellent read and what you shared is another example of debate and ironic between the translations. But as you mentioned at the end of your post, brother, as long as you do read the bible, it doesn't really matter. God will message to you in the end, along with the here and now which is equally important.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
 
Last edited:
Member
Dear Irishmaestro;

Excellent read and what you shared is another example of debate and ironic between the translations. But as you mentioned at the end of your post, brother, as long as you do read the bible, it doesn't really matter. God will message to you in the end, along with the here and now which is equally important.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
 
Member
Bobinfaith said:
Dear Sister To Christ;

Yes, The Saint Jerome translation goes back to the 4th Century, AD, and is comparable with The New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible. I am discussing this and learning from a senior priest at Saint Augustines in San Diego. Its very dry information but will help me with my mid term paper later this month.

Thank you, Tanya.

Your servant in Christ Jesus. :love:
Brother Bobinfaith,

Wow, that is some challenging undertaking! Thank you for your reply, and for the correction. (<chuckle> When I heard the name of the Catholic Bible spoken, it must have been 's. St. Jerome, not St. Jerome's Bible.)

God bless your work on the paper.

Glory to God! :smile:
Tanya
 
Member
Irishmaestro said:
The Authorised Version (KJV) is a very quirky case, actually. In the UK, the modern version is under perpetual copyright, which is vested in the British monarch (ironic, I know), so technically, permission must be sought from the Queen of England to republish anything from it in the UK. However, the original spelling version is NOT, considering as it reads so differently. Once you know the rules of 17th-century printing (interchangeble v's and u's, long s's, etc), then a facsimile of the original publication is not difficult to read.

The KJV is by far not a landmark translation in a scholarly sense. People familiar with the Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale, etc translations will notice that 60% of the King James version actually incorporates large sections of earlier translations. You can understand the predicament of scholars of the time, who were anxious to publish a translation which would be used uniformly throughout the Anglican Church (which is why it was published in the first place, because of the discrepancies between versions in the Churches of England, Scotland, Ireland and other places under the political jurisdiction of the monarch of the time). It is ironic that some American and other denominations adopt a policy of 'King-James-Only'ism, considering that it mirrors the 'Vulgate-Only'ism adopted by the Roman Catholic church of the 16th and earlier centuries. The truth is that no translation is 100% accurate, considering that with each change of language, one moves further away from the original. For example, some sections of the Textus Receptus (used by the KJV committee to prepare that translation between 1607 and 1610) are now known to be erroneous, or apocryphal. Such as the last sentence of the Gospel according to John. Does this affect the truth of the message? Probably not. As we all know, God influences more than we could ever imagine on this planet. And those who hear his call to be born again will inevitably hear the same message, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew, in Aramaic, in French, German, Latin, English, Dutch, Swahili, Welsh, Esperanto, etc.

As a very wise poster already said, as long as you DO read the bible, it doesn't really matter. God will get the message to you in the end.
Aye!

Excellent writing, Brother Irishmaestro! Consumately interesting reading. Great. Thanks.

This thread is a diamond mine of enlightenment.

God bless you!
To Christ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Top