Its a translation of a translation. If it was the original I could understand. It also went though several revisions of its own before 1611. I personally have never seen an obsession like this in any other translation. Have you ever heard from Spanish speakers that _____ version of the Bible is the only one true Spanish tradition guided by G-d? I did not think so. This concept also dose not exist for English versions of the Tanach or the Koran.
So can someone please explain this obsession to me?
2006-11-12 08:33:43 · 11 answers · asked by Gamla Joe 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
as for the tossing out 7 books first that was done before Luther. Second I dont understand how Catholics would consider them cannon in the first place considering that Jews (the ones that wrote them) did not consider them worthy enough to be part of their cannon
2006-11-12 08:50:28 · update #1
Many people today are hanging on to the KJV Bible and are listening to 'Bible' teachers who claim it is the original or from the original. It is not. The original manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Translations were made from these and passed down. One is the Greek Septuagint. From it we get one of the first compliations using a multitude of scholars and translators. There was also the Latin Vulgate.. from which the Duoay Version came down. However each translation has its problems. Each is extremely outdated to today's English language and grammer. As a result we have many new translations which have helped the common man understand the Bible. There are also paraphrases which are often innacurate but help with the understanding and impact of some of the Bible. We are not to make it a battle of which version is better than another. We are to learn from it all. A wise student of the Bible will use several translations, a dictionary and Greek lexicon, a Strongs concordance and other Bible helps to clearly understand what the Bible is saying. But ordinary folks cann't be bothered learning how to manage all those so they go find the one they can understand easiest. The KJV Bible thumpers like to draw attention to the weaknesses and ommissions of other translations, such as phrases omitting 'the blood' of Jesus, instead of focusing on the need for all people to read and understand the basics. Read them all and learn from them all.
2006-11-12 10:20:05 · answer #1 · answered by rejoiceinthelord 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The big deal is that people are suspicious of changes. They are ignorant and are following what they have learned from their significant others.
Many do not even know the difference between a translation and a paraphrase.
The King James translation, if I'm correct, was the first translation. It is not the most accurate translation.Translations deal with a lot of "stuff". Some of the words in the King James don't even mean the same thing that they mean today. The new translations are much more accurate.
Don't get me wrong. I love the King James. It's the one I read as a child, and although I have read many translations since, when a scripture comes to my mind, most often it comes to me from the King James. My mother was one of those who held only to the King James.
So, to make a long story short, I guess people are suspicious of the other translations, since they aren't the original one.
2006-11-12 09:18:10 · answer #2 · answered by delmaanna67 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The foremost challenge in Bible translations is the textual content from which they have been translated. Not looking to get too technical (there are tons of books written at the field), however there are a number of texts used for Bible translations. The KJV makes use of the Textus Receptus, which was once copies of Bible manuscripts diligently stored and copied by means of devout leaders. Other Bible types use exceptional texts, adding one textual content that was once observed within the trash can of an historical monastery and texts observed in Egypt that were changed over the years. It very nearly comes right down to the texts used to translate the Bible. Which could you as an alternative have, harmonious texts diligently stored by means of church fathers and devout leaders or a kind of texts (which do not trust every different) observed in every single place the position?
2016-09-01 11:23:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The King James is a nicely written, traditional bible, but one with hundreds of errors in translation, many of them serious.
People believe what they want to believe, and some people think the King James is special.
There's no authoratative reason for it, it's just another example of tradition.
I personally prefer the Douay-Rheims english translation, which predates the King James, and also includes the books the Protestants arbitrarily decided to exclude.
As for your comments about the supposed "non-canonical books" the Jews couldn't recognize their Messiah when he arrived and systematically fulfilled all that was written about him in the law, the prophets, and the psalms.
Why would you think they could recognize true scripture?
2006-11-12 09:04:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many Christians are fans of this book because it represents the first translation of the Bible that was made available to the masses. It was a direct result of the Reformation.
There are Christians who believe that God wrote the Bible in English, as well as those who believe it was written in German.
As far as other ancient texts in English, there is a great deal of discussion of what versions of the Tao Te Ching and other books are closest to the original. So, actually, it isn't limited to the Bible, but to any book on which people feel their lives or eternal souls depend on. In Wicca, there is a great deal of debate over which texts are correct, or which tradition is closest to the elusive original.
I think it's just that people have this insane need to be "right"; it's endemic to humanity to need to be right and for others to be wrong.
2006-11-12 08:42:56 · answer #5 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand it either. It's not a complete Bible anyway. The Church had one cannon of the Bible for nearly 1500 years, and then this one man, Martin Luther, took seven books out of the OT because he didn't like that 2 Macabees says it is a holy thing to pray for the dead? I mean, how messed up is that?
2006-11-12 08:40:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only discussions I've ever had about this subject are with people that just didn't prefer the choice of some wording. I used a KJV until I picked up the NKVJ. It got rid of most of the Thee's, Thou's, and such completely. Mine is a Study Bible, so there are naratives and such that do cover original writings for clarity. I personally have never needed to refer to the sidebars unless I'm following topics.
2006-11-12 08:41:45 · answer #7 · answered by tjjone 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The KJV is the most accurate English translation of the Bible, with the possible exception of the Interlinear Bible. This being said I feel that God can use any version or translation of the Bible to get His message across. "The Word of God will not return to Him void".
2006-11-12 08:42:14 · answer #8 · answered by utuseclocal483 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not a real or complete bible.....why would they just toss out 7 books of the OT? Oh ya selective teaching/reading/learning.
2006-11-12 08:46:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One word: tradition. Religion seems obsessed with tradition.
2006-11-12 08:49:08 · answer #10 · answered by Byron A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋