But WHICH word of God?

Question

So my overall question is about Biblical language. Isn't it rather a shame that the romance has been bowdlerised out of the "classic" text, making it not even necessarily a good read as "fable"?

An example:

Currently I'm reading my mother's old confirmation KJV from 1947. I'm on 1 Samuel at the moment and I found something interesting. In looking up sources online I confirmed my reading of what it means, but I also found this (34's the important verse):

1 Samuel 25 from the New International Version (biblegateway.com)

32 David said to Abigail, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me.

33 May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands.

34 Otherwise, as surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak."

And now from my 1947 KJV:

32 And David said to Abigail,
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
Which sent thee this day to meet me:

33 And blessed be thy advice,
and blessed be thou,
which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood,
and from avenging myself with mine own hand

34 For in very deed,
as the Lord God of Israel liveth,
which hath kept me back from hurting thee,
except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me,
surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.


Isn’t that much more expressive? I doubt I would have made it this far if I’d been reading the “nice” version…

Yeah, I was gonna put this one in too, but it was already sooooo long. Also I thought people might doubt my sincerity if I quoted the Skeptics' Bible...

25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

"A person could piss against a tree, he could piss on his mother, he could piss on his own breeches, and get off, but he must not piss against the wall -- that would be going quite too far. The origin of the divine prejudice against this humble crime is not stated; but we know that the prejudice was very strong -- so strong that nothing but a wholesale massacre of the people inhabiting the region where the wall was defiled could satisfy the Deity." -- Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/25.html

Answer 1

"I think the pisseth one is the best. In fact, I'll go an pisseth myself."

I hope Acid plans on changing before going to work.

The KJV always has the most entertaining verses. King James didn't care about political corectness.

Answer 2

The work of Bible translation is very complicated, and misunderstanding easily arises. We do not possess the original Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament or the original Greek New Testament as written by inspired men of God. What we have is an Old Testament in Hebrew/Aramaic and thousands of Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament painstakingly copied and passed on to us through the centuries. There are differences in the Greek manuscripts such as minor issues of punctuation, spelling, word order, certain verses included in some manuscripts and not in others, etc., but none of these differences affect any of the major doctrines of our Christian faith.
Some people prefer the King James translation because they have been familiar with it, often from childhood. Others prefer modern translations because they are more easily understood. Also, modern translators have the advantage of using many older Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered since the King James translation was made. Most scholars consider these older manuscripts more reliable than the few later manuscripts available to those who translated the King James Bible. It is also helpful to remember that, while King James "authorized" a particular translation for the Church of England in the 17th century, it is no more "authorized" for us today than any other translation. It was highly criticized in its day by those who preferred earlier translations, and it went through a number of revisions.
People sometimes pick up two translations and expect them to be word-for-word the same. When they find words "missing" or changed," they think something sinister has happened. In reality, both can be perfectly faithful translations of the original language. The basic structures of languages differ from one another, and translation is not just a matter of taking a Greek sentence and finding English words to match. A very helpful book which would be available through a Christian bookstore is "The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible Translation Good?" by Eugene H. Glassman.
Do not get caught up into a divisive and fruitless controversy over which of many good translations is best. Instead, consider using a number of them in your study and reading, and join in prayer that all peoples in all countries of the world might soon have the Word of God in their own language.

Answer 3

All I can say is the 1947 KJV sounds like a real page-turner.
The New International 'reads', well, tamer, by comparison.

I'm beginning to see the appeal in nostalgia.
Things really were 'better' in the old days...

I wonder what made the (insert technical term for person who rewrites a book) "tone things down" so much?
Surely society hasn't become More prudish since the end of the Second War?

Answer 4

You should read the King James Version of the Bible ..since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the accuracy of the Bible has been verified. In more recent years many translations of the Bible have been done.The New King James Version uses the Stuttgart edition of the Bibila Hebraica, the Septuagint along with a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew manuscript including manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Caves

Answer 5

many translations of that one
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/25-34.htm

The most lame one:
"And yet, Jehovah liveth, God of Israel, who hath kept me back from doing evil with thee, for unless thou hadst hasted, and dost come to meet me, surely there had not been left to Nabal till the light of the morning, of those sitting on the wall.'"

I think the pisseth one is the best. In fact, I'll go an pisseth myself.

Answer 6

so much is lost from translation to translation that's why many are opposed to all these additional translations of God's word the original was written in hebrew with no spaces. I am currently learning hebrew so I can read this version and find out what was originally said

Answer 7

Perhaps I don't understand your question but may I say.. try to elicit the point being made with your common sense.Sometimes scholars attempts to study lead them down "rabbit trails" that simply run hither and yon in a rough circle that brings you back to the point where you left off and tempts you (just like the rabbit hound ) to just give it up.

Answer 8

I bet you £20 that any similarity in meaning between either of those and the original aramaic is coincidental at best and totally lost more likely.

Answer 9

I love the history of the bible and the way you can read the bible with an open mind without using every verse thinking you are Jesus against other

Answer 10

precisely man has manipulated the words since King James